|
Given the way the characters arcs in endgame play out, it clearly should have been Thor
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 02:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 02:44 |
|
|
teagone posted:But just because the movie is able to put up an effective show of drama and is directly aimed to hit the feels, that's not enough to distract me from my own opinion of "Wait, why didn't Cap die instead? That makes way more sense to me." It doesn’t really, though. Not narratively or dramatically. Infinity War and Endgame are all about paying off what came before. What’s Steve’s payoff? Where’s he at by that point? We know his biggest fear, as established in Age of Ultron, is being without a cause to champion. He fights the fight and can’t imagine doing anything else. Peggy, who was once beloved to him, has come to represent that anxiety as per his Wanda-induced hallucination. Then he sees Peggy again, the real Peggy, and kind of remembers what they’d had. If he dies at the end, the resolution to that is “Oh, okay. I guess he never had to resolve that, did he? He just sacrificed himself like he’s been doing since the first movie.” That’s not even really a flat character arc, that’s a character’s arc building towards one thing, then doubling back to the beginning. Which I guess could work, if you wanted Steve’s resolution to be tragic and unfulfilling.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 03:11
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:It doesn’t really, though. Not narratively or dramatically. I disagree.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 12:13
|
|
|
I think this may have topped the Snyderdome, Transformers analysis threads, etc to become the most CD-rear end thread CD has ever had.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 13:25
|
|
|
Tony spends every movie telling Steve, "You should enjoy your life for yourself." Steve spends every movie telling Tony, "You should do your duty to others." It ends with Tony doing his duty to others and Steve enjoying his life for himself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 13:49
|
|
|
Selfish bastards.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 13:53
|
|
|
I feel like the Snyderdome has been pretty chill for a while now? Unless there was a recent slapfight I missed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 14:54
|
|
|
Arist posted:This thread has been badgering me about why I think Black Panther is more culturally important than the output of an obscure Ugandan film studio. That happened today. Like, hours ago. If I do not explicitly define the parameters of my argument, people here will absolutely weaponize any perceived vagueness. ----- More alternate MCU lists please, it's thousands of times more interesting to read than arguments about Captain America's power levels or whatever: For my money Tropic Thunder is definitely an MCU movie; with RDJ even playing essentially the same character: temperamental 'genius' who is using technology to replicate what other characters bring to the table naturally; covering for deep insecurity and addiction by constructing and inhabiting an alternate persona. The arc of the movie is a team of divergent personalities overcoming internal conflict in the course of confronting an external threat; in particular a threat that totally changes the context of their struggles. This of course all means that the iron man armor is actually just blackface.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 16:48
|
|
|
HookedOnChthonics posted:Catching up on this thread all in one day I will note with a hearty lmao that you were questioned about Nigerian film in the course of trying to defend why you think that the imprimatur of a Disney exec is the legitimating mark of black cinema. Inasmuch as even in the first film he’s already built an intelligent robotic slave, and proceeds to build like 40 more and continue to refine them and give them increasing levels of self awareness...kinda
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 17:10
|
|
|
 And really this point also speaks the fundamental symbolist-vs-literalist disconnect at the heart of CineD, of which this thread is a perfect microcosm: some people want to discuss how the droids in Star Wars are slaves; others are like, "No, they wouldn't be called robots if they could feel pain. Whip them harder." vvv "Actually that droid was just getting its locomotors annealed for increased durability. This helps the droid. Why would Jabba mistreat his useful, productive property?" Of course I'm using the debate around the term "droid" in the SW threads as an analogy for the kind of discourse happening here around "Marvel Cinematic Universe:" whether we, as consumers, are obligated to take marketing at its word and work within those confines, or whether we can discuss, well, whatever we want—as long as it's relevant to the images on the screen & text of the film in question. The Arist types are of the opinion that, no, it's up to Disney what is and is not MCU (and what is and is not the "first black (major, before you cry out about Meteor Man or Steel) superhero movie [...] about not just the actual first major black superhero, but also the African diaspora, isolationism, the legacy of racism and chattel slavery, as well as [...] depiction of a pan-African vision of a technologically advanced, uncolonized African nation complete with the production design and score"). Wakanda is a good and cool and meaningful depiction of black liberation because Disney tells us so. We don't have to care when a droid dies because they don't have a soul, the back of the DVD box assures us of this. Tatooine and Jakku are different planets, see, it says so right here on this placemat. Black Panther isn't pro-imperialism because for this production Disney used a higher proportion of black employees and generated some media talking points for a news cycle or two. Others are asking what "Marvel Cinematic Universe" actually means: what ties these films together, thematically speaking? What does considering them as a canon actually achieve, and what other films flow along the same lines? And to be clear, although I definitely have opinions about which branch of analysis I think is more fruitful, Arist (and I really do not mean to contribute to a dogpile here but jfc the combativeness of their posts in this thread makes them stick out) does have a legitimate argument! They just severely undercut it by insisting that it is the only argument; self-evidently and exclusively correct; and get angry and dismissive when people ask (glibly, to be sure) for elaboration, or point out counterarguments. Instead of angryposting about how they're the only sane one left in a world gone mad, maybe try... talking a bit? 
