|
|
Post by zaku on Jan 8, 2024 12:41:12 GMT -5
It's optimistic that you think they've solved it. I read DC's latest Dark Crisis mega-event and, without wanting to talk about quality which is subjective, I assure you that for a neophyte it would have been absolutely incomprehensible. Much friendlier to newcomers was the original Crisis, which basically re-explained in every issue the concept of the multiverse and what had happened in previous issues. |
|
|
|
Post by MRPs_Missives on Jan 8, 2024 13:37:43 GMT -5
They should have multiple variant posters for the movies, including black and white ones, blank ones, ones with furry animals and a zombie variant. They just have variant versions of the movie whenever Zach Snyder is involved. A "director's Cut" is the movie equivalent of a variant cover... -M |
|
|
|
Post by Pól Rua on Jan 9, 2024 11:22:53 GMT -5
Well a superhero movie has to be somewhat simplistic. Considering what they cost, they should appeal to as many people as possible. But I must say that DC's animated films have always been a pleasant surprise. On the Live Action side, every now and then there have been some attempts to make superhero films that are different from the mainstream. Who remembers Super? 'Super' is a magnificent film. There's a LOT going on, it's incredibly thought-provoking and has a lot to say. |
|
|
|
Post by Pól Rua on Jan 9, 2024 11:42:20 GMT -5
My issue with the MCU is similar to my issue with Modern Marvel and DC Comics. Too much reliance on 'events' and cross-continuity shenanigans. People, in general, do not connect with 'universes' or 'brands' in the same way they do with characters and stories.
Don't get me wrong. I love that these stories are part of a larger 'continuity', but I don't need to be constantly reminded of that while I'm trying to enjoy a Captain America story, for example.
When the MCU started, one of the things I loved about it was that each of the movies leaned into a different genre. Iron Man was really going for a Tom Clancy-esque Military technothriller thing. Captain America was doing a two-fisted pulp war story. Thor was a gender-flipped version of 'Enchanted', combining fantasy and rom-com elements. It not only set the tone for each hero, but gave them a kind of milieu to live in. This really reflected the chimerical nature of the superhero genre, which combines all sorts of genres together.
Batman alone, for instance, combines horror (Dracula) with swashbuckling (Zorro), crime (The Shadow), science fiction (Doc Savage), and detective fiction (Sherlock Holmes).
But the longer the MCU has gone on, the more it's kind of smooshed all those genres together and, like play-doh, you end up with a big pile of grey-green nothing.
I can understand the corporate view that you want an audience to follow the brand, but the kind of homogenisation you need to do across that brand to make it all work together consistently means that it loses all of the wonderful charming eccentricities and qualities that made each character's story so captivating in the first place. In addition, there are also the movies which don't have a story of their own and where the protagonists play second fiddle to a narrative that solely exists as connective tissue leading onward to the next 'event'.
If you can make the stories and the characters matter, the brand loyalty will come about on its own.
But trying to do it the other way around and well... you're back with that big pile of grey-green, undifferentiated play-doh again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jan 9, 2024 12:15:36 GMT -5
Well put, Pól Rua. As a resident old b*st*rd around here I can tell you that even the JLA-JSA summer team-ups, which are the basis of these "events," ran out of steam. When the JLA went bi-monthly for a while in 1972, the team-ups became too frequent, and eventually wound up featuring a third team (Freedom Fighters; Injustice Society; the Fawcett heroes; the Legion; and the "legendary" team of Jonah Hex, the Black Pirate, Viking Prince, Miss Liberty and Enemy Ace... really?). These team-ups were so expected that tehy became mote of an obligation to all concerned, including this reader, anyway. As the Greeks tell us, "Moderation in all things." |
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Jan 9, 2024 12:31:29 GMT -5
Well a superhero movie has to be somewhat simplistic. Considering what they cost, they should appeal to as many people as possible. But I must say that DC's animated films have always been a pleasant surprise. On the Live Action side, every now and then there have been some attempts to make superhero films that are different from the mainstream. Who remembers Super? 'Super' is a magnificent film. There's a LOT going on, it's incredibly thought-provoking and has a lot to say. I liked this one too! |
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Jan 9, 2024 14:29:53 GMT -5
The MCU has lost me for the same reason Marvel Comics lost me back in '86 or thereabouts: the "universe" became the central focus rather than serving as background for individual series to play out against. I love intricate continuity as much as the next geek but I kinda wanna barf every time someone mentions "the multiverse." Finish exploring the one you started with, you nimrods!
