Little Interest in The Marvels (MCU disaster?)

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
chuckdee said:
I didn't think the finale pieces that mattered were CGI - the CGI was just the backdrop.

Steve vs Bucky and Nat & Nick vs Pierce were the two big ones to me. Oh and Sam vs Crossbones. The crashing helicarrier and the destruction was just a backdrop.
Click to expand...

I just find the action over-extended and uninspired. A common problem with modern blockbusters in general.
 
Voros said:
I just find the action over-extended and uninspired. A common problem with modern blockbusters in general.
Click to expand...
There was a lot of emotion and such built up in the Steve vs Bucky fight, IMO. Juxtapose that with the cerebral nature of Nat & NIck vs Pierce (which wasn't really a fight) and the constant motion of Sam vs Crossbones, and it was one of the better outings to me- much better than Skull vs Steve, IMO.
 
Baulderstone said:
I haven't seen Captain Marvel, bit I did watch that fight scene they put up to promote it shortly before it's release. It was a competent enough scene, but I found it completely lacked urgency. Captain Marvel seemed bored and annoyed that she had to fight these faceless mooks, Ms. Marvel seemed like the fight was just good, clean, harmless fun, and Nick Fury looked like grandpa enjoying watching his kids play. It meant the scene was utterly lacking in suspense.
Click to expand...
I tend to feel like this sort of thing is an artifact of the lifecycle.

The audience is aware, the writers are aware, everyone's aware, that this kind of scene has now been done countless times before.

I doubt they're dealing with that reality particularly well, but at the same time I don't think they can just make movies in the same way they did at the start of the MCU. They have to approach it with some kind of knowingness and awareness of where they are. It's just that I suspect they don't know how to do that in a way that works.
 
I say this as a fan of the MCU , it is true to say the climax of the MCU movies are often a little bland or overlong. Infinity War and Thor Ragnarok for me are a bit of an exception in having great endings that enhance the movie. In most other instances, by the time we get to the final battle, the movie has already peaked.

But that's also true about the comics. The build up get's you hooked, the ending is often some lame variant of "Let's all concentrate our fire on that spot!" (*). And come to think of it strikes me this also a common feature of horror and thrillers; great build up, weak ending. The build up is clearly easier to pull off than the ending.

* There are exceptions in comics too. The final confrontation of the Thing and Dr Doom in Fantastic Four #40 even now is still jaw droppingly intense, even more so because everything leading to that scene has been foreshadowed and because it comes with lasting consequences. It's easy to talk up the Lee/Kirby collaboration, but that sequence is really some of their finest work.
 
Last edited:
I think the issue with endings is wider than just the MCU. It’s an issue with most Hollywood action oriented movies. You can often walk out of a movie 20 minutes before the end and not really miss anything.

I remember turning off the Batman at a certain point because it had become obvious that nothing else interesting was going to happen.

It’s not just at the level of plot either but how the fights work. The Ip-man movies may be formulaic and predictable but it feels like the fights still tell a cathartic story that means it feels worthwhile watching to the end.
 
Winter Soldier is for me the acme point of the MSU. The highest any of the films reached in my esteem. From there things sort of declined starting with Age of Ultron. It doesn't mean there weren't individual films I liked, but nothing surpassed Winter Soldier and only Thor Ragnarok sort of came close, and it's an entirely different genre.

I would have loved to have seen a Tom Clancy approach to Captain America sequels, and the Falcon TV series sorta tried to go back to this and it was OK (that costume at the end was pretty cringe though - Costume design is another big reason I dislike modern MSU. Evil Scarlet Witch was the last one that I thought was a good interpretation of her Bronze Age costume in the comics).
 
chuckdee said:
There was a lot of emotion and such built up in the Steve vs Bucky fight, IMO. Juxtapose that with the cerebral nature of Nat & NIck vs Pierce (which wasn't really a fight) and the constant motion of Sam vs Crossbones, and it was one of the better outings to me- much better than Skull vs Steve, IMO.
Click to expand...