HookedOnChthonics fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Jun 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 17:38
|
|
|
Dude if you're whipping a robot you're just working out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 18:04
|
|
|
JonathonSpectre posted:Tony spends every movie telling Steve, "You should enjoy your life for yourself." I wasn't able to pick up on this revelation. Thanks!  [edit] vvvv Yeah. I just feel like the Tony post-Iron Man 3 up until Endgame wouldn't have made that choice. Would've been much more satisfying for me to see Cap bloodied and broken with shield and hammer beat Thanos and snap the gauntlet himself. Maybe I just wanted Cap to be the hero more than Tony in the end, I dunno. I do love Chris Evans a lot more than RDJ lol. teagone fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Jun 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 19:59
|
|
|
I agree with teagone that Tony's motives are suspect, basically the same unwavering god complex as Thanos. One of the few moments of pathos in these films was when Tony abandons Pepper at the beginning of Infinity War. Reminded me of military folks who do multiple tours of duty, wreaking emotional havoc on their loved ones out of an arguably misplaced sense of duty. That being said, in the Marvel movies they make it CRYSTAL clear what the stakes are, so Tony's sacrifice feels appropriate. So from a story standpoint I dig the below summary: JonathonSpectre posted:Tony spends every movie telling Steve, "You should enjoy your life for yourself."
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 20:11
|
|
|
It's not like Tony's sacrifice doesn't have impact, it's a dude dying so other people can live, but on some level isn't it undercut by the fact that if he doesn't do the snap, he (and everyone else) just dies anyway? I think the Tony Snap works less as an act of selflessness and more the moment when Stark finally realizes he's just a mortal with no more outs. The nauseating flip side of that is that he gets like 20 minutes of every character in the MCU weeping over
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 21:06
|
|
|
I will say about the Marvel films, "make the sacrifice play" is an incredibly stupid and weird sounding turn of phrase.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 21:12
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:I will say about the Marvel films, "make the sacrifice play" is an incredibly stupid and weird sounding turn of phrase. Joss Whedon is garbage. Fuckin' thumb-rear end looking piece of poo poo too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 21:39
|
|
|
Timby posted:Nuance? Civil War is essentially as bad as Star Trek: Insurrection in terms of requiring the main characters to all act like loving idiots. I always saw them as being so pre-occupied with their own mental health problems (For example, Tony's PTSD and anxieties (Esp. at the middle of the film, him almost losing Rhodey), Cap's abandonment anxiety (Through the medium of him losing his world/Losing Bucky)) that they just do not have the mental clarity to see that they're acting against their own interests. They both have the same anxieties (Loss of the people around them), they manifest in different but similar ways, and their anxieties interact and put them in a downward spiral. When you are in those situations, speaking as someone who has Been There, you simply don't have the ability to introspect, it's fundamentally broken. And neither of them had any support systems that were working. I'm surprised the outcome wasn't worse, to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 22:03
|
|
|
teagone posted:This is where they dropped the ball with Captain Marvel, or at least, wrote themselves into a corner I think, with how the character was hyped/built up. It felt like she had uncontested possession of the gauntlet for a good long while and likely could have dusted Thanos and his armies with the stones given that she was able "no sell" a direct headbutt from Thanos himself. That Tony dying was the only scenario where they won makes his act of self-annhilation feel a little less weighty imo. It's ultimately fanservice at the expense of logic, and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm just critical of the whole idea that it had to be Stark, and the choices in the writing that were made to get there. I agree, but can you imagine the outburst that would have happened if Captain Marvel, famously an "Ess Jay Double-yew" clicking the gauntlet and living would be. She's too new and has too much potential to kill her off, story-wise and franchise-wise it would have been a bit weird, to introduce someone whose character was only supposed to die.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 22:13
|
|
|
alexandriao posted:I agree, but can you imagine the outburst that would have happened if Captain Marvel, famously an "Ess Jay Double-yew" clicking the gauntlet and living would be. She's too new and has too much potential to kill her off, story-wise and franchise-wise it would have been a bit weird, to introduce someone whose character was only supposed to die. I'm sure there could have been some way to write a scenario where Captain Marvel dusts Thanos and his armies that would've been super satisfying, while still giving Tony and/or Cap some kind of death scene. But yeah, I get that going that route—however cool they would have made it—would almost certainly garner a divisive reaction for obvious reasons. I would have been fine with it, despite not even enjoying the Captain Marvel movie all that much. But no way they'd kill off Carol in any scenario surrounding her using the stones; I would think she'd snap the gauntlet in her super saiyan mode and be all badass about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2020 22:31