Cei-U!
I summon the burn-out!
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,860
|
Post by shaxper on Jan 9, 2024 19:13:16 GMT -5
The MCU actually lost me pretty early on. I mean, I continued to see all the films up until very recently, but never with the passion/enthusiasm of those around me. I thought Iron Man 1 and the Ed Norton Hulk were fantastic, but so many of the characters and films that followed seemed to borrow shamelessly from the Iron Man playbook: flawed character seeking redemption, some quick comedic one-liners, epic drawn out CGI battles, and little else worth discussing. Even Captain America had a wonderful origin story and an intriguing endpoint, but the entire narrative inbetween was forgettable at best.
When everyone else was raving about the first Avengers movie, I realized I was in the extreme minority. Fun characters, no plot, no depth.
Which is not to say these films were not enjoyable, but (much like enjoying Superman in '78 or Batman in '89) I just had to accept that this was never going to be the comics. Thankfully, we've had a few outlier gems since that absolutely rivalled the quality of a great classic Marvel comic: Guardians of the Galaxy, Black Panther, Infinity War, Wandavision, Loki, and the Eternals (fight me on that last one), but Spidey: No Way Home really solidified the idea that fans do not want to be challenged; they want comfortable/familiar over everything else.
Thus, I don't really think the MCU's quality has faltered so much as there was never much there to begin with other than hype, hope, and a certain newness factor. We've gotten used to the thrill of our beloved heroes making it to the screen believably and have seen Marvel's long game play out. Marvel was always going to be directionless and questionable after Endgame, with or without Covid delays and everything else.
So, to take this discussion back to its original question -- I think this makes the current superhero bubble very different than the Western explosion of the 1930s-1970s. While there were cheap, dime-a-dozen Westerns, there were also many that weren't afraid to take bold new directions. Marvel has a virtual monopoly on the genre, and it doesn't want a John Ford or a Sergio Leoni making its films; it wants predictable and canned because that's what the fans absolutely demand.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pól Rua on Jan 10, 2024 2:37:09 GMT -5
Well put, Pól Rua . As a resident old b*st*rd around here I can tell you that even the JLA-JSA summer team-ups, which are the basis of these "events," ran out of steam. When the JLA went bi-monthly for a while in 1972, the team-ups became too frequent, and eventually wound up featuring a third team (Freedom Fighters; Injustice Society; the Fawcett heroes; the Legion; and the "legendary" team of Jonah Hex, the Black Pirate, Viking Prince, Miss Liberty and Enemy Ace... really?). These team-ups were so expected that tehy became mote of an obligation to all concerned, including this reader, anyway. As the Greeks tell us, "Moderation in all things." I agree with 90% of what you say here, but I must disagree with you on one point. As a kid, those annual team-ups were the comics I'd get most excited about. And one of the reasons was that you'd get the chance to see characters you'd only ever rarely see at all. One of the things that modern comics does badly is to make things 'special'. Back then, you'd wait a year to catch a glimpse of Wildcat, Dr.Mid-Nite or Alan Scott... if I saw a comic with even a hint of a JSA member, I'd leap at it. But nowadays, it feels like characters you'd have seen maybe once or twice a year have their own ongoing monthly series. The Rainbow Lanterns are a good example. It's a funky, Silver Age Concept. I could imagine John Broome or Gardener Fox penning 'The Riddle of the Rainbow Lanterns' with art by Gil Kane or Murphy Anderson. The thing is, though, in those days, they'd get two or maybe three issues out of it, then put it on the backburner, so that the next creator who had a good idea could take 'em out 5 or 6 months later and give 'em another go-round before back they'd go. It made them feel special, and meant that if you saw a cover with 'em on it, you'd immediately grab it, no questions asked. (Maybe the Greeks were onto something). With that said (and again, it was one of my favourite series), the Justice League ALWAYS had a problem. So many issues were kinda lacklustre, because how does a writer go about coming up with a challenge for a team that has Superman, The Flash, Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, Batman and MORE in it (before you even factor in Firestorm and Zatanna!)? So many of those old stories ended up featuring all powerful characters or phenomenon able to challenge such a team... never before seen and never to be seen again. It gets even worse when you throw in a spare Flash and Green Lantern, not to mention Dr.Fate or the Spectre! Suddenly, an already massive roster is doubled and the challenge of coming up with a credible threat is even harder! |
