Is the Marvel Age Of Movies Done?

[chicago_bastard]

Anyone claiming the Black Widow film is unnecessary or "bad" because Natasha is dead in the present completely missed the point. The film isn't about Natasha, it's about Yelena. This is her origin film and directly plays into future MCU content.

The film is about Natasha, Yelena is a textbook example of a supporting character. Everything Yelena does in the movie is connected to Nat. The main plot revolves around Natasha making up for past sins and coming to terms with her "family". Moreover Natasha gets all major action scenes, in fact Yelena doesn't have a single one of note besides fighting Nat, and well, Nat is also involved in that one. Literally everything points to Natasha as the protagonist.

Do we get introduced to Yelena as a character? Of course, that alone doesn't make it her movie though.

[80sbaby]

The film is about Natasha, Yelena is a textbook example of a supporting character. Everything Yelena does in the movie is connected to Nat. The main plot revolves around Natasha making up for past sins and coming to terms with her "family". Moreover Natasha gets all major action scenes, in fact Yelena doesn't have a single one of note besides fighting Nat, and well, Nat is also involved in that one. Literally everything points to Natasha as the protagonist.

Do we get introduced to Yelena as a character? Of course, that alone doesn't make it her movie though.

You're viewing it through the wrong lens then, I'd say.

[green_garnish]

You're viewing it through the wrong lens then, I'd say.

It's a heck of a lens, though, to completely blot out all of Yelena's action scenes

[chicago_bastard]

You're viewing it through the wrong lens then, I'd say.

I'm viewing it through the professional lense. There are screenwriting rules to determine the protagonist and Natasha ticks all the boxes.

Or one could look at the quantitative measure and realize that the difference in screentime between Natasha and Yelena is actually bigger than the gap between Yelena's and Alexei's screentime.

[green_garnish]

The film is about Natasha, Yelena is a textbook example of a supporting character.

It's a shame you left the movie with such a superficial sense of the film. There was little about any aspect of it that was textbook. Certainly not the characterization. Both sisters grew, as individuals, as siblings, and as family. Both had their share of action. Scarlett was the headliner and was inevitably going to get a few more beats, but they did a great job of not overshadowing Yelena.

[green_garnish]

Or one could look at the quantitative measure and realize that the difference in screentime between Natasha and Yelena is actually bigger than the gap between Yelena's and Alexei's screentime.

Just to be that guy....

Natasha: 1:42
Yelena: 1:17
Alexei: 0:51

[chicago_bastard]

It's a shame you left the movie with such a superficial sense of the film. There was little about any aspect of it that was textbook. Certainly not the characterization. Both sisters grew, as individuals, as siblings, and as family. Both had their share of action. Scarlett was the headliner and was inevitably going to get a few more beats, but they did a great job of not overshadowing Yelena.

I meant textbook in a sense of that's how a supporting character should be done, not to diminish her. She was obviously great.

Just to be that guy....

Natasha: 1:42
Yelena: 1:17
Alexei: 0:51

I'm pretty sure your numbers are way too high for all of them, this list https://www.imdb.com/list/ls027954311/ seems more accurate and has Nat at 65 minutes, Yelena at 41 and Alexei at 24.

Anyway, no need to argue about that as your numbers also point to Nat as the focal point of the movie.

[Gorthon616]

This is kind of a departure for me, and what's expressed here are strictly my own observations, and not intended to be received as Absolute Truth. Just my reactions to things.

1. Disney+ has not had a series as good as Netflix Iron Fist, let alone Daredevil (which wasn't outstanding by any stretch). As I watch Loki, for instance, I understand less about what the hell is going on than I did the episode before. I'm still not sure what the story of WandaVision was.

2. Movies have been sub-par, by Marvel standards. Thinking all the way back to Doctor Strange, which I loved, it seems now to be a pretty small story trying to be grandiose. Its primary purpose seems to establish the time stone in the MCU. I barely remember the love interest, if that's what she was, Dormammu comes off as less of a threat than Red Skull. Ant Man and the Wasp - I don't really remember what that was about, or why it was important (or even if it was important). GotG 2 I remember hardlty at all. I watched it for the second time a few months ago and was surprised to recall that Kurt Russell, one of my favorite actors, was even in it. Today I can't remember what the story was. Captain Marvel I also don't remember well. I know they did a great job making Samuel L. Jackson look age appropriate, but what was the story and why should I care about it?

It seems like more and more the Marvel Age of Movies is becoming quite forgettable. Granted, anything there (excepting perhaps Aquaman) is better than the latest DC movies by an incalculable margin, but still...I'm forgetting more of what I see in MCU stuff than I'm remembering. The first 10 years are like Beatles songs - name any one and I can recall it beat for beat.

Anyone else feeling this? Are you as excited for the next 10 years as you were the last 10 years?

1) I like them more than you, but I definitely think they aren't as good as the better Netflix shows (I would say that they are probably better than Iron Fist). Also, Age of Movies != Netflix both as not being movies, and being headed by different people.

2) I always though Dr. Strange was mediocre, tbh. Captain Marvel, was even more mediocre. Ant Man and the Wasp was fun, I don't really know what it matters about being important (and it kinda was, in certain regards). But even if it wasn't, so what? GotG 2 was great, imo.

I think saying that an "Age" of the MCU has passed, but more like in the same way that there was a "Golden Age" of comics. So, yes, but I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. People may or may not like the new stuff. They may or may not forget the old stuff. I really don't think that changes anything.

People forget movie plots that they love all the time. I mean, people think some Mandela effect happened because they think Vader said "Luke, I am your father" when, you know he didn't. The idea that a movie being good or you enjoying a movie meaning that you have to retain some photographic memory of it, I think is completely insensible.

[WebLurker]

Let me just put it best in James Mangold own words.

https://www.cinemablend.com/news/163...perhero-movies

''Tentpole movies in general, they are not movies, generally. They are bloated exercises in two-hour trailers for another movie they are going to sell you in two years. There are so many characters that each character gets an arch of about six and a half minutes at best, and I'm not exaggerating. You take 120 minutes, you take 45 of it for action, what are you left with, divide it by six characters, you have the character arc of Elmer Fudd in a Warner Brothers cartoon. That formula is empty for me''.

I find it hysterical that the guy hates "tentpole" movies (never minding that he's generalizing across the board rather than assessing things case-by-case) despite making two such movies himself for the X-Men series.

[Castle]

I find it hysterical that the guy hates "tentpole" movies (never minding that he's generalizing across the board rather than assessing things case-by-case) despite making two such movies himself for the X-Men series.

I don't think he directly hates tempole movies. What Mangold just wants is to make his own movies and not really have to primary answer to anyone or have a Kevin Feige type telling him what to do because there is some bigger thing otuthere, that ends up reducing his own movies to nothing more but set ups, trailers or a part of some puzzle. James Gunn has also said sort of the same thing, when he admitted he never took into account the events of Birds of Prey when he made SS 2. I don't think Gunn even saw Birds of Prey.

Also His X-MEN movