|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 19, 2021 6:53:16 GMT -5
Well, it did better than The Incredible Hulk ($266 M)... and since this is early days still, it might pass Captain America ($370M), although those numbers are not in 2021 dollars and the film has already been out for two weeks. I agree with Forbes that whatever else it might be (including a good film that deserved to be made, for all I know), Eternals can't be called a hit. With a production price tag of 200 million and probably another 100 million in promotion, it needs to make a ton of money just to break even. It just might, in the end, but I think Disney prefers the Venom numbers! (John Carter was called a massive flop even though it made $280M. It was just too expensive. It's nuts that a movie could be called a flop when it makes a quarter of a billion dollars, but there we are). It will be a sincere tragedy if Marvel's take-away lesson is less thoughtful films in favor of Venom: Let There Be Even More Carnage in XD. I agree, but I don't think it's an either/or proposition. As the Forbes article said, Eternals is the movie that money can afford you to make more than a movie that makes you money. I think that films that will be artistic and critical successes, if not necessarily commercial ones, are also a good thing to have in a studio's portfolio. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Nov 20, 2021 1:05:37 GMT -5
I suppose at this point my question would be, are the visuals strong enough to make it advisable to see it on the big screen? Otherwise, if I watch it at all I'll probably wait and see it at home. Though to be honest, I'm feeling less and less interested as time passes by, in spite of some of the good reports it's been getting here and there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Nov 24, 2021 10:49:39 GMT -5
So I went with the fam (well wife and Number Three Son) to see this last Sunday. Overall I felt it was a perfectly mid-grade Marvel movie. Keep in mind I have zero nostalgia or love for The Eternals as characters. I never read Kirby's version (I think I ended up with one issue from a yard sale) and I've had very minimal exposure to the characters since then.
I thought the cast was generally fine, with, for me, the standouts being more secondary characters (Brian Tyree Harris as Phastos, Ma Dong-seok as Gilgamesh). I'm pretty epically tired of the CGI finale battle. Just for once give us something else. It was just kind of by-the-numbers Marvel. Which is fine, but a little stale.
|
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Nov 27, 2021 11:40:47 GMT -5
Saw Eternals yesterday. Pretty much as I was expecting. Very little Kirby with the focus on Gaiman. Overall it was enjoyable if lacking in some ways. I knew going in there were too many characters for a single movie for all to enjoy great screen time. I wasn't put off by most of the character's outside of a few very wrong "changes" that made no sense. Disliked the mindless only meant to kill creature form Deviant's and had hoped for their evolutionary equality to Eternal/Humanity. Disliked talking expository Celestial because again: poor writing or no understanding/caring of the creator Kirby's vision.
All the hype about Dane Whitman in the movie only for him being little more than a footnote? Liked the ethnic diversity for the Eternals but leaves me questioning the intelligence of the Celestials to create tools that are of a single power/use design and damaged/broken? Loved Kingo and Gilgamesh. Rather disappointed in Ikaris as Superman stand in. Loved Sersi. Thena could have been ANY Eternal and certainly NOT the Thena Kirby showed us.
Enjoyment for me was ALL the historical vastness of the story and visual grandeur on the screen. Disliked when resorted for too much poorly choreographed CGI battles where you can barely recognize characters on the big screen so it will look even worse on DVD. Great also is showing that there is a VAST MCU involving more than just superhero action. Eternals captures the essence of the MU in there being layers and levels of stories to explore.
In typical Marvel comics it was funny to find the WORLD facing devastation with ONLY Eternals there to prevent it. Where was the Avengers, Fantastic Four or X-Men? The same for what was Eternals doing when Ultron or Thanos striking? Especially if Thanos is a Titan Eternal, cousin to Earth Eternals?
