|
MonsieurChoc posted:We also know Thanos is full of poo poo because starvation doesn't throw a planet off it's axis. It's not hard to imagine that a civilization justifies all kinds of dumbass decisions with the specter of scarcity of resources. Thanos is just mad that his people believed the guy who said hyper-fracking the planet was kosher over his genocidal plan.
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 14:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 04:38 |
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:It's not hard to imagine that a civilization justifies all kinds of dumbass decisions with the specter of scarcity of resources. Thanos is just mad that his people believed the guy who said hyper-fracking the planet was kosher over his genocidal plan. Oh yeah, but that's not ressource scarcity in itself so much as inequality or climate change caused by capitalism. Very different. Killing random people wouldn't solve these issues at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 15:31
|
|
|
By sarcastically calling Thanos a "prophet" Dr Strange acknowledges that Thanos predicted the problem his planet would face, but pours scorn on the idea that his solution was correct. In any case it wouldn't justify killing millions of people even if he is "right" about the results on, for example, Gamora's home planet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 15:54
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:By sarcastically calling Thanos a "prophet" Dr Strange acknowledges that Thanos predicted the problem his planet would face, but pours scorn on the idea that his solution was correct. In any case it wouldn't justify killing millions of people even if he is "right" about the results on, for example, Gamora's home planet. People are conflating some entirely different aspects of characterization. Cumberbatch is criticizing the baddie’s self-importance, just as Gamorah criticizes his callousness. The flipside of this is when fans praise his authoritaritativeness and masculinity. (“Whoa... he believes he’s right...”, plus “I want to get gay hosed by an augmented Josh Brolin, and this thing onscreen fits the description.”) These traits are entirely separate from the question of whether the character is a blithering idiot who literally can’t tell a fork from a spoon (and in fact the entire narrative relies on nobody knowing what a spoon is - i.e. what Ebert referred to as an “idiot plot”). Because the film is based on the premise that Thanos has been studying the chaos emeralds for decades or even centuries - studying population control for even longer, it’s like a movie where the character Robert Oppenheimer endeavours to literally eat an atomic bomb. Like, it’s on a plate and he’s got a fork (because he doesn’t know what a spoon is), and everyone is like “no! You’ll become too powerful!” SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Nov 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 19:01
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:By sarcastically calling Thanos a "prophet" Dr Strange acknowledges that Thanos predicted the problem his planet would face, but pours scorn on the idea that his solution was correct. In any case it wouldn't justify killing millions of people even if he is "right" about the results on, for example, Gamora's home planet. Strange isn't sarcastically calling Thanos a prophet. He's sarcastically congratulating him for being a prophet. For example, there's a difference in nuance between these phrases: "You played yourself." "Congratulations, you played yourself."
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 19:05
|
|
|
He should have at least tried to wish for more wishes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 19:13
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:In any case it wouldn't justify killing millions of people even if he is "right" about the results on, for example, Gamora's home planet. The point is how the movie frames the issue, and that it affirms that Thanos's actions did, in fact, save worlds, and asks "is it worth it", and that's the problem. It should be saying "of course that wouldn't work, it's a stupid idea , what kind of moron could possibly believe that"
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 19:18
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:He should have at least tried to wish for more wishes. He only had one wish though
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 20:25
|
|
|
Zodiac5000 posted:What do they need to do to show that they are interested in spaceships and space travel other than set movies in space where people do space-related things? How do they need to display an interest in artificial intelligence besides dedicate an entire movie's premise to a rogue AI and have a major supporting castmember in the recent couple movies be an AI? I don't know how to explore the implications of Tony's technology or Rocket's repairing spraypaint gun or the infinity stones to the common world without literally destroying modern society and replacing it with Star Trek utopia. It's pretty easy to portray how the world would change with small background details like Moore and Gibbons did in Watchmen:  It's never explained what kind of cigarettes they're smoking and it is not an important part of the plot but it shows how that world is different from ours
