Marvel Cinematic Universe, Phase 4 & Beyond (and a chance to change your vote)

Kind of a Multiverse of MacGuffins aspect to the plot, but yeah very clever/satisfying once it gets beyond that.

Still in a Marvel mood, I have now put on Love & Thunder. Opening scene very sad!

That one was a swing and a whoosh. I liked the final few scenes… wish the rest of the movie had measured up to them.

Yeah the Thor movie was a dud.

I watched Multiverse of Madness not too long ago and I generally recall enjoying it, but the details have completely evaporated from my mind.

I’m a fan of the “source material,” and I see they paid Jason Aaron as a “consultant” (whatever that means)… maybe they should’ve hired him to actually write the screenplay (does that ever happen)?

The tone didn’t work, the jokes weren’t funny, the plot wasn’t engaging, you didn’t feel the gravity of Jane’s situation, it felt like nothing was at stake… (the special effects on the tiny planet were cool).

I think Ragnarok benefitted from a 'shoot the moon' exuberance, it was a reboot that made sense. Tonally Love and Thunder landed weird, like it was a good villain for a different movie.

I maintain that Love & Thunder was basically a riff on The Princess Bride where Korg=Peter Falk but that they didn't do enough to make the 'story told by unreliable goofball narrator' tone clear and that it was an unsuccessful experiment that would've worked better as a D+ series than as a tentpole film in the franchise.

I am cool with GNR, but the amount of GNR content was bizarre!

Meantime

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqcncLPi9zw

that seems pretty superfluous, even as a childhood fan of the Evolutionary Wars

Feige talks things

https://ew.com/movies/kevin-feige-marvel-phase-5-exclusive-interview/

I want to know why all of their recent films are particularly bad looking. Is it because they've really leaned in to nobody being in the same room together, relying on green screens for even mundane scenes?

Interesting interview. I didn't know he was involved in the X-Men movies.

When my kid hears GNR on the radio he says, “It’s the Thor band!”

you think YOU'RE thor

New Ant-Man getting some mixed (at best) reviews, and even the positive ones are pretty hedgy. I assume that it's probably more or less the same quality as all the most recent MCU movies, but who knows.

people have to get tired of this shit sooner or later
i think marvel u sales went down the toilet right after the x everything 90's and hit bankruptcy in the 2000s so my theory is MCU will have roughly the same expiration timeline

I really like Jonathan Majors and will be happy to see him in a bunch of these, but I just don't see his Kang as being engaging enough as a big bad to build the next 8 or whatever movies around. Happy to be proven wrong, mind.

The next two are Guardians 3 and Captain Marvel 2, and he's not in those, is he? So dunno where/when we might see him next. Loki season 2?

He's probably not going to be in/central to every film, but I imagine as the big bad they are building up to for the epic climax of these next few phases (ala Thanos), he's probably going to hang over most of them or pop up in post-credit scenes at least.

he's gonna be the deus ex capitalism to grab rebooted versions of the core players for the next Avengers movie which they will either recast or digitally de-age so that this goes on forever
xpost lol

lol probably

xp that was the exact theory people posited with the Thanos snap thing, too, though. that they'd end up twisting reality and characters would come back portrayed by different actors

Phase 5 seems like mostly soft reboot

I think they know they can only do hard reboot once every 2 generations or so without giving away the fact this is all make believe and are keeping that option on deck for when Thor is fully aged out

Per my post on the dedicated thread, I liked Quantumania and casting Jonathan Majors was a smart move.

Meantime looking ahead:

Higher. Further. Faster. Together.

Check out the brand-new teaser poster for Marvel Studios’ The Marvels, coming to theaters November 10. pic.twitter.com/zSlozSfQrz

— Marvel Studios (@MarvelStudios) February 17, 2023

Going to put a spoiler tag in just in case... haven't seen Ant-Man yet, but I saw it on the Best Show twitter:

looooool at Scharpling's character name

xpost New release date, right? That should allow them plenty of time to prepare for the epic universe-ending level backlash to a Captain Marvel movie with *three* women, two of them POC.