Yeah WS benefits from having the strong backbone of the original Kirby and later Brubaker comics and good actors in the central relationship.

It's definitely among the best MCU films I just much prefer the first film. I was elated when they played Gaye's 'Troubleman' theme in the theatre but I've cooled a bit on it since, whereas the first film is one of the few that stands up well on rewatching for me.
 
Last edited:
I don't really get the love Winter Soldier gets. Its not that I disliked it but it's in the B list of my personal rankings.

Thor Ragnarok, Guardians of the Galaxy vol.2, Antman, The Avengers and Infinity War are all in the A list.
Iron Man 2, Age of Ultron, Black Panther 2 and Secret Invasion are in the C List.

Everything else gets lumped in with the B's.

I want to come out of the cinema thinking Wow!, but most of the time I think, "That was fun" but there's always something I think could have been done better. However, I'm still happy we're getting such a wealth of live action superhero fare; teenage me would consider this a golden age which is why I don't dismiss the weaker films or series.
 
Stumpydave said:
I don't really get the love Winter Soldier gets. Its not that I disliked it but it's in the B list of my personal rankings.

Thor Ragnarok, Guardians of the Galaxy vol.2, Antman, The Avengers and Infinity War are all in the A list.
Iron Man 2, Age of Ultron, Black Panther 2 and Secret Invasion are in the C List.

Everything else gets lumped in with the B's.

I want to come out of the cinema thinking Wow!, but most of the time I think, "That was fun" but there's always something I think could have been done better. However, I'm still happy we're getting such a wealth of live action superhero fare; teenage me would consider this a golden age which is why I don't dismiss the weaker films or series.
Click to expand...

Ragnarok aside the Thor films feel like a missed opportunity, they had such rich material to draw on from the comics, especially visually and only Ragnarok gets close to it.
 
I quite liked Love and Thunder as well. But its in the B group 'cause of all the missed opportunities.
(The goats were hilarious though).
 
Another issue here is the baffling directorial choices on some of the post-Endgame movies. The used to hire people like Joe Johnston, Joss Whedon, James Gunn, and the Russo brothers. These were people who had already proven themselves to capable of directing entertaining genre movies and TV.

Look at the directors on a lot of the recent films. Chloe Zhao, who directed The Eternals, was known for Nomadland, and a naturalistic movie using a documentary format. Shang-Chi was directed by Destin Daniel Cretton, whose most notable movie was Just Mercy, about a lawyer working with poor death row inmates. Nia DiCosta, the director of The Marvels, does have some actual genre experience. She made the remake of Candyman. But she seems to be very interested in darker material, and Marvel gave her the fluffiest Marvel movie possible.

All of these directors seem to be talented in their own areas, but it actually seems unfair to them to hire them onto a huge Marvel movie. Nothing in their background suggests they are ready to take this kind of job on, yet I can't fault them for not being able to turn these offers down. I'm sure they were offered money beyond anything they have seen before. Yet Disney is setting these promising new directors to fail on the largest stage possible.

Looking at upcoming movies, Blade is directed by Bassam Tariq, who has made exactly one movie, an indie drama about a man battling an autoimmune disease. It's not that big a surprise they ended up having to delay that by two years and order five months of reshoots, roughly the same amount of time they spent shooting it in the first place.

You'd think with the assembly line nature of Marvel, they would be nurturing their own talent. Joe Johnston used to work as a unit director for Spielberg on movies like Raider of the Lost Ark. If they are going to go with obscure names for their big movies (perhaps because they are cheaper to hire), they'd be better off going with unknowns working in the bowels of the blockbuster machine than hiring critically acclaimed indies with no experience in this kind of work.
 
TJS said:
I think the issue with endings is wider than just the MCU. It’s an issue with most Hollywood action oriented movies. You can often walk out of a movie 20 minutes before the end and not really miss anything.

I remember turning off the Batman at a certain point because it had become obvious that nothing else interesting was going to happen.

It’s not just at the level of plot either but how the fights work. The Ip-man movies may be formulaic and predictable but it feels like the fights still tell a cathartic story that means it feels worthwhile watching to the end.
Click to expand...
That's something BedrockBrendan BedrockBrendan and I talk about a lot. In a good action movie, the action scenes continue the story in the form of action. Sadly, most action movies had action where you just wait for the good guy to win, going through moves you seen many times before.
 
With the more recent directors, I think there is an implicit (if not explicit) understanding that they are hired guns brought in to execute a plan that's already been detailed out -- they are there to manage rather than fulfill their own artistic visions.
 
Dyrnwyn said:
With the more recent directors, I think there is an implicit (if not explicit) understanding that they are hired guns brought in to execute a plan that's already been detailed out -- they are there to manage rather than fulfill their own artistic visions.
Click to expand...

I think this is a big part of it. I liken it to editorial mandate and control in the comics.

Instead of hiring someone who has an interesting idea on how to tell a Marvel story, they have a specific story they want told, and they hire people to produce that.

I think their own success has hurt them in this area. The earlier shared elements were minimal. Like, the movies were kind of building to something, but it felt more like the actual results of what was happening rather than a specific goal to be met. But as things moved along, those shared elements have become more like ads hawking for more movies.
 
For me I was alarmed back around the time of the first Avengers movie when it was revealed they had planned movies up to seven years in advance. How do you respond to a changing world when you do that?

And then the world went and changed.

Honestly I’m not convinced that quality is their biggest obstacle. It matters to the comic book fans who are still watching or at least talking about the movies.

I think most people just lost interest. 2019 feels like a long time ago. Their biggest issue is indifference.
 
Baulderstone said:
Another issue here is the baffling directorial choices on some of the post-Endgame movies. The used to hire people like Joe Johnston, Joss Whedon, James Gunn, and the Russo brothers. These were people who had already proven themselves to capable of directing entertaining genre movies and TV.

Look at the directors on a lot of the recent films. Chloe Zhao, who directed The Eternals, was known for Nomadland, and a naturalistic movie using a documentary format. Shang-Chi was directed by Destin Daniel Cretton, whose most notable movie was Just Mercy, about a lawyer working with poor death row inmates. Nia DiCosta, the director of The Marvels, does have some actual genre experience. She made the remake of Candyman. But she seems to be very interested in darker material, and Marvel gave her the fluffiest Marvel movie possible.

All of these directors seem to be talented in their own areas, but it actually seems unfair to them to hire them onto a huge Marvel movie. Nothing in their background suggests they are ready to take this kind of job on, yet I can't fault them for not being able to turn these offers down. I'm sure they were offered money beyond anything they have seen before. Yet Disney is setting these promising new directors to fail on the largest stage possible.

Looking at upcoming movies, Blade is directed by Bassam Tariq, who has made exactly one movie, an indie drama about a man battling an autoimmune disease. It's not that big a surprise they ended up having to delay that by two years and order five months of reshoots, roughly the same amount of time they spent shooting it in the first place.

You'd think with the assembly line nature of Marvel, they would be nurturing their own talent. Joe Johnston used to work as a unit director for Spielberg on movies like Raider of the Lost Ark. If they are going to go with obscure names for their big movies (perhaps because they are cheaper to hire), they'd be better off going with unknowns working in the bowels of the blockbuster machine than hiring critically acclaimed indies with no experience in this kind of work.
Click to expand...

At first I thought they were hiring arthouse directors in an attempt to capture the kind of frisson that happened when talented, arty directors like Peter Jackson and Christopher Nolan created LotR and the Batman films. Or Patty Jenkins and the first Wonder Woman, which I'd include in any list of top superhero films (typically weak villain and climatic battle aside).

But Jackson and Nolan, although part of the arthouse, were also genre savy, with horror comedies for the latter and thrillers for the former. And Jackson had pulled off a big budget mainstream fx heavy film with The Frighteners, even if it wasn't a big hit.