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 20:56
|
|
|
It's crack. Dr. M developed safe Crackijuana and Nixon deployed it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 21:29
|
|
|
It's subtle, but in the MCU, cars are extremely cheap.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 21:36
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:It's crack. Dr. M developed safe Crackijuana and Nixon deployed it. Actually I'm pretty sure marijuana cigarettes are also referred to in Watchmen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 21:40
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:It's pretty easy to portray how the world would change with small background details like Moore and Gibbons did in Watchmen: It’s weed. They talk about it, but don’t disclose how or why it’s legal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 23:32
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:It's subtle, but in the MCU, cars are extremely cheap. Word? Where do you see that? I’m legit interested if they slotted something like that in somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 00:20
|
|
|
If there were ever an answer to anything like that in the movies, I’d want to know why anyone would want to live in New York. Rent must be cheap as hell there by now. It’s not like supervillains are even distributed by population so that they have to put up with stilt man or the spot in Oregon or something. People should be moving out to Minneapolis.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 00:24
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:If there were ever an answer to anything like that in the movies, I’d want to know why anyone would want to live in New York. Rent must be cheap as hell there by now. Based on my knowledge of capitalism, I think they would try and sway this as a positive. "Do YOU want to live where they ACTION is? New York City is for you! If it's good enough for Iron Man, it's good enough for me!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 00:30
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:If there were ever an answer to anything like that in the movies, I’d want to know why anyone would want to live in New York. Rent must be cheap as hell there by now. Especially given everything that happens in the TV shows, too. In the newest Daredevils season basically the entire New York bureau of the FBI is being controlled by Kingpin. The rule of law hangs by a precarious string in NYC in the MCU
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 01:01
|
|
|
In the real world kingpin wouldn't go to jail in the first place cause he's rich.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 03:24
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:It's pretty easy to portray how the world would change with small background details like Moore and Gibbons did in Watchmen: There's that Heinz is advertised as having 58 flavours instead of 57. I mean, world building through background details or small lines of dialogue is a well established component of film and has been for decades.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 03:56
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:It's pretty easy to portray how the world would change with small background details like Moore and Gibbons did in Watchmen: The MCU probably (I'm just assuming this after 18 moives or so) does not want to change the 'regular people' world though. They want the MCU to be superheroes with insane powers in the current world with, for example, regular cigarettes and cars, not the world as it would be with Tony's magic technologies. Adding background details of flying cars or whatever does not appear to be a goal or interest to them, and I don't think there's any inherent value if they were to CG in an extra's watch with a little hologram display. Is the MCU putting these background changes into the movie mandatory for them to have Tony have a nanotech suit, or whatever? I can't conceive of why having somebody in the background with like a hologram apple watch will suddenly make people say "Oh thank goodness! Now that they've got a tiny background character using future tech they are exploring the technology's implications." I see this as setting up extremely mobile goalposts for people to complain about how now that they explored (concept X), but they did not adequately explore it. Is having a tiny background character using a little hologram watch enough? Do you need more? When does the line stop? If they clearly do not want to change the regular people's world, when are they obligated to do so anyway?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 15:34
|
|
|
Zodiac5000 posted:The MCU probably (I'm just assuming this after 18 moives or so) does not want to change the 'regular people' world though. They want the MCU to be superheroes with insane powers in the current world with, for example, regular cigarettes and cars, not the world as it would be with Tony's magic technologies. That's boring as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 15:43
|
|
|