There was plenty here to like, ignore or complain about. Really should have been an ongoing series ala Game of Thrones with a lot more emphasis on Eternal/Human/ Deviant interaction and growth. A slow build up to a GRAND confrontation/finale. Having it all in 1 movie is the equivalent of a summer comic book annual, jamming several years of issues into an oversized package hoping to make a few bucks. Which pretty much sums up Eternals: something to fill a schedule in the MCU until they figure out what comes next...and keep the money coming in.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Nov 27, 2021 12:12:37 GMT -5
brutalis, you hit on so many of my thoughts on it. Absolutely should have been a Disney+ series where they could have delved deeper into both the time periods and development of the characters instead of doing the old standby "identify the threat, gather the team, fight the threat in a big stupid loud CGI-fest". Yeah, they might not have been able to get Salma Hayek or Angelina Jolie for long-term gigs on TV (possibly the former, less likely the latter), but those roles could have been filled by just about anybody if needed. Would love to have seen the characters grow over "time" rather than have the exposition tell me what happened. Show me why Makkari and Druig were so close, how Ikaris and Sersi's relationship evolved over time, how Phastos' inventions affected the world throughout time, and how Sprite's journey led her to where she took the actions she did in the movie. Such a giant wasted opportunity to really do something grand. For me, the Disney+ shows are, for the most part, doing it right. WandaVision was quirky and unique, but it revolved around real human emotion. Loki was centered on his relationships with Mobius and Sylvie. Falcon and Winter Soldier was a buddy cop show. Hawkeye is about human relationships, both familial and not. This is how you engage people long-term, not with bigger explosions and quippier quips but by giving them something that resonates with them longer than the time it takes them to walk from the theater to their car. Black Widow, while ultimately filler and a bone thrown to ScarJo, did a nice job with relationships, and Shang-Chi was fairly close to being a big-screen version of the D+ shows until it fell into the MCU formula at the end.
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Nov 27, 2021 22:13:04 GMT -5
brutalis , you hit on so many of my thoughts on it. Absolutely should have been a Disney+ series where they could have delved deeper into both the time periods and development of the characters instead of doing the old standby "identify the threat, gather the team, fight the threat in a big stupid loud CGI-fest". Yeah, they might not have been able to get Salma Hayek or Angelina Jolie for long-term gigs on TV (possibly the former, less likely the latter), but those roles could have been filled by just about anybody if needed. Would love to have seen the characters grow over "time" rather than have the exposition tell me what happened. Show me why Makkari and Druig were so close, how Ikaris and Sersi's relationship evolved over time, how Phastos' inventions affected the world throughout time, and how Sprite's journey led her to where she took the actions she did in the movie. Such a giant wasted opportunity to really do something grand. For me, the Disney+ shows are, for the most part, doing it right. WandaVision was quirky and unique, but it revolved around real human emotion. Loki was centered on his relationships with Mobius and Sylvie. Falcon and Winter Soldier was a buddy cop show. Hawkeye is about human relationships, both familial and not. This is how you engage people long-term, not with bigger explosions and quippier quips but by giving them something that resonates with them longer than the time it takes them to walk from the theater to their car. Black Widow, while ultimately filler and a bone thrown to ScarJo, did a nice job with relationships, and Shang-Chi was fairly close to being a big-screen version of the D+ shows until it fell into the MCU formula at the end. Which is why I have said that tv, series or mini-series, is a better comparative medium for comic book adaptations. The episodic nature more closely mirrors the storytelling in comics and allows for more character development, as well as deeper plots and subplots. That is why, until recently, the DC tv shows were kicking Marvel's butt, because they latched onto that fact earlier and longer. The Disney+ stuff has turned that around. Prior to that, the only Marvel-related tv effort I enjoyed was Agent Carter, which is the first thing they axed, despite its awesomeness, rather than the far blander Agents of SHIELD (plus you could see what was happening, unlike the darkly lit Netflix stuff). |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,860
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 28, 2021 2:44:06 GMT -5