Yeah they moved it from mid-summer to November. Which frankly strikes me as a better plan anyway, spaces things throughout the year more.

Maybe they'll introduce a time-travel plot in which the last few movies are erased.

MCU must have hit some sort of breaking point, because I've seen multiple think pieces pointing to this latest Ant-man movie specifically as signaling signs of distress in Marvel's empire. This one, Dr. Strange 2, Thor 4, sure as hell The Eternals, even Black Panther 2 (imo, though for different reasons) probably needed a rethink. Feels like "WandaVision" and "Loki" were the only substantial successes, with She-Hulk and Ms. Marvel entertainingly colorful diversions. The sheer number of new characters introduced (or even re-introduced) in the last couple of years is daunting.

WandaVision and Loki were both fantastic. It feels like they came out a lifetime ago. Not sure either of them were big successes though? Pretty thinky!

For me what they're missing is solid leading actors. They lucked out with Downey Jr, Boseman and Evans, but there's no one else too match them - the other leads are good, often great -- but they're too comic, or too steely, or too television-actory, or just lacking in charisma. The other "phases" at least had the Avengers movies to help things cohere. It was kind of cool, e.g. seeing Iron Man and Chris Pratt together, or Chris Evans with Danai Gurira, or whatever, but I feel like they've played that trick now, and I'm not as excited for the team game this time.

That plus doubling down on bad CGI and content overload.

Looking forward to more Loki though.

xpost I meant creatively successful, like they were driving things forward and not like they were dumping grounds for ideas/characters/tie-ins/random scenes. And I won't even necessarily say bad CGI so much as maybe an over-reliance on CGI sets; we've come so far since The Phantom Menace, we really shouldn't have so many of these movies where people are standing close together on a patch of set, staring in fear or wonder at creatures or things tbd. All that stuff can't make up for a thin script, and on that front, I suspect the execs et al. have very specific demands and requests that make it almost impossible to create something cohesive. "You need to put in such and such," or whatever. Which tbf has been happening since Whedon complained about it after "Age of Ultron." But lately it's almost felt like the movies are just compendiums of half-baked ideas or stage-setting or leftover scenes shoehorned in, e.g. Gwenyth Paltrow not even knowing she's in certain movies.

there are some excellent visual effects, especially in the opening/mid-story action bits in a number of these movies (minus Eternals) but nearly every one of them devolving into "a bunch of animated shit is flying around the screen and the fantastic setting has no practical elements" has worn thin

the recent Dr. Strange was kind of an exception. Disney's value proposition to up-and-coming directors has been "you don't need to know how to direct action, we've got some guys to do that" by which they mostly mean hundreds of animation subcontractors

I think the most jarring example to me was the first Black Panther, which had a number of amazing sets, animated or not. Then we get to the final fight and it's just BP and Killmonger doing flips and jumps around a glowing monorail track

Must be surreal to be an actor, standing on a big soundstage in front of a blue screen, in a bodysuit covered with dots, solemnly staring at the camera, stating "let's finish this," and then waiting months to see just who or what you are fighting, and how, and with whom, and what you even look like.

best actors left standing, for me: Hiddleston, Pugh, Cumberbatch, i think Olsen is really good, Hemsworth always fun tho i haven't seen Thor 4 so maybe it's wearing thin for some?

big fan of the Guardians too, it's a good bunch.

not sure i have much interest in the next several years of this though, trying to keep up with everything feels exhausting, and multiverse stories just are feeling exceptionally played out.

Yeah I'm curious whether Hemsworth's comedic chops can survive my realisation halfway through Thor 4 that he was reminding me of Boris Johnson.

None of the non-Bautista actors in GotG are actually any good though, change my mind. The spaciness and the gleeful murder and the dialog do a lot of the lifting.