|
|
|
HookedOnChthonics posted:.... Good thoughts overall. But as to your final plea, the issue is that it requires a leap of faith: Arist, and those of his illk, do not believe that these heterodox readings could possibly be genuine (Hence the persistent insistence that the 'opposition' are all frauds) or are otherwise unfair (Black Panther is far too self-evidently important to too many black people to criticize so flippantly). The fantasy, if I may be so bold to articulate, is that if only CineD would stop being so smug and culty, then finally MCU films can be discussed shamelessly and freely by the previously censored masses, thereby saving this dead and gay forum. What this represses is how MCU films discussed in such a manner have been so far an exercise in utter banality, as we pontificate Captain America's inconsistent power level or the various ways in which Captain Marvel triggers misogynists. To add onto the thoughts of others regarding the high concentration of CineDness in this thread: I don't think anything will ever top the insanity wrought by SMG's Jakku is Tatooine reading in one of the Star Wars threads. It's almost a work of art how traumatic, and hilarious, the wake of it was. KVeezy3 fucked around with this message at 02:24 on Jun 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2020 00:38
|
|
|
Arist accusing me of blaming others' enjoyment resulting in my own lack of it wrt to engaging with Black Panther was a pretty bold statement. [edit] As an aside, this post has gone underappreciated imo. Made me lol. BiggestBatman posted:I've just returned from my underground lair with the perfect watching order for a new viewer of the MCU. Spoilers for all the films follow teagone fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Jun 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2020 00:45
|
|
|
I don’t understand any of this argument, because obviously Tony is going to kill Thanos. He’s the protagonist of this series. He was in 9 of 22 movies, is why the MCU became popular in the first place, and was arguably the lead in 7 of them. Like, his last spoken line is the same as that from Iron Man. His experience going through a space portal motivated the whole “armor around the world” poo poo from Ultron, and the nightmare scene from that directly predicted Thanos’ devastation in IW. It was always going to be Iron Man. Why do you think they had the whole “I hope they remember you” scene? To make the Thanos interaction personal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2020 09:39
|
|
|
Xealot posted:I don’t understand any of this argument, because obviously Tony is going to kill Thanos. He’s the protagonist of this series. He was in 9 of 22 movies, is why the MCU became popular in the first place, and was arguably the lead in 7 of them. The basic point of the Tony Stark character is that his endless pursuit of ‘world peace’ is entirely at odds with his ruthless, hardly-mitigated capitalist exploitation. He is fuelled by disavowed violence, far more powerful than his stolen alien futuretech. Stark’s inability to reconcile the two is repeated again - and again - and again - and again, because he is unable to imagine true world peace through an end to capitalism. So, the ending of Endgame (awful title btw) ‘makes sense’ - but it’s also a bad ending where the character basically declares that things will never change or get better. War will never end. He just kind of arbitrarily dies here instead of back in Afghanistan, a failure at his main goal - but with cheerful tone!!! Likewise, the basic point of the Steve Rogers character is his inability to reconcile his belief in American institutions of power with those same institutions’ actual horrible practices - so his ending is to retreat into a fantasy world. Again, this ‘makes sense’ but is also a bad ending where nothing gets better, and the hero admits that he’s failed. But the tone is very pleasant!!! Meanwhile, my curated MCU exhibition (currently) ends with the Earth rendered totally inhospitable by climate change, and overtaken by mutated baboons. ... Anyways, In the days following of the Apocalyptic Thread Event, we have seen an astonishing 300% increase in curation of the MCU for a first-time viewer. Complaint has been virtually eliminated, and there have been multiple declarations of movietime fun from people of all walks of life. Incredible lists from KVeezy3, BiggerBatman, I Before E, Teagone, and more. Thread status: SAVED. You can question the results, but my methods speak for themselves. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2020 14:58
|
|
|
Personally, my ideal MCU curation is just Chappie 23 times.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2020 16:15
|
|
|
teagone posted:SMG actually came up with that I think. And yeah, it's hilarious when you go back and watch the films because you can tell Doctor Strange just hates Tony based on their interactions, lol. Sherlock Holmes would hate himself pretty much by default. Thats really what it is, theyre the same character and there can only be one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2020 17:10
|
|
|