brutalis , you hit on so many of my thoughts on it. Absolutely should have been a Disney+ series where they could have delved deeper into both the time periods and development of the characters instead of doing the old standby "identify the threat, gather the team, fight the threat in a big stupid loud CGI-fest". Yeah, they might not have been able to get Salma Hayek or Angelina Jolie for long-term gigs on TV (possibly the former, less likely the latter), but those roles could have been filled by just about anybody if needed. Would love to have seen the characters grow over "time" rather than have the exposition tell me what happened. Show me why Makkari and Druig were so close, how Ikaris and Sersi's relationship evolved over time, how Phastos' inventions affected the world throughout time, and how Sprite's journey led her to where she took the actions she did in the movie. Such a giant wasted opportunity to really do something grand. For me, the Disney+ shows are, for the most part, doing it right. WandaVision was quirky and unique, but it revolved around real human emotion. Loki was centered on his relationships with Mobius and Sylvie. Falcon and Winter Soldier was a buddy cop show. Hawkeye is about human relationships, both familial and not. This is how you engage people long-term, not with bigger explosions and quippier quips but by giving them something that resonates with them longer than the time it takes them to walk from the theater to their car. Black Widow, while ultimately filler and a bone thrown to ScarJo, did a nice job with relationships, and Shang-Chi was fairly close to being a big-screen version of the D+ shows until it fell into the MCU formula at the end. Which is why I have said that tv, series or mini-series, is a better comparative medium for comic book adaptations. The episodic nature more closely mirrors the storytelling in comics and allows for more character development, as well as deeper plots and subplots. That is why, until recently, the DC tv shows were kicking Marvel's butt, because they latched onto that fact earlier and longer. The Disney+ stuff has turned that around. Prior to that, the only Marvel-related tv effort I enjoyed was Agent Carter, which is the first thing they axed, despite its awesomeness, rather than the far blander Agents of SHIELD (plus you could see what was happening, unlike the darkly lit Netflix stuff). I read in an interview with the writers that they asked about doing Eternals as a television series and were told no because Marvel didn't want to risk it following in the footsteps of The Inhumans. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 28, 2021 9:03:10 GMT -5
Which is why I have said that tv, series or mini-series, is a better comparative medium for comic book adaptations. The episodic nature more closely mirrors the storytelling in comics and allows for more character development, as well as deeper plots and subplots. That is why, until recently, the DC tv shows were kicking Marvel's butt, because they latched onto that fact earlier and longer. The Disney+ stuff has turned that around. Prior to that, the only Marvel-related tv effort I enjoyed was Agent Carter, which is the first thing they axed, despite its awesomeness, rather than the far blander Agents of SHIELD (plus you could see what was happening, unlike the darkly lit Netflix stuff). I read in an interview with the writers that they asked about doing Eternals as a television series and were told no because Marvel didn't want to risk it following in the footsteps of The Inhumans. That would reflect what comes across as a pretty embarrassing disconnect between what executives think and what the public wants. It's not about the format, o you Powers That Be. It's about stories that do not suck. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2021 10:48:40 GMT -5
hmm. . haven't really seen any analysis of the film since ~11/17.
overall box-office World Wide, as of 12/3, the film has taken in 370M (and apparently cost ~200M to film, and 125M to market).
so. . . while I'm certain it can't be called a "hit". . it's not a "flop" either. It's a lower than average Marvel film in terms of profit margin, and I did see mention of a prequel series for Disney+ (so if that does ok for them, I'm sure they'll talk Sequel - or at least have the characters show up elsewhere).
|
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Dec 5, 2021 21:58:23 GMT -5
Enjoyed a 2nd viewing of Eternals this afternoon. It does play well as this time I could watch for other things while not being so wrapped up in the main plot. I felt ALL the cast did superbly bringing depth to their characters. Really was able to pick up on more of the "family" vibe of the team. Still rather annoying for so much of the tiny figures in CGI that will be atrocious for home viewing. Still wish the evolving KRO Deviant character could have had more story or depth provided. Maybe even turning "good" to fight beside the Eternals?
Overall it made a delightful mix of mythology, history, science-fantasy all under the super heroics comic book story telling. Just my blended cup of tea that I enjoy drinking up.