Must be surreal to be an actor, standing on a big soundstage in front of a blue screen, in a bodysuit covered with dots, solemnly staring at the camera, stating "let's finish this," and then waiting months to see just who or what you are fighting, and how, and with whom, and what you even look like.

― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, February 22, 2023 11:47 AM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

This is a big problem.

Was Shang-Chi the last decent one?

Dr. Strange 2 was good!

Shang-Chi completely dissolves into nothing in the last half hour

that weird critter thing and Ben Kingsley was a bit that probably outstayed its welcome but I liked both

Iirc Shang-Chi was good. Maybe because it seemed fresh? Or maybe just the stunts and whatnot felt more physical? Dr. Strange 2 felt stale to me, but it was probably better than the first one. Still, I seem to recall the artificiality of everything from his facial hair to his costume particularly distracting, which really unfortunately plays up the fakeness of the whole enterprise. Like, compare the Lord of the Rings movies vs. the Hobbit movie. The former hold up pretty well, the latter, coming years later, just look goofier and cheaper, even though they still cost piles of gold. It's like we're stuck in between FX cycles or something, where all the lighting or cinematography is off. Or maybe just the FX *are* getting better, making the uncanny valley ironically that much more apparent?

Spider-Man 3 was great, but don’t know if that counts

I didn't like it, tbh.

I should say, stuff like the Ant-man or Dr. Strange, they bum me out because between the cast, the vast supply of source material, the budgets, they feel like they really should be better. And yet they all come off kinda half-assed and uninspired, or like ambitious projects that ran out of time or money. Which maybe is the case? Or maybe they're just too fussed over and micromanaged, who knows. Or just as likely, covid fucked things up. I mean, it can't be a coincidence that these meh movies all arrived during the same conspicuous three year period, right?

Timely

So, why does #AntMan look like that? @__ChrisLee reports: https://t.co/xwvdHQXI27 pic.twitter.com/Hn1IDxiGN2

— Vulture (@vulture) February 22, 2023

This will come as a shock to you all but I, the biggest MCU fanboy on the boards, loved the new Ant Man movie

you can really see the 3 hour movie it wants to be but def the most enjoyable of the post-endgame bunch.

What Jonathan Majors brings to Kang is really something. And I appreciated the appearance in the stinger of a certain classic hat. Lol.

We just watched Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" for the first time in close to maybe 15 years. The budget was reportedly $130 million, which is close to $200 million today. That's about the reported budget of the new "Ant-Man," but "War of the World" looks *so* much better. Granted, it has its own problems, but Spielberg is an uncommonly gifted director, and particularly adept at working with special effects, so maybe that makes all the difference? Much of the difference? He understands how to spend his money, and uses smart, judicious FX to support his characters and stories, rather than the other way around. And by generally limiting his most conspicuous special effects to key set pieces, he gives them more impact, and that goes for practical effects as well. Maybe even more. Cars tossed around, buildings collapsing ... it all feels so tactile, with a weight to it, whereas MCU effects often might as well be flying toasters.

So what's changed? I asked my college-aged kid her opinion, and her immediate answer was "laziness." Which is ironic, seeing the hundreds of people in the end credits of something like "Ant-Man" that no doubt worked their butts off. But all these important little cogs of the big machine don't add up to much if the final product lacks any real passion or incentive beyond just being good enough to move the even bigger machine forward a few more inches.

Spielberg also didnt have the disney industrial complex sitting on his neck to meet the quarterly deadline

Yeah, maybe. I think the issue with the MCU, though, is that even the humans are barely human, seeing as much of their stuff is post-production FX as well, and when every inch of your creation of made with computers, it's hard to make anything else stand out as memorable. So, for example, in this Ant-man movie, one of the biggest (only?) set pieces is the pile of Ant-people. But it boils down to just another mess of CGI wigglies in a field of CGI wigglies. To paraphrase "The Incredibles," if everything is special then nothing is special.