Zodiac5000 posted:The MCU probably (I'm just assuming this after 18 moives or so) does not want to change the 'regular people' world though. They want the MCU to be superheroes with insane powers in the current world with, for example, regular cigarettes and cars, not the world as it would be with Tony's magic technologies. This already doesn’t fly. As often mentioned, there are side details like Tony Stark inventing free renewable energy and it affecting nothing, but the criticism of the MCU not having consequences doesn’t just apply to the background lore, it applies to its own plot. The films frequently feature such earth-shattering revelations as “the US government is secretly run by Nazis that are more Nazi than regular Nazis” but nothing in future films is affected by that. In Ragnarok, Thor loses his eye and his hammer and then immediately gets them back in the next film (I guess it’s an axe now, who cares.) This all comes to a head with Civil War, highly hyped as “the most consequential movie of the MCU!” when what happened was Cap becoming a fugitive and then not mentioned again until he was no longer a fugitive, and Rhodey getting prosthetics that won’t show up outside his suit. The lack of consequences is a consistent side effect that tarnishes near everything about the movies. It makes the characters worse, it makes the plots worse, it makes even the dialogue worse. There is much more at stake here than just a change in setting or background details.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 16:09
|
|
|
One of the most illustrative examples of this is the Cap Squad's appearance in Infinity War. What exactly have they been doing, freelance espionage? And by that I don't mean I need a detailed breakdown of what they eat and who pays them, but it's just basic information: what am I meant to make of them? They're just "laying low"? I'm not sure if that's what they're conveying. HUNDU THE BEAST GOD fucked around with this message at 16:20 on Nov 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 16:16
|
|
|
The lack of consequences is exactly why the only poo poo you see blogged about with new Marvel movies is the costume changes. It’s the only thing that designates eras, which is like, insane when you’re talking about around twenty movies of content. Civil War is particularly hilarious because it’s like, what were the ramifications of it, ultimately? Spider-Man Homecoming even existing, basically. That’s it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 16:40
|
|
|
Pirate Jet posted:This already doesn’t fly. As often mentioned, there are side details like Tony Stark inventing free renewable energy and it affecting nothing, but the criticism of the MCU not having consequences doesn’t just apply to the background lore, it applies to its own plot. The films frequently feature such earth-shattering revelations as “the US government is secretly run by Nazis that are more Nazi than regular Nazis” but nothing in future films is affected by that. In Ragnarok, Thor loses his eye and his hammer and then immediately gets them back in the next film (I guess it’s an axe now, who cares.) This all comes to a head with Civil War, highly hyped as “the most consequential movie of the MCU!” when what happened was Cap becoming a fugitive and then not mentioned again until he was no longer a fugitive, and Rhodey getting prosthetics that won’t show up outside his suit. In Cap 2, he shuts down SHIELD and you don't have SHIELD, as a meaningful entity in future movies, where previously SHIELD was extremely important to the overall MCU beforehand. What else needs to happen there to you? This is what I talk about when I mentioned easily moved goalposts. What is the actual level of consequence do people need to have in something? It meets my minimum level, but mine is clearly calibrated differently than yours. Same with Rhodey getting prosthetics - what do you want them to do to show how crippled he is? He was literally wearing a harness around his legs in Infinity War when he wasn't in his suit, after a scene in Civil War of him wearing a harness and that it allows him to walk. Cap was a fugitive, but he is allowed in Wakanda. Do we need a scene of him doing Cap things in one of the movies that doesn't involve him to make it OK for the MCU to just fiat it? Why is what Cap has been doing relevant when the only answer immediately relevant to Infinity War is "Not reconciling with Tony" and "Being a fugitive"? Why does having some scene dedicated to more basic information regarding what he's been doing in the interim improve the story?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 17:10
|
|
|
Zodiac5000 posted:Why is what Cap has been doing relevant when the only answer immediately relevant to Infinity War is "Not reconciling with Tony" and "Being a fugitive"?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 17:16
|
|
|
Other than it being a focal point of a conversation right at the start of Infinity War, one where his status as fugitive was commented on by Banner to impress upon Tony how incredibly unimportant their political squabbles are in the face of Thanos. Cap being a fugitive also informs how his return to the Avengers compound is received and why he's not in or around New York during the attack, doesn't it?
