docquantum
Initiate
Read stories of your favorite DC Comics characters at the Five Earths Project! www.5earths.info
Posts: 3 
|
Post by docquantum on Nov 24, 2016 15:15:39 GMT -5
Hi everyone.
First time posting here, but I've been reading your threads for a while.
While I loved this movie when I took my wife to see it last weekend, there are a few things I wish they'd done differently. The sling rings have been mentioned already as being an invented plot device. The Ancient One being Tilda Swinton rather than an ancient Tibetan wizard has been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere.
My main problem is an observation of Marvel movies in general: Why does every Marvel movie have to be an origin story?
Years ago I decided to read every Doctor Strange story from the 1960s and 1970s (haven't got around to reading past Gerber's excellent run), and the brilliant thing that was done with the character was that he was introduced in media res, or in the middle of the narrative. Doctor Strange was... strange, mysterious. Who was this sorcerer supreme, and how did he become an expert in all things magical? The origin story came later on. All we needed to know about Doctor Strange was that he was a master of the mystic arts, and that he was protecting us from threats that most of us would never know ever existed. By the time he first appeared in print, he was already a veteran of countless mystical wars unknown to the public.
The Marvel movie formula of always beginning with an origin story turned Doctor Strange from a master into a student. Yes, it is more dramatic to watch Strange fumble and struggle against more experienced and powerful sorcerers, but his very lack of experience makes the denouement of the film much less believable.
To become a master of the mystic arts, just as attaining mastery of anything, takes years, even decades, and complete devotion. To become a medical doctor, let alone a top neurosurgeon, takes a very long time. Yet I get the impression that Strange from the movie was not gone all that long. Rachel McAdams looked basically the same as she did when he'd left, and the technology was at the same level. I would have been impressed if Strange had left his medical career behind in the late '90s, only to return in the present after many years of disciplined study and practice.
His mastery of the mystic arts by the end of the film isn't earned, and I don't think he could be called a master of the mystic arts. It looked as if he had stumbled upon a certain spell and attained mastery of that one spell in order to bargain with Dormammu and defeat the evil sorcerers on Earth, while his other actions were amateurish at best.
From the oblique reference to Dr. Stephen Strange in an earlier Marvel movie (I can't recall which one right now), I had the impression that Strange was already an active player before the earliest MCU characters (Iron Man and the Hulk) first arrived on the scene. That would have been wonderful. But this story is expressly placed in the present, or the very near past, and because of that we do not have a sorcerer supreme, but a more mature Harry Potter.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Nov 24, 2016 15:34:14 GMT -5
Hi everyone. First time posting here, but I've been reading your threads for a while. While I loved this movie when I took my wife to see it last weekend, there are a few things I wish they'd done differently. The sling rings have been mentioned already as being an invented plot device. The Ancient One being Tilda Swinton rather than an ancient Tibetan wizard has been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere. My main problem is an observation of Marvel movies in general: Why does every Marvel movie have to be an origin story? Years ago I decided to read every Doctor Strange story from the 1960s and 1970s (haven't got around to reading past Gerber's excellent run), and the brilliant thing that was done with the character was that he was introduced in media res, or in the middle of the narrative. Doctor Strange was... strange, mysterious. Who was this sorcerer supreme, and how did he become an expert in all things magical? The origin story came later on. All we needed to know about Doctor Strange was that he was a master of the mystic arts, and that he was protecting us from threats that most of us would never know ever existed. By the time he first appeared in print, he was already a veteran of countless mystical wars unknown to the public. The Marvel movie formula of always beginning with an origin story turned Doctor Strange from a master into a student. Yes, it is more dramatic to watch Strange fumble and struggle against more experienced and powerful sorcerers, but his very lack of experience makes the denouement of the film much less believable. To become a master of the mystic arts, just as attaining mastery of anything, takes years, even decades, and complete devotion. To become a medical doctor, let alone a top neurosurgeon, takes a very long time. Yet I get the impression that Strange from the movie was not gone all that long. Rachel McAdams looked basically the same as she did when he'd left, and the technology was at the same level. I would have been impressed if Strange had left his medical career behind in the late '90s, only to return in the present after many years of disciplined study and practice. His mastery of the mystic arts by the end of the film isn't earned, and I don't think he could be called a master of the mystic arts. It looked as if he had stumbled upon a certain spell and attained mastery of that one spell in order to bargain with Dormammu and defeat the evil sorcerers on Earth, while his other actions were amateurish at best. From the oblique reference to Dr. Stephen Strange in an earlier Marvel movie (I can't recall which one right now), I had the impression that Strange was already an active player before the earliest MCU characters (Iron Man and the Hulk) first arrived on the scene. That would have been wonderful. But this story is expressly placed in the present, or the very near past, and because of that we do not have a sorcerer supreme, but a more mature Harry Potter. Welcome to the forum! Hope you survive the experience. You make some really good points about the movie and raise some interesting questions about the MCU in general. I think that Marvel starts with an origin story because the general public, no matter how much WE may think the character is well-known, by and large is unfamiliar with the characters (even someone iconic like Captain America). It's difficult to drop new watchers into the middle of a story without not only explaining the who but also the how and why. If Marvel had started with Stephen already along the path to being the Sorcerer Supreme or at that level, people will ask why he is the Sorcerer Supreme, how did he get there, why does this Mordo guy hate him so much, who taught him to be a sorcerer if he was a doctor before, etc. To make it palatable, there would have to be a lot of exposition or flashback to explain things, because a lot of people like a linear progression to their stories, and if they are left with questions, they may not come back for Rounds Two, Three, etc. Also, it's a formula that works for Marvel, and if something works to make you millions (or, more accurately, billions) of dollars, you stick with it. Anyway, glad you're here, and hope you have fun. Richard |
|
docquantum
Initiate
Read stories of your favorite DC Comics characters at the Five Earths Project! www.5earths.info
Posts: 3
|
Post by docquantum on Nov 24, 2016 16:32:55 GMT -5
Thanks! I'm mostly interested in hearing the collective wisdom of all the collectors here, but I'll occasionally add my two cents.
Nick Fury still hasn't been given his own origin story and is largely a mystery. The same goes with Black Widow. I wish that had been the template for introducing Doctor Strange, rather than following the formula used in Iron Man.
|
|
|
|
Post by MWGallaher on Nov 24, 2016 21:06:38 GMT -5
I finally saw it today, and enjoyed the movie a lot, but...
The "sling ring" thing threw me--I think I was on a bathroom break when it was introduced, so later when they started referring to it I was confused and a little bothered by the silliness of the term.
I wasn't quite sold on the explanation of Mordo's change of heart, probably because the Ancient One was such a sympathetic character that I'd be willing to cut her a lot of slack.
I was really annoyed that no one in the movie knew how to pronounce "Cagliostro"...that's just embarrassing.
|
|
|
|
Post by batlaw on Dec 11, 2016 0:59:26 GMT -5
Finally saw dr strange today. Got to say I think it's easily my least favorite marvel movie to date. I liked it. But that's all.
It just didn't hit any buttons or resonate with me at all. It seemed short and very simple and formulaic. Nobody in the movie stood out, grabbed me or really interested me.
Much of the effects were too annoyingly cgi and didn't really interest or impress me.
Should've and could've been more variety in the powers and effects. The rotating folding buildings and landscapes got old and annoying for me almost immediately.
Wasn't terribly funny and was too obvious when it tried to be. It seemed the story was rushed and overall rather short?
I didn't expect to like the lady as the ancient one but I did, and I really liked the guy that played mordu(?).
Nobody else impressed me or stood out in any way.
Just seemed like they stopped short with everything. This is a movie they should've completely let go and went nuts with. But seemed like they went with a "good enough / play it safe" approach. I dunno. I enjoyed the animated movie more.