Free SMG!teagone posted:[edit] As an aside, this post has gone underappreciated imo. Made me lol. I thought it was funny too. An actual cut of the film in that manner wouldn’t be nearly as good without the manic boyfriend in the periphery. teagone posted:... "[Suffering] under the weight of a cinematic universe", is well put. Each additional film is supposed to expand the MCU, but every installment feels like it retroactively contracts the physical space of the universe. Spider-Man: Homecoming is a particularly good example, where Iron Man is an almost stifling presence over the film. We have tons of heroes, but they have the same worldview, or come to learn the ‘correct’ one. Even in Captain America 3, the film explicitly made to be the most antagonistic, has no real disagreement between the two sides. Spider-Man sums it up succinctly when Captain America questions why he's fighting for Iron Man: "That you're wrong. You think you're right. But that's what makes you dangerous." The claustrophobic effect coalesces with the final two Avengers films where, as SMG pointed out, we become acutely aware of the narrative being bogged down by an excess of redundant characters. Additionally, the drama of this universe-wide event becomes relegated to the realm of the personal, so we get this bizarre experience where the viewer is supposed to repeatedly ask themselves if they’re willing to execute their loved ones to save the world. That said, I do think the repetition plays a large part in the MCU's commercial success. It's somehow related to Freud's death drive, but I'm not smart enough to put it together. So 23 movies later, what have we learned about our hero? How would Iron Man react to the Black Lives Matter protests? KVeezy3 fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Jun 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 16:42
|
|
|
teagone posted:MCU Spider-Man isn't Spider-Man imo. He's Iron Man Jr., or Iron Boy. Whatever. Sam Raimi made films that are more true to the character's roots that should be required viewing for any Spider-Man/comic book genre fan. Spider-Man (2002) isn't the best Spider-Man movie, but it's decent and its story doesn't suffer under the weight of a cinematic universe. Honestly, at this point I wouldn't recommend the Raimi movies to anyone unless they had a specific interest in his work or in that period of superhero film as a stylistic exercise. It's true to the characters' roots in the way Batman '89 is, in that it was a depiction that was iconic to people at its release but is maybe alienating in its stylization to those more used to later versions of the character. Into the Spider-verse is literally a best-of-all-worlds take on Spider-Man, in my opinion. It summarizes all the broad beats of the Raimi movies, but does it while deconstructing storytelling "canon" in general (that is, every Spider-person has their own origin myth that they feel is definitive, and the collision of their stories becomes funny because of it.) It also takes up a lot of the Raimi movie's themes: the Spider-people aren't inherently special, they become so through their choices. Being superheroic costs them things in their personal lives, and the ethical responsibility of their powers goes hand-in-hand with the elation of having them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 20:48
|
|
|
I would've put Into the Spider-Verse in my list, but I wanted all live-action films. And I dislike the Marc Webb movies. [edit] KVeezy3 posted:I thought it was funny too. An actual cut of the film in that manner wouldn’t be nearly as good without the manic boyfriend in the periphery. Oh yeah. This bit: BiggestBatman posted:When the Guardians of the Galaxy show up in the next scene, prepare a record scratch, turn to your girlfriend and in a surprised voice ask "Who the hell are these lovable losers??" Is what makes it all work imo, lmao. teagone fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Jun 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 20:52
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:
A probation for this? Are you kidding me? Are people not allowed to gently caress around in a thread about god drat comic book movie of all things? Ugh sponges fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Jun 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 21:15
|
|
|
Xealot posted:Honestly, at this point I wouldn't recommend the Raimi movies to anyone unless they had a specific interest in his work or in that period of superhero film as a stylistic exercise. It's true to the characters' roots in the way Batman '89 is, in that it was a depiction that was iconic to people at its release but is maybe alienating in its stylization to those more used to later versions of the character. I have heard people say that Tom Holland Spiderman to them is the definitive best take on the comics character, instead of previous movies that are weighed down by constant melodrama and the compulsive need to tell the origin story over and over that drives the former.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 22:27
|
|
|
The Raimi films in modern context, at the very least, don't dump all over the character's working class roots. The MCU "Spider-Man" by comparison has completely erased that part of Parker's core ethos by essentially making him a billion dollar trust fund baby with access to omniscient AI powered attack drones capable of orbital strikes. It works in the MCU (I guess?), but I don't like the implications of instilling that kind of worldview/power on the character. "Not My Spider-Man" basically. I understand why people like the MCU iteration, but I'm just not a fan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 23:11