Zodiac5000 fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Nov 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 17:27
|
|
|
Zodiac5000 posted:In Cap 2, he shuts down SHIELD and you don't have SHIELD, as a meaningful entity in future movies, where previously SHIELD was extremely important to the overall MCU beforehand. The next Avengers movie after Winter Soldier features Samuel Jackson and helicarries in action, so no, not really. Zodiac5000 posted:Other than it being a focal point of a conversation right at the start of Infinity War, one where his status as fugitive was commented on by Banner to impress upon Tony how incredibly unimportant their political squabbles are Great job invalidating the previous Avengers movie.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 17:45
|
|
|
Zodiac5000 posted:Other than it being a focal point of a conversation right at the start of Infinity War, one where his status as fugitive was commented on by banner Banner to impress upon Tony how incredibly unimportant their political squabbles are in the face of Thanos. Cap being a fugitive also informs how his return to the Avengers compound is received and why he's not in or around New York during the attack, doesn't it? For the last point, it doesn't really, because the way the MCU is already set up (like serialized comics) you already get weird discrepancies where certain heroes are mysteriously absent from big events. Like I wouldn't assume Cap would be on hand for any random dust up in NY (and at least in WS he is based out of Washington D.C.) but I would expect him to be involved when the president of the US is kidnapped in IM3. I would expect Tony to show up at least near the tail end of a huge sky battle in D.C. that involved his tech. You don't get that so it already sets the expectation that it's just going to be whoever the writers decided to place in the scene. But what I think people want is consequences that affect the actual plot and characterization, not background details/throw away lines that show "oh yeah we remember that this happened in a previous movie". Like if Cap's absence from the Avengers is what caused members to start splitting and led to a disorganized defense when Thanos' gang first arrived. We don't see that, and while we see Ross yell at Cap we don't see any kind of actual retaliation against his/Rhodes' insubordination. Rhodes' paralysis could have affected how he acted in general, feeling depressed/less capable when they went to recruit him or causing him pain/fatigue during the actual battle. Instead it's a costume detail that shows "oh yeah they fixed that with tech magic" and yet in CW we could've seen this kind of medical tech actually affecting the plot point of "people are pissed that the Avengers are causing collateral damage which is killing and crippling people".
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 17:47
|
|
|
Zodiac5000 posted:Other than it being a focal point of a conversation right at the start of Infinity War, one where his status as fugitive was commented on by Banner to impress upon Tony how incredibly unimportant their political squabbles are in the face of Thanos.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 18:23
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:But what I think people want is consequences that affect the actual plot and characterization, not background details/throw away lines that show "oh yeah we remember that this happened in a previous movie". Like if Cap's absence from the Avengers is what caused members to start splitting and led to a disorganized defense when Thanos' gang first arrived. We don't see that, and while we see Ross yell at Cap we don't see any kind of actual retaliation against his/Rhodes' insubordination. You're not wrong about the first part about people not showing up at fights, that's kinda a weak point on my part because you just kinda have to take the movie at face value when characters don't show up to Fight X but do show up to Fight Y. Not much to explain it other than 'They didn't, it's comics' and I should probably be ok with that. This quoted part though, Civil War/the Sokovia accords ARE why the avengers are split up, instead of being in one place. That is why Vision and Wanda are off the grid loving in Scotland while getting Kebabs instead of with their teams, loving and pouring coffee grounds in the disposal. The scene shows that as soon as other avengers show up the Thanos spec-ops team retreats, because they are no longer in the fight they tried to pick. Vision and Wanda having reason to be separated from their two groups is what allows the fight to happen, and they are alone because they care about each other (something established in prior movies) and because their two teams are opposed to each other (also established in prior movies). There's even dialogue about how Vision is off-grid from Tony to Bruce. Vision's resultant injury/protecting Vision drives several scenes across the rest of the movie. To keep building off your examples, lets take Rhodey. In Infinity War he makes some sarcastic comments to the Secretary of Defense about how he has 'paid for his choices' and then joins up with Cap literally *instantly*. Do you think those actions are unconnected? Do you think that the general smartass tone and the comment about how he "Paid for his choices", clearly referencing his spinal injury, he gives the secretary is indicative