It's partially a reflection of my own sensibilities.
I like a certain kind of Superhero story. Marvel is not delivering that. Ang Lee's Hulk, Tim Burton's Batman Returns, Zach Snyder's Watchmen, even that one Ghost Rider movie gave me something. Every MCU movie is a hamburger.
It's a good hamburger.
But there's only so much processed beef with different toppings that you can eat in a short amount of time.
I will say one thing about Man of Steel: it was written by fascist misogynist David S. Goyer, but at least it made people angry enough we had a conversation.
I will say one thing about Man of Steel: it was written by fascist misogynist David S. Goyer, but at least it made people angry enough we had a conversation.
it struck me as a half-baked mess
none of the Marvel movies I've seen have come off that way
The most consistent similarities in the MCU movies is that they're optimistic(ish), they rely on well executed but still pretty basic storytelling, and that they make a ton of money. I could understand wh ythat would be tiring, but "safe" is only bad when the calculatedness is plainly evident in the movie's problems.
The most consistent similarities in the MCU movies is that they're optimistic(ish), they rely on well executed but still pretty basic storytelling, and that they make a ton of money. I could understand wh ythat would be tiring, but "safe" is only bad when the calculatedness is plainly evident in the movie's problems.
It's not Loonatics Unleashed or Johnny Test, I will say that for it.
i have to say that whenever i've seen a marvel superhero movie the first time it has seemed pretty darn entertaining, but watching it a second time it falls apart like wet cardboard.
like once you know what's coming the whole thing becomes very... artificial.
I will say one thing about Man of Steel: it was written by fascist misogynist David S. Goyer, but at least it made people angry enough we had a conversation.
it struck me as a half-baked mess
none of the Marvel movies I've seen have come off that way
People talked about smashed buildings and strangled villains because the mediocre competency of the MCU didn't distract them.
MCU in film, Dragonlance in literature, COD and Assassin's Creed in games, and Mad Men on TV: the forces of safe competency that must be destroyed for anything new to be able to grow.
I will say one thing about Man of Steel: it was written by fascist misogynist David S. Goyer, but at least it made people angry enough we had a conversation.
The conversation was mostly about the movie's faults. Moreover, there's a big difference between a functioning, well made, safe movie and cynically made one. They are nearly identical superficially, but completely different at their core. There is also a big difference between a daring and important (but flawed) movie and a movie that tried to be daring and important but failed. Again, superficially si,ilar but the they are worlds apart.
I will say one thing about Man of Steel: it was written by fascist misogynist David S. Goyer, but at least it made people angry enough we had a conversation.
The conversation was mostly about the movie's faults
Yes!
Because it had them!
It was bad, and had many flaws, and because it had them, people talked and complained and pointed out shit that Marvel would have gotten away with, and something good came out of something shit.
I think you're getting way too caught up in the texxture of this stuff, honestly.
Also Naney you've used that analogy, "falls apart like wet cardboard" several times now but I don't really get what you mean. It's not like they're riddled with character inconsistency or anything.
I will say one thing about Man of Steel: it was written by fascist misogynist David S. Goyer, but at least it made people angry enough we had a conversation.
The conversation was mostly about the movie's faults
Yes!
Because it had them!
It was bad, and had many flaws, and because it had them, people talked and complained and pointed out shit that Marvel would have gotten away with, and something good came out of something shit.
All that ever comes out of MCU is gifs
Sometimes a movie just has to be itself to the best of its ability. Marvel is really good at that. There is nothing wrong with competency; cynicism, yes, but not competency.
I will say one thing about Man of Steel: it was written by fascist misogynist David S. Goyer, but at least it made people angry enough we had a conversation.
The conversation was mostly about the movie's faults
Yes!
Because it had them!
It was bad, and had many flaws, and because it had them, people talked and complained and pointed out shit that Marvel would have gotten away with, and something good came out of something shit.
All that ever comes out of MCU is gifs
Sometimes a movie just has to be itself to the best of its ability. Marvel is really good at that. There is nothing wrong with competency; cynicism, yes, but not competency.
But like that is not happening. At all. There isn't a dearth of ambition because popular movies are safe and functional. Popular stuff is ALWAYS safe and functional. That is how it gets popular. There was never a period of time when the moviegoing landscape wasn't dominated by relatively easy to sell movies, and I would much rather see a bunch of optimistic, upbeat, well written movies be popular than a bunch of cookie-cutter westerns or celebrity-vehicle buddy cop movies.
But like that is not happening. At all. There isn't a dearth of ambition because popular movies are safe and functional. Popular stuff is ALWAYS safe and functional. That is how it gets popular. There was never a period of time when the moviegoing landscape wasn't dominated by relatively easy to sell movies, and I would much rather see a bunch of optimistic, upbeat, well written movies be popular than a bunch of cookie-cutter westerns or celebrity-vehicle buddy cop movies.
I see your point.
Part of the problem is that I have a friend who talks my ear off about this stuff.
There's this weird tendency to equate competency to mediocrity, and it's immensely frustrating to me because they are much more different than people give credit for. The reason why mediocre things tend to faade away rather quickly isn't because they're safe, it's because on some fundamental level, thent things they didn't work. Competency is all about fundamentals, though, so competent things tend to stick around. Is there a hint of ambition in the original Star Wars trilogy or the LotR movies? No. But they stick around because traditional, functional storytelling done well is powerful.
As was making a movie about a superhero no one cared about, or making an old school lighthearted action adventure in a landscape dominated by grimdark, or making a movie that is effectively just a climax of several other movies. What's your point?
I totally thought that Jet was going to be the one to get the speed superpower, because they set him up as so opposed to Theo's racing obsession.
and, also, who names a character, "Jet", and doesn't give him super speed or flying?
Jet's name was actually Chet.
Besides, Theo Turbo needed a foil to play off of-- he's the impossible snail, so obviously there has to be someone or something to compare him to that's definitely possible (in this case, our lovely neurotic big brother snail).
also im soooooo tempted to make a dig about just how utterly non-compelling star wars is but im not gonna do it
The original is legitimately one of the most compelling movies I've ever seen, and somewhat famously so. There's a reason why stringing together what happened in that movie from memory is so easy even though so much happened.
Comments
not
Like all of them were really different, even the ones in the same series.
It's a good hamburger.
But there's only so much processed beef with different toppings that you can eat in a short amount of time.
The conversation was mostly about the movie's faults. Moreover, there's a big difference between a functioning, well made, safe movie and cynically made one. They are nearly identical superficially, but completely different at their core.
There is also a big difference between a daring and important (but flawed) movie and a movie that tried to be daring and important but failed. Again, superficially si,ilar but the they are worlds apart.
Because it had them!
Also Naney you've used that analogy, "falls apart like wet cardboard" several times now but I don't really get what you mean. It's not like they're riddled with character inconsistency or anything.
Sometimes a movie just has to be itself to the best of its ability. Marvel is really good at that. There is nothing wrong with competency; cynicism, yes, but not competency.
I totally thought that Jet was going to be the one to get the speed superpower, because they set him up as so opposed to Theo's racing obsession.
and, also, who names a character, "Jet", and doesn't give him super speed or flying?
Part of the problem is that I have a friend who talks my ear off about this stuff.
The original is legitimately one of the most compelling movies I've ever seen, and somewhat famously so. There's a reason why stringing together what happened in that movie from memory is so easy even though so much happened.
Isn't it kind of presumptuous to assume that's the only reason the original trilogy has stuck around for over thirty five years?