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Jan 10, 2024 9:34:19 GMT -5
So, to take this discussion back to its original question -- I think this makes the current superhero bubble very different than the Western explosion of the 1930s-1970s. While there were cheap, dime-a-dozen Westerns, there were also many that weren't afraid to take bold new directions. Marvel has a virtual monopoly on the genre, and it doesn't want a John Ford or a Sergio Leoni making its films; it wants predictable and canned because that's what the fans absolutely demand.Great point overall, but as a counterpoint, I think the recent box office failures and downward trend show this is not actually what the fans want. I think maybe for a while, sure, but not anymore. Or at the least, maybe that is what they want, but they're not getting it. Something is different now than in the Iron Man through Endgame era. Maybe it's just that they sent off all the characters people knew, and they really would just want more RDJ quipping for two hours. And I get that you weren't a fan of the MCU overall from the get go, but as someone who was, I can feel something is different. While there certainly were plenty of middling entries all along, they also had good character driven stuff, too. Winter Solider is one of my favorite of all the MCU movies, and they haven't done anything like that in ages, and I can't see them putting out one like that now. Who knows, but whatever "it" was, they seem to have lost it. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,860
|
Post by shaxper on Jan 10, 2024 10:19:49 GMT -5
And I get that you weren't a fan of the MCU overall from the get go, but as someone who was, I can feel something is different. While there certainly were plenty of middling entries all along, they also had good character driven stuff, too. Winter Solider is one of my favorite of all the MCU movies, and they haven't done anything like that in ages, and I can't see them putting out one like that now. Who knows, but whatever "it" was, they seem to have lost it. It may even just be that the water cooler chatter has been killed. Back in the pre-Endgame days, there was ONE Marvel film everyone was buzzing about. Good or bad, everyone saw it and everyone had an opinion. In addition to the excellent point you made that Marvel lost all of the actors/characters that made their early phases great, they churned out too much content too quickly over the past few years, making water cooler chatter almost impossible. "OMG did you see the final episode of Hawkeye?" "There's a Hawkeye show? Is that the one with The Winter Soldier in it too?" "No, that's Loki. I think." Very few people are watching it all, and there's no clear indication of what is must see and what is optional. Yeah, you could argue that's how the comics were too, but somehow it's different. |
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Jan 10, 2024 10:45:22 GMT -5
It may even just be that the water cooler chatter has been killed. Back in the pre-Endgame days, there was ONE Marvel film everyone was buzzing about. Good or bad, everyone saw it and everyone had an opinion. In addition to the excellent point you made that Marvel lost all of the actors/characters that made their early phases great, they churned out too much content too quickly over the past few years, making water cooler chatter almost impossible. "OMG did you see the final episode of Hawkeye?" "There's a Hawkeye show? Is that the one with The Winter Soldier in it too?" "No, that's Loki. I think." Also great points. I absolutely agree that part of the issue is the flood. There's too much quantity and not enough quality. It felt like earlier they had each character have their own stories and journeys that were all united by pointing in the same broad direction. Now, it seems like they are just churning out "content" instead of trying to tell