The charitable reading would be that they want these directors to bring their talent for character, theme and dialogue to the films.

But I think from what I've read what they're really looking for are pliable inexperienced directors whose names bring buzz and prestige but don't have the experience to direct the big action and sfx scenes, letting the studio keep a firmer hand on the ultimate product.

That's how a director like Zhao, who made the distinctive Nomadland, can make such a colourless and bland film as The Eternals.
 
Take this with two large grains of salt, but rumor is that Disney just dropped both Jonathan Majors and the Avengers: Kang Dynasty film.
 
TristramEvans said:
Winter Soldier is for me the acme point of the MSU. The highest any of the films reached in my esteem. From there things sort of declined starting with Age of Ultron. It doesn't mean there weren't individual films I liked, but nothing surpassed Winter Soldier and only Thor Ragnarok sort of came close, and it's an entirely different genre.

I would have loved to have seen a Tom Clancy approach to Captain America sequels, and the Falcon TV series sorta tried to go back to this and it was OK (that costume at the end was pretty cringe though - Costume design is another big reason I dislike modern MSU. Evil Scarlet Witch was the last one that I thought was a good interpretation of her Bronze Age costume in the comics).
Click to expand...
Agreed completely on Winter Soldier. It's the only MCU movie I ever go back and watch.
 
Voros said:
Yes I know, I think that's a mistake.
Click to expand...

I first really noticed it as a viewer in Civil War. That airport fight scene was simultaneously the best part of the movie and completely off in tone to the point of feeling thematically disconnected from the rest of the film.
 
Voros said:
Yes I know, I think that's a mistake.
Click to expand...
That's the way it's done for almost all movies and TV shows, so it's not unique to the MCU. They have a main unit and a second unit. The second unit handles the action.

Second unit - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

So most of the movies where you don't see it? That doesn't mean that there isn't a second unit- that just means that the second unit seamlessly blended in (though the section on exceptions on that article is very interesting) Doing it all with one unit and having that same unit direct the stunts and actions puts a lot more stress on the filming and makes it take longer and is more expensive.

One telling quote from that article:

A key skill for a second unit director is to be able to follow the style being set by the film's primary director. Peter MacDonald, second unit director on Batman, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, The Bourne Ultimatum, Tango & Cash, The Quest, Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief, Jack the Giant Slayer, Excalibur, Labyrinth, and Guardians of the Galaxy, has said, "The most important thing about any second unit is that you can't tell the difference between the second unit and the first unit. It must have the stamp of the first unit, both in photography and the style of direction. ... You try to copy what the first unit does as much as possible. You mustn't be on an ego trip and try to do your own style, because your material has to cut into theirs and it mustn't jar, it must fit in exactly so no-one can tell the difference."
Click to expand...
 
chuckdee said:
That's the way it's done for almost all movies and TV shows, so it's not unique to the MCU. They have a main unit and a second unit. The second unit handles the action.

Second unit - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

So most of the movies where you don't see it? That doesn't mean that there isn't a second unit- that just means that the second unit seamlessly blended in (though the section on exceptions on that article is very interesting) Doing it all with one unit and having that same unit direct the stunts and actions puts a lot more stress on the filming and makes it take longer and is more expensive..
Click to expand...

That's one of many reasons that Hollywood had mostly failed to produce action films as sublime as John Woo and many other greats of HK and Asian films.

In a related field of film, I can guarantee you that there's no way that Stanley Donen and Vincent Minnelli let a second unit shoot their musical sequences in their classic musicals either.

I think the real reason they don't do that in modern blockbusters is because they don't trust the directors/want to keep them under their thumb and and as you say to 'save money,' as usual.

But from what I've read the 'Marvel method' leads to a ridiculous number of reshoots and overstretched sfx teams. Just one reason these films end up with absurdly bloated budgets and rapidly dated CGI that they are just now starting to regret. Success has covered a multitude of sins.

And considering how tedious and overlong most action sequences are in modern American blockbusters, I'd say the results of this approach are not paying dividends.
 
