Movies: Marvel Cinematic Universe Discussion - Part 4

[Pilky01]

Really? His character did develop but in no way was it a masterful journey imo.

But Tony sacrificed himself in End Game and that was foreshadowed in The Avengers! Its brilliant!

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

An art piece doesn't need to have anything to say.

...about anything but itself.

---#---

As for high art, I really want to stress out that IMO it still remains subjective and that a spectator with limited scope, can appreciate as a truly masterful artistic experience a movie like The Matrix, or Taxi Driver. These films, maybe not so interesting to more experienced viewers, were - to 99% of us - our front door to more complex stuff.

I know, for myself, that if theyre hadn't been Brian DePalma and David Cronenberg, there never would have been Marguerite Duras or Nuri Bilge Ceylan.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

The "high art" thing has always been a bit of a pet peeve of mine. Just seems like something that is for or liked by a specific group of people, and the concept of what it is and why it's important is also decided on by these same people. The Academy Awards make a good example of this.

What I think the real take away that hasn't been mentioned here is not so much that these movies are taking over the theatres but rather that 'Hollywood' has to take these outside creative properties that people actually enjoy and take them seriously. They can no longer just write off what the properties fanbase may want, hand things off to 3rd rate productions, and/or put their own creative spin on it however they please. A good example of the changing landscape here would be 1993's Super Mario Bros vs 2019's Pokemon Detective Pikachu.

Some like Robert Redford are embracing it while other's like Scorsese are getting left behind. Probably the only reason he's really speaking out is that he had to go to Netflix to get his mob movie made.

1 - I don't think many proponents for high art or what is considered high art put much stock into the Academy Awards.

2 and 3 - I have no idea how these are positives.

 

[RandV]

Better stay away from more complex works too, maybe just not for you.



What is the bull**** exactly? The term challenging? Nobody's saying that a film that spurs imagination cannot be challenging. What is not challenging, and especially to you, are films like Lord of the Rings (classic episodic structure), or The Avengers, because you know how to read them and not because they present fictions with impossible characters. I was refering to Solaris before - Solaris is a planet that hosts a single living structure, an ocean that communicates with other beings through recreation of their own memories - does that spur the imagination enough? Now try and read that film with the frameworks you've already established through the numerous sci-fi films you've experienced before and you will face a challenge. Tell me that's bull**** all you want, won't change a thing.

And if you enjoy maths, try Peter Greenaway. Maths, geometry, and what not... Maybe start with Drowning by Numbers, you don't know yet how to read that structure, but you should find out easily enough, and your experience scope will "gain something".

It's just my take that what you're supposed to 'get' out of these movies isn't something universal but rather a matter of personality and taste. I understand perfectly well what they're going for and while I haven't seen the specific movies you mentioned but I'm more than familiar with that side of the theatre - half the movies I see in theatre lean more that way because I've been with a film festival enthusiast the last 12 years and we alternate picks when going to the theatre. Last movie we saw here was a Koreign film Parasite which should be hitting regular theatres soon that was really damn good, but back to Coppola's words I don't "gain something" out of it anymore than I did watching End Game.

What the list I gave kind of shows though is that what I really like are big lengthy stories, I'm a real glutton for these things and there's only so much you can do with a standard 2-3 hour movie. Why I value the Avengers so much is because it's the cumulation of about a dozen different story lines wrapped up into one big lengthy finale. It's not perfect but the MCU keeps a consistent enough high value quality and you just don't typically get that sort of lengthy experience on the big screen.

 

[Voight]

Most high-budget films aren't really "high art" anyway, so I don't know what the issue is.

Marvel movies are fun and generally worth the price of admission, but that's about it. I have enjoyed the ones I have seen, but I am not exactly clamoring to experience them again.


Disney's business practices have shaped the market to what it is today. So to act like they are blameless in the current situation is pretty naive.

yea, I will gladly watch Goodfellas, Gangs of NY, The Godfather, Apocalypse Now etc over and over again but I don't see myself watching Black Panther or Thor more than once or twice.

 

[Mario_is_BACK!!]

yea, I will gladly watch Goodfellas, Gangs of NY, The Godfather, Apocalypse Now etc over and over again but I don't see myself watching Black Panther or Thor more than once or twice.

I really enjoyed Goodfells, Gangs of New York, The Godfather, Apocalypse Now, etc as they're classics but I'm much more apt to watch Back Panther or Thor more. To each their own.

 

[Jussi]

I really enjoyed Goodfells, Gangs of New York, The Godfather, Apocalypse Now, etc as they're classics but I'm much more apt to watch Back Panther or Thor more. To each their own.

I've been meaning to do a thread on "great movies that don't stand multiple viewings/you've seen once but have no interest in watching again".