stories, and I think that's a large problem. It seems like a common pattern with so many things. They have a good thing going, get greedy, and try to squeeze more out of it. They pump out more content of a lower quality, lose the elements that made people like their stuff to begin with and retain only the superficial elements, and they scratch their heads when people lose interest. It doesn't help that they still keep all of the movies connected to setup the next thing, but they don't seem to have a clear direction of what the next big thing actually is yet. Maybe they do, but it feels like they are just floundering and aren't sure what they are doing while doing MORE of it than ever. This aspect of comics is one I don't like and specifically was a large factor that drove me to drop my pull list, so it's certainly disappointing to see that is one part of the experience they replicated with the movies. |
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on Jan 10, 2024 11:17:12 GMT -5
I feel that making movies set up the next big thing is what has driven me away. “DEADPOOL 3 WILL SET UP SECRET WARS” is not gonna appeal to me, but a self-contained Deadpool 3 would. Do they want to make a Deadpool 3 or do they want to make a Secret Wars Prologue?
Less really is more. Or should be. One reason I hate the word “franchise” is because it makes me think of how, say, McDonalds just want as many franchisees as possible because one more is never enough. Why have one in my town when you can have two? I feel the MCU has headed that same way.
I understand sequels and spin-offs are as old as the hills. Personally, I feel that Universal went to the well once too often with its Frankenstein sequels. I understand the mindset when it comes to creating sequels, but at least some of them - some - felt organic. It just feels like Disney now has these big arcs in mind, and everything that seems standalone could be a prologue of kinds. Today it’s Disney thinking long-term about Secret Wars, tomorrow it’ll be whatever other arc they wish to go with.
I feel there could be a balance. I feel WWE does that. Sure, it rewards long-term viewers, but for all those who have ordered WrestleMania XL on PPV, there’ll be a recap of events leading up to the main event, which you can then choose to watch on its own merits. I’d barely watched any American wrestling when Wrestlemania III made its way over here, but there was enough there to get me up to speed, whereas the MCU seems almost as impenetrable as the comics now. Sometimes rewarding long-term viewers is good, but if/when they make a Secret Wars film, will anyone be able to enjoy it on its own merits, or will you be expected to have watched 3-4 movies and a mini-series?
On a final note, I wish we could have quality over quantity. For me personally, I’d rather see 4-5 good MCU movies in one decade than 4-5 MCU movies over 2-3 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Jan 11, 2024 1:52:36 GMT -5
I was thinking about another big difference between superhero movies and westerns: the former are usually very, very expensive, so to be successful they have to be seen by many, many, people. A Western can also be a small independent production with a fraction of the budget of MCU blockbusters, so the concept of "success" in that case is very relative.
Superhero movies are forever doomed to be blockbusters or fail. I don't think it's a sustainable model for a long time, fatigue or non-fatigue.
|
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Jan 11, 2024 9:13:05 GMT -5
I think you're right, and that is a great point. It's also such a shame. Imagine how cool a movie or series based on, say, Alias, could be, with Jessica Jones or some other detective or something dealing with their own problems that just happens to live in the MCU. Let the superheroics be just tone dressing. Newspapers about such and such villain, walk by and see the news or people talking about Spider Man in a bagel shop, etc.
Or, and this is not a great example because it was part of a very specific and brief time in comics, but I think it was District X? Bishop was basically a cop in Mutant Town with more grounded things going on but mutant subculture being big with the people.
Stuff like that would allow them to explore so many other genres and still give the feeling of existing in a shared fantastical universe without literally every story needing to directly feed into the next.
It would save a ton on budget, too.
|
|