Last edited:
Voros said:
But from what I've read the 'Marvel method' leads to a ridiculous number of reshoots and overstretched sfx teams. Just one reason these films end up with absurdly bloated budgets and rapidly dated CGI that they are just now starting to regret.
Click to expand...
My point is that this is not the "Marvel Method". It's a standard way of doing things, and I'm sure you've liked and haven't noticed the issue when the second unit does its work right.
 
chuckdee said:
My point is that this is not the "Marvel Method". It's a standard way of doing things, and I'm sure you've liked and haven't noticed the issue when the second unit does its work right.
Click to expand...

Perhaps but I have noticed that American action films pale in comparison to the action films made outside the US.

For me, when it comes to American films only the early John Wick and Atomic Blonde have had actually impressive action scenes in the last number of years.

In the history of film second units usually only shot minor and pick-up scenes, not entire action sequences.

Looking at the list in that typically ahistorical Wiki article makes my argument for me, imo. It is mostly a list of films with generic American action scenes.

That it is the 'standard' in American big budget filmmaking is the problem.

PS. I totally get what you're saying but I'm just not impressed with the last two decades of action filmmaking in the US! Hell, I'd say with a few honourable exceptions it has been downhill since the early 90s at least!
 
Last edited:
Voros said:
Perhaps but I have noticed that American action films pale in comparison to the action films made outside the US.

For me, when it comes to American films only the early John Wick and Atomic Blonde have had actually impressive action scenes in the last number of years.

In the history of film second units usually only shot minor and pick-up scenes, not entire action sequences.

Looking at the list in that typically ahistorical Wiki article makes my argument for me, imo. It is mostly a list of films with generic American action scenes.

That it is the 'standard' in American big budget filmmaking is the problem.

PS. I totally get what you're saying but I'm just not impressed with the last two decades of action filmmaking in the US! Hell, I'd say with a few honourable exceptions it has been downhill since the early 90s at least!
Click to expand...
Yeah, we'll just have to agree to disagree there. There's been some great stuff, especially on TV and serialized. In fact, I'd say that it's getting better, not worse, IMO.
 
chuckdee said:
Yeah, we'll just have to agree to disagree there. There's been some great stuff, especially on TV and serialized. In fact, I'd say that it's getting better, not worse, IMO.
Click to expand...

I'm only talking about American film but what are you digging on tv? I've heard good things about The Master.
 
sharps54 said:
View attachment 71672
Click to expand...
The movie was surprisingly faithful to the original series.
MV5BNTBhNDhkZjItYmMzZC00NjRiLThmYTAtMjM4NjBjMjBlMjJjXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyODY5Njk4Njc@._V1_.jpg
 
Voros said:
Perhaps but I have noticed that American action films pale in comparison to the action films made outside the US.

For me, when it comes to American films only the early John Wick and Atomic Blonde have had actually impressive action scenes in the last number of years.

In the history of film second units usually only shot minor and pick-up scenes, not entire action sequences.

Looking at the list in that typically ahistorical Wiki article makes my argument for me, imo. It is mostly a list of films with generic American action scenes.

That it is the 'standard' in American big budget filmmaking is the problem.

PS. I totally get what you're saying but I'm just not impressed with the last two decades of action filmmaking in the US! Hell, I'd say with a few honourable exceptions it has been downhill since the early 90s at least!
Click to expand...

I never thought an action movie could have too much action, until I saw John Wick 3 recently. Basically one long action scene from start to finish. Should have known better, John Wick 2 was already not as good as 1.

What do you think of Nobody? I quite liked that one.
 
The Mad Hatter said:
I never thought an action movie could have too much action, until I saw John Wick 3 recently. Basically one long action scene from start to finish. Should have known better, John Wick 2 was already not as good as 1.

What do you think of Nobody? I quite liked that one.
Click to expand...

I liked Nobody.

I think too much action is a frequent mistake in action movies. You can only stay excited by an action scene for so long before you get numb to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top