of somebody who displays no consideration of his injury or past actions? The events of Civil War do inform Rhodey's characterization. In previous movies he's shown as being deferential to authority, talking about how the Accords are the United Nations, and how disregarding them is dangerously arrogant. After he gets injured he displays less respect for authority, acknowledges the outcome of his choice, and then does something he had previously rejected doing. Doesn't that show prior movies informing the characterization and plot? Would I love more scenes of Rhodey showing those traits develope? sure. That would take either another Iron Man movie focusing on Rhodey (not something I really want but if others do that's cool! I'd take more marvel movies) or it takes scenes in the existing movies, where I don't think they really would add to the movie? If we put a scene of the consequences of his insubordination, what does that scene look like? Is it a short 3 second dialogue piece about how he's going to face court martial (which is what we got in IW "That's a court-martial" and all that)? Is it a 3 minute scene of him being told he's expelled from the military and being sad about it or protesting it? That seems out of place in a movie about how somebody is trying to genocide reality. How much time in CW should be dedicated to Tony explaining how his magic tech means literally everybody on earth can walk now even if injured, so collateral damage arguments aren't that big a deal? How much time needs to be dedicated to that and situations like it instead of dedicated to things that directly move along the story of a given movie? (Assuming we all agree that a scene of Rhodey getting chewed out by military brass is not the primary plot of Infinity War. If folks think that scene would move along the story of "Thanos getting gems" then ok, I guess. I disagree but ok.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 18:27
|
|
|
Zodiac5000 posted:In Cap 2, he shuts down SHIELD and you don't have SHIELD, as a meaningful entity in future movies, where previously SHIELD was extremely important to the overall MCU beforehand. What else needs to happen there to you? This is what I talk about when I mentioned easily moved goalposts. What is the actual level of consequence do people need to have in something? It meets my minimum level, but mine is clearly calibrated differently than yours. Same with Rhodey getting prosthetics - what do you want them to do to show how crippled he is? He was literally wearing a harness around his legs in Infinity War when he wasn't in his suit, after a scene in Civil War of him wearing a harness and that it allows him to walk. Cap was a fugitive, but he is allowed in Wakanda. Do we need a scene of him doing Cap things in one of the movies that doesn't involve him to make it OK for the MCU to just fiat it? Why is what Cap has been doing relevant when the only answer immediately relevant to Infinity War is "Not reconciling with Tony" and "Being a fugitive"? Why does having some scene dedicated to more basic information regarding what he's been doing in the interim improve the story? Shield was never "extremely important to the overall MCU beforehand." They were just a generic CIA pastiche and their role could be taken over by any of the big letter agencies, like CIA, FBI, TSA, DHS, TMI etc. In fact in black panther, they did just that! (with hilarious thematic consequences). And Shield wasn't even gone, they popped back up in the next god drat movie with yet another helicarrier. How is this a meaningful consequence? And how is Rhodey getting semi-paralyzed impactful? Do we see him struggling with his newfound disability, does it meaningfully alter his character or relationship with the other heroes? No, it was milked for 2 minutes of drama and then promptly forgotten. That's what we are all bitching about. MCU is a god drat soap opera for nerds, everything is ephemeral, there are no lasting consequences, nothing matters, and it seems that the only appeal of these movies is to watch characters people like being snarky to each other. And that's fine, but let's not pretend the MCU has "depth" or any meaningful worldbuilding. It's a flat cardboard universe entirely held up by the charisma of (some) of the actors.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 18:37
|
|
|
Shield is pretty much the glue of the MCU through Winter soldier, isn't it? Shield gets them together at the end of their individual movies or even as part of the movies themselves (like in Thor), SHIELD gets a pretty decent amount of screen time in movies up until it goes kaput, doesn't it? I guess "Extremely" is debateable, but it's not like they're not important. SHIELD, the organization, doesn't show back up does it? I don't remember too many specifics about AoU, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but the whole deal was supposed to be that Nick had a spare helicarrier stowed away, right, not that SHIELD still existed? If you want to argue whether or not Nick Fury and a helicarrier constitute SHIELD I suppose you can, but I'd have a tough time buying it. "Spymaster has contingency plans and access to hidden gear from their old spy org" is a pretty common trope for characters that I don't really view it as remaking or undoing SHIELD's disbanding. I literally pointed out some Rhodey changes between his CW character and his IW character. If you want a