|
|
|
The only criticism I've seen justifiably thrown at the Raimi Spiderman trilogy is the Bonesaw scene, and even that has Bruce Campbell and Randy Savage just loving owning, as well as shots and stunts that loving owned but you don't see anymore. edit; Oh and plus the whole "Peter should invent his web shooters" which is some dumb nerd poo poo. Spiderman can be both a puberty metaphor and have the whole "actually Peter Parker is a supergenius" thing simultaneously.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2020 23:53
|
|
|
teagone posted:The Raimi films in modern context, at the very least, don't dump all over the character's working class roots. The MCU "Spider-Man" by comparison has completely erased that part of Parker's core ethos by essentially making him a billion dollar trust fund baby with access to omniscient AI powered attack drones capable of orbital strikes. It works in the MCU (I guess?), but I don't like the implications of instilling that kind of worldview/power on the character. "Not My Spider-Man" basically. I understand why people like the MCU iteration, but I'm just not a fan. I think generally the ideas were: (A) Iron Man "adopts" Spiderman as a son and successor, because he sees in Spiderman someone without his baggage and another way for himself to leave lasting good in the world for all the poo poo he's done. (B) Iron Man showing up at Spiderman's doorstep out of nowhere to get him to fight Captain America was maybe the 100% Most Weird as gently caress way you could introduce Spiderman. But as always there's a lot of winking in the MCU, i.e. "Yeah we all know the Spiderman backstory and how there's been five effing movies about it, let's move on." (C) The Iron Man suit stuff is used as a way to "freshen up" the MCU version and give him something new to do, while leaning on the comics for inspiration the way people generally like. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Spider (D) He is positioned as the most easily relatable character for most people without having to resort to Whedonism "absolutely everyone is a dumb teenager" writing and jokes about Ben & Jerry's flavors. I would say he has landed very well with the MCU fanbase and is probably now the most popular character. Because of the cosmic orientation of the Avengers movies he is not saving a lot of babies from burning buildings in Hell's Kitchen. I don't think there's a lot of dislike for the first two Raimi movies in particular but it's very much been done. He definitely goes to the nice high school now though. Into the Spiderverse I thought aside from just being a technically amazing movie I thought illustrated that you can both explain Spiderman and make a movie that isn't completely dominated by heavy topics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 00:22
|
|
|
Who doesn't like Spider-man 1 and 2? They're great!
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 00:44
|
|
|
teagone posted:The MCU "Spider-Man" by comparison has completely erased that part of Parker's core ethos by essentially making him a billion dollar trust fund baby with access to omniscient AI powered attack drones capable of orbital strikes. Yes, absolutely. It "makes sense" for the MCU, where all of their heroes default to a similar ideology of liberal capitalism because they're all employed by a benevolent corporation. There's no space for a plot about Peter's poverty because the society he defends is a meritocracy that rewards decency with wealth. I do like Tom Holland as Peter with respect to his performance. He projects youthful enthusiasm and vulnerability well, feels believably intelligent and mature for his age, and he nails irreverence and humor when he needs to (a balance I don't think Andrew Garfield or Tobey Maguire struck.) But who cares, when the stories he's in feel as anodyne and risk-free as these?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 00:51
|
|
|
sponges posted:A probation for this? Are you kidding me? Are people not allowed to gently caress around in a thread about god drat comic book movie of all things? Most people don't find dudes larping as a forums superstar end boss funny, they find it soul searingly cringe and annoying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 01:07
|
|
|
OpenSourceBurger posted:Most people don't find dudes larping as a forums superstar end boss funny, they find it soul searingly cringe and annoying. Do you have a link to the latest polling on that
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 02:03
|
|
|
teagone posted:
Thank you my dear friend
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 02:34
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The basic point of the Tony Stark character is that his endless pursuit of ‘world peace’ is entirely at odds with his ruthless, hardly-mitigated capitalist exploitation. He is fuelled by disavowed violence, far more powerful than his stolen alien futuretech. Stark’s inability to reconcile the two is repeated again - and again - and again - and again, because he is unable to imagine true world peace through an end to capitalism. This reads like a fair analysis, tbh. But I don't have the chops to tell for sure
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 02:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 02:44 |
|
|
I Before E posted:Do you have a link to the latest polling on that See: every other forum’s feelings about CD
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 05:45
|
|