 

[izzy]

cast clayne crawford as someone in the mcu asap

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

I think this is the most clear-eyed and level-headed piece I've read on the topic. It doesn't demonize either side. It's a little lengthy but I hope some here take the time to read it.

https://www.vulture.com/2019/10/ok-fine-lets-talk-about-marvel-vs-martin-scorsese.html

I think this point, in particular, really hits the mark:

There’s one thing Scorsese said that really sticks out: Speaking of Marvel movies, he said they were “creating another kind of audience that thinks cinema is that.” All great films create their own audience, in a sense; you can’t really broaden the art form’s range of expression without teaching your audience new ways to experience and think and feel about what’s onscreen and, by extension, the universe beyond the frame. Citizen Kane does this; Rashomon does this; 2001 does this; Jeanne Dielman does this; Do the Right Thing does this. (And it’s not just the capital-M Masterpieces that do it, either. Anna Rose Holmer’s The Fits does this; Chloé Zhao’s The Rider does this; Robert Greene’s Actress does this. I could go on, but we’d be here all day.)

Superhero movies have done this to some extent, too — in sci-fi-thriller parlance, they’ve terraformed their own audience — but they haven’t really expanded our capacity for feeling. If anything, they’ve limited it, delivering tales of moral clarity, with ready-made, mix-and-match character interactions.​

 

[OhCaptainMyCaptain]

Yawn. I just want to know Tarantino's take on the matter now.

 

[discostu]

I think this is the most clear-eyed and level-headed piece I've read on the topic. It doesn't demonize either side. It's a little lengthy but I hope some here take the time to read it.

https://www.vulture.com/2019/10/ok-fine-lets-talk-about-marvel-vs-martin-scorsese.html

I think this point, in particular, really hits the mark:

There’s one thing Scorsese said that really sticks out: Speaking of Marvel movies, he said they were “creating another kind of audience that thinks cinema is that.” All great films create their own audience, in a sense; you can’t really broaden the art form’s range of expression without teaching your audience new ways to experience and think and feel about what’s onscreen and, by extension, the universe beyond the frame. Citizen Kane does this; Rashomon does this; 2001 does this; Jeanne Dielman does this; Do the Right Thing does this. (And it’s not just the capital-M Masterpieces that do it, either. Anna Rose Holmer’s The Fits does this; Chloé Zhao’s The Rider does this; Robert Greene’s Actress does this. I could go on, but we’d be here all day.)

Superhero movies have done this to some extent, too — in sci-fi-thriller parlance, they’ve terraformed their own audience — but they haven’t really expanded our capacity for feeling. If anything, they’ve limited it, delivering tales of moral clarity, with ready-made, mix-and-match character interactions.​

That's a good article, and not as long as I thought it would be. I've been tired of this debate as I find everything is being spoken about in a lto of absolutes. This is a very moderate take, but brings a lot of points that are not being discussed.

I understand the fear of big name filmmakers who can't get their films financed today. That will always be frustrating. But, the point that I don't see made enough when talking about the dominance of comic book films, is that there's still far more films being produced today.

While Scorsese or Coppola can't get a $200M film made, there's a lot more aspiring directors getting smaller films made that have online distribution models that gets more exposure of their films.

I actually really like the model of actors and directors doing the comic book thing and getting exposure and money that helps get their smaller films made (like Taika Watiti they used in the article).

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I think this is the most clear-eyed and level-headed piece I've read on the topic. It doesn't demonize either side. It's a little lengthy but I hope some here take the time to read it.

https://www.vulture.com/2019/10/ok-fine-lets-talk-about-marvel-vs-martin-scorsese.html

I think this point, in particular, really hits the mark:

There’s one thing Scorsese said that really sticks out: Speaking of Marvel movies, he said they were “creating another kind of audience that thinks cinema is that.” All great films create their own audience, in a sense; you can’t really broaden the art form’s range of expression without teaching your audience new ways to experience and think and feel about what’s onscreen and, by extension, the universe beyond the frame. Citizen Kane does this; Rashomon does this; 2001 does this; Jeanne Dielman does this; Do the Right Thing does this. (And it’s not just the capital-M Masterpieces that do it, either. Anna Rose Holmer’s The Fits does this; Chloé Zhao’s The Rider does this; Robert Greene’s Actress does this. I could go on, but we’d be here all day.)

Superhero movies have done this to some extent, too — in sci-fi-thriller parlance, they’ve terraformed their own audience — but they haven’t really expanded our capacity for feeling. If anything, they’ve limited it, delivering tales of moral clarity, with ready-made, mix-and-match character interactions.​

Really didn't enjoy this article, I don't see where's the need to f***in' use swear f***in' words in a text that looks like it wants to be taken seriously. But I did enjoy his knee-jerk witticism at the end - maybe he's not demonizing either side, but he is clearly infantilizing the better half of the spectators.