Still wanted more Dane Whitman. But hoping it leads into his own movie or British team movie with Blade, Captain Britain etc. Do hope to see the Eternals story continue in some form or another. A Kingo "sequel" of his Bollywood life could be really fun(ny) or a Gilgamesh/Thena story from down under would be interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jan 15, 2022 19:50:40 GMT -5
(Darn, I miss brutalis)  Just saw the movie on Disney+... and it was a lot better than I expected. As a SF/fantasy film, it's actually pretty decent, for all that it's really not like the Kirby comics. I really liked how it doesn't follow the same formula as 80% of all Marvel movies. There were plenty of characters, just a few of which were placeholders, and the plot wasn't just an excuse to go from action scene to action scene. I also enjoyed how there aren't actual villains in the film, although there are differing agendas that lead to conflict. My only gripe was the character of Makkari, who for an apparent need to adhere to some EDI standards was made deaf. Now don't get me wrong: I find ASL amazingly elegant, and I love it when there's a deaf character in fiction, just so I can see them sign (Both the TV show Jericho and the recent Hawkeye series had great deaf characters). Here, however, it looks absolutely tacked on. Given their nature (spoiler avoided, here), there is no reason whatsoever an Eternal should be deaf; it even goes against the logic of their creation (according to the movie). It even gets worse when we learn early on that one of the Eternals' power is to heal people! If a deaf character was required, it would have made far more sense to use one of the mortal ones. The movie promises the Eternals will return, but given the way the story ended it would be a hard stunt to pull off... which is fine, since this particular story had a great and satisfying ending (dramatically speaking). I agree with the oft uttered opinion that it would have worked better as a series; not that the movie felt rushed, but because there was so much material in there that a ten hour miniseries would have allowed it to be more fully explored. Things I especially liked : the sheer size of the Celestials. That was on a Kirby level, visually speaking. The fact that the Eternals's ship is buried beneath Babylon, which we can recognize. The mid-movie twist, which I definitely didn't see coming. Finally, how Arishem takes the conclusion of the story; it was very much not a moustache-twirling moment. The film didn't make that much money, but I think that's not because it was poorly made; I think it was maybe not as light as what many want in a genre movie (see both Blade Runner movies). |
|
|
|
Post by Marv-El on Jan 21, 2022 13:50:31 GMT -5
While waiting for snow to start last night, I decided to finally watch this film. I was bit hesitant given some of the mixed reviews I'd read of the film previously, that combined with how they were going to fit the Eternals into the overall MCU given the slightly cantankerous history of how Marvel did it within the comics.
That being said, after watching it, mulling it over, I think this may be one of my favorite Marvel films now. Yes, there are some plot holes (especially around the Deviants) but in terms of tone, theme, and characterization, this was a solid win. The family aspect of their group was great and played strongly in the finale in the scenes of their debate and fracturing over what to do. The moral questioning of loyalty (to the mission? to each other?) was well played out. While I agree that a D+ miniseries may have been more beneficial in exploring their relationships and their effect on human history, what was presented on-screen was still great, from the love between Ikaris & Sersi, Phastos' journey of redeeming faith in humanity, Sprite's unrequited desires, to the friendship (and more?) between Gil and Thena. The acting here was terrific (I was concerned that being Angelina Jolie would overshadow any role she would take in a MCU film but I thought she was fine in portrayal).
Holy moley, that last shot of Arishem, THAT is a Celestial! But I feel this is well worth the screen shot credit of 'Eternals created by Jack Kirby'. I got chills seeing that.
My main quibble would be Dane Whitman. As a fan of Harras' Avengers run, I have no problem including him alongside Sersi. But damn it Marvel, that was such a tease! The last post-credit scene only whets my desire to see more.
|
|
|
|
Post by dbutler69 on Jan 23, 2022 12:05:48 GMT -5
I just saw this film and, as with Shang-Chi, I was underwhelmed. I wonder is Marvel Studios is running out of steam?
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,860
|
Post by shaxper on Jan 23, 2022 12:15:08 GMT -5
So, the Avengers (or the JLA) have changed their name to the Eternals and they face a big threat to Earth that only they can fight. Substitute Deviants for the hordes of Thanos (or Darkseid). Add portentous slow-moving music, stir, and release. Oy. The really odd part is how disappointed folks seem to be that this isn't what they ended up getting. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jan 23, 2022 15:07:50 GMT -5
So, the Avengers (or the JLA) have changed their name to the Eternals and they face a big threat to Earth that only they can fight. Substitute Deviants for the hordes of Thanos (or Darkseid). Add portentous slow-moving music, stir, and release. Oy. The really odd part is how disappointed folks seem to be that this isn't what they ended up getting. True! Eternals didn't feel much like standard superhero fare, if truth be told. In that sense, it did resemble Jack Kirby's concept. |
|