Maybe because I'm not nec a dr strange fan and because this wasn't a particularly good theater experience (had to restart it once and sound cut out a couple times briefly), but feel it was just so so.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Dec 11, 2016 8:04:42 GMT -5
Just seemed like they stopped short with everything. This is a movie they should've completely let go and went nuts with. But seemed like they went with a "good enough / play it safe" approach. I dunno. I enjoyed the animated movie more. This. And I've been wondering if the reason I didn't like it as much as everyone else is because I'm a Dr. Strange fan  |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,202
|
Post by Confessor on Dec 11, 2016 9:12:14 GMT -5
And I've been wondering if the reason I didn't like it as much as everyone else is because I'm a Dr. Strange fan This was definitely the case for me too. I think the movie would work better for non-comic book fans. As soon as you compare it to the source material, it runs into trouble. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2016 12:04:12 GMT -5
As someone who isn't familiar with the character, I thought the movie was pretty good. I thought all the actors and actresses did a really good job (admittedly I am a sucker for Cumberbatch) and it did a good job of keeping my interest. My biggest complaints are the visual effects, which, in addition to being uneven, felt kinda tacked on for 3D, and a thing about the villain that I can't really get into because of spoilers (and may just be due to my lack of fsmiarity with the comics).
I'm not sure if it's a top 5 comic movie for me, but it's certainly too 10.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Jan 3, 2017 19:42:32 GMT -5
Finally saw it Sunday. It wasn't the best MCU film, but I was satisfied.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Jan 31, 2017 19:08:33 GMT -5
I'm angry at myself I lot those two hours, one of the most useless movies I ever saw.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 14:00:24 GMT -5
I'm angry at myself I lot those two hours, one of the most useless movies I ever saw. ... then you'll be delighted to know that it's out on DVD in a few days - Feb 14th, I think |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jun 5, 2017 9:22:20 GMT -5
These things take a while to get on Netflix!
I enjoyed the movie, but it was basically the same story we've seen so many times in previous super-hero flicks.
The actors gave a honest performance, and the first two acts were quite all right. As with other Marvel movies, though, the third act and its mandatory battle were the weakest part of the film. The time-reversal scene was cool, and I liked the elegant way Strange managed to trick Dormammu... however, unlike what had been established clearly in the comic, it wasn't clear here that the villain would keep his word of not breaking his promise. It seemed like a pretty big gamble on Strange's part; staying trapped in the time loop seemed afer than making a bargain.
Dormammu himself looked downright silly, I'm afraid to say. He was big, yes, but not awe-inspiring... and he just looked like a character in a video game.
Props to the visual effect people; the Inception-style cityscape twisting got old after a while, but most of it was very well done.
My favourite bit was the levitation cape. It was a neat idea to give it character! I also enjoyed the Easter eggs here and there : the evil eye, the wand of Watoomb, even what looked like Dormammu's axe... Not so sure about the eye of Agamotto being an eternity stone, though. Upcoming movies will have to provide a good reason for so many of them to have ended up on Earth.
|
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Jun 5, 2017 10:24:48 GMT -5
I didn't like it. Seemed like more work was done on the special effects than the story. The villain was lame and I felt embarrassed for Mads (and it looked like his makeup people spend all of two minutes on his look.)
Dormammu was disappointing. I guess they thought they were homaging a famous comic book image with the giant floating head but... that's it?
Probably one of my least favorite Marvel movies, possibly because it had so much more potential.
|
|
|
|
Post by lobsterjohnson on Jun 5, 2017 10:56:01 GMT -5
I'm pretty tired of superhero movies following the same formula. Some of these characters have over 50 years of source material; why are the movies so similar and bland?
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jun 27, 2017 6:10:56 GMT -5
The lava monster in Moana was a much more convincing Dormammu than Dormammu was in Dr. Strange.
|
|