So, what I got from this is that superhero movies, just like Children tales, propose simplistic moral views constructed on the dichotomy good/evil (true enough, but I got kicked out of threads in here for saying just that), and that this understanding of the world might explain some people's reactions to opposite views to their own... And I repeat, I got kicked out of threads in here, because I wouldn't back off from calling these films kids flicks. Now it certainly didn't feel like an heroic act at the time, but maybe the one kicking me out was mirroring some of his favorite superhero, getting the thread rid of a devastating threat. I need a great villain name, Violenza Domestica is at best a mexican wrestler's filler.

 

[OhCaptainMyCaptain]

Really didn't enjoy this article, I don't see where's the need to ****in' use swear ****in' words in a text that looks like it wants to be taken seriously. But I did enjoy his knee-jerk witticism at the end - maybe he's not demonizing either side, but he is clearly infantilizing the better half of the spectators.

So, what I got from this is that superhero movies, just like Children tales, propose simplistic moral views constructed on the dichotomy good/evil (true enough, but I got kicked out of threads in here for saying just that), and that this understanding of the world might explain some people's reactions to opposite views to their own... And I repeat, I got kicked out of threads in here, because I wouldn't back off from calling these films kids flicks. Now it certainly didn't feel like an heroic act at the time, but maybe the one kicking me out was mirroring some of his favorite superhero, getting the thread rid of a devastating threat. I need a great villain name, Violenza Domestica is at best a mexican wrestler's filler.

Nah, you probably just got kicked out because you broke the forum rules.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Nah, you probably just got kicked out because you broke the forum rules.

Coming from the one who was crying about the said designation? I'll pass, thank you.

 

[OhCaptainMyCaptain]

Coming from the one who was crying about the said designation? I'll pass, thank you.

And look who is still crying about it now.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

And look who is still crying about it now.

That's actually a pretty good repartee.

 

[OhCaptainMyCaptain]

That's actually a pretty good repartee.

But on a serious note, I am so over this discussion. At the end of the day, it's not going to change anything.

 

[ArchAngel55]

Charlie Cox Set To Return As Daredevil In Future MCU Films

 

[Jussi]

Cox is just about the right age for the role.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Charlie Cox Set To Return As Daredevil In Future MCU Films

This could be somewhat of a nightmare in maintaining a coherence into what's canon. Would it be just Cox or would it be the Netflix character? If it's the Netflix character, then the Punisher's canon, Jessica Jones' canon... they all appear in his series, no?

I think the Netflix series are superior to the MCU, and way too dark to fit in it. I don't see how this could work unless it's just the actor - and if so, who cares?

 

[OhCaptainMyCaptain]

This could be somewhat of a nightmare in maintaining a coherence into what's canon. Would it be just Cox or would it be the Netflix character? If it's the Netflix character, then the Punisher's canon, Jessica Jones' canon... they all appear in his series, no?

I think the Netflix series are superior to the MCU, and way too dark to fit in it. I don't see how this could work unless it's just the actor - and if so, who cares?

Did you just say the Netflix series are superior to the MCU?

It probably won’t be that confusing, though. They’ll probably just keep Cox but not have the prior events be cannon.

As for the last question - a lot of people would care. You may not, but many do.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Did you just say the Netflix series are superior to the MCU?

It probably won’t be that confusing, though. They’ll probably just keep Cox but not have the prior events be cannon.

As for the last question - a lot of people would care. You may not, but many do.

A lot better, at least Daredevil, Punisher and JJ. A lot less childish and a lot more subtle. As for caring, if it's not the same character, how is Cox really important? I mean, he did a very good job, but Disney has the money to get anybody decent. I'd say Bernthal would be tougher to replace.

 

[Jussi]

A lot better, at least Daredevil, Punisher and JJ. A lot less childish and a lot more subtle. As for caring, if it's not the same character, how is Cox really important? I mean, he did a very good job, but Disney has the money to get anybody decent. I'd say Bernthal would be tougher to replace.

Ah yes, nothing says childish than wiping out half of all living creatures.

 

[OhCaptainMyCaptain]

A lot better, at least Daredevil, Punisher and JJ. A lot less childish and a lot more subtle. As for caring, if it's not the same character, how is Cox really important? I mean, he did a very good job, but Disney has the money to get anybody decent. I'd say Bernthal would be tougher to replace.

Those shows were more gritty, for sure. Less childish. Sure. That doesn’t make them better.

Cox plays the role well. A lot of people wanted him back. Yeah, I’m sure there are other people that could play the role, but I think he’s a good keep.

 

[Pilky01]

Spider-Man/Daredevil/Kingpin movie with Holland, Cox and D'inofrio PLEEEEEEEASE.