movie of him dealing deeply with his disability, or displaying more significant changes, I agree! I woudn't turn down that movie! I'm less interested in that movie than about the one where Thanos looks for gems to kill people with, but I wouldn't turn it down! As it stands though, dedicating 15 minutes to War Machine's PTSD probably shouldn't be part of Infinity War, because it doesn't really have anything to do with "Purple Man Wants Gems". I'm also glad that it is fine that the movies are what they present themselves as (nerd soap opera), and I'm glad you recognize it's fine. Now go find somebody who has argued anything about how deep and amazing the world is and talk about it with them, because I have no dog in that race and think you will have to find an abysmally stupid person to take that position. I would also probably just not engage with that person because I doubt you're going to change their mind. If your beef is with people who say Thanos is the deepest thing out there or that Iron Man 1 is the Citizen Kane of the 2000s go find them, because I haven't said a thing about that either. Those people are loving dumb. The MCU world is not a deep fountain of insight into modern issues or a place where fully faceted characters who will always be internally consistent will exist. I literally started off part of this whole discussion acknowledging how if you look even slightly into into the characters they all come out as horrifying monsters. Like you said, it is quite shallow. I hope nobody is convinced I think the MCU is a grand cinematic achievement of depth in worldbuilding. It's not. I'm not judging it by those standards, I think folks that are judging it that way and find it somehow able to pass that bar are... off.. in the head.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 19:03
|
|
|
1) SHEILD was never portrayed clearly or consistently across the films to begin with. 2) SHEILD, the organization, shows back up immediately after being disbanded. 3) The MCU is Citizen Kane.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 19:16
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:3) The MCU is Citizen Kane. poo poo, you saw through my clever ruse...
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 19:44
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:1) SHEILD quote:2) SHEILD Why do you do this?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 19:50
|
|
|
Timby posted:Why do you do this?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 19:52
|
|
|
McCloud posted:Shield was never "extremely important to the overall MCU beforehand." They were just a generic CIA pastiche and their role could be taken over by any of the big letter agencies, like CIA, FBI, TSA, DHS, TMI etc. In fact in black panther, they did just that! (with hilarious thematic consequences). And Shield wasn't even gone, they popped back up in the next god drat movie with yet another helicarrier. How is this a meaningful consequence?  Age of Ultron and the other flicks immediately following Winter Soldier were the worst for it because Winter Soldier was the one that most ended on a note of holy poo poo stuff HAS to be permanently changed now. Not just because Cap takes down SHIELD but like, Fury/etc. talk to him about how there's good people in SHIELD and not all of them are Then in Age of Ultron Fury is, like, in charge of a helicarrier that's been sitting around somehow, like technically they're "remnants of SHIELD" but for practical purposes it's like SHIELD never left, Fury is still a big time secret government dude and can call upon a freakin' helicarrier when needed and the US government is cool with that.  Then at the end the government lets the Avengers live in a huge SHIELD facility upstate for some reason. Then after how those movies played out in Civil War they had to do a lot mental gymnastics to get Cap on the side of "folks shouldn't register" and Iron Man on the side of "folks should register" and make both of them huge morons to get them on the same sides they were on in the comics. Like that part where Cap is literally signing the accords but then doesn't just because he learns Scarlet Witch is under house arrest until she learns how to not accidentally explode people.Soap opera for nerds is the exact perfect description, and while they're part of the big picture I think part of why Ragnarok and the Guardians movies are my favorite is because relatively their stories are much more "out there" than the rest. There's nothing wrong with them being a soap opera for nerds, but I do think part of why there's so much discussion about a presence/lack of depth in them and so on is because of how effective their marketing hype is for a lot of people. I think people aren't happy with just saying that, yeah, I enjoyed this goofy superhero movie, so the search is on for unnecessary personal validation. Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Nov 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
scarlet witch never accidentally explodes a person
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 19:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 04:38 |
|
|
Brother Entropy posted:scarlet witch never accidentally explodes a person I mean I thought she did it on purpose at first too but they make it pretty clear that her bomb disposal method was an accidental impulse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 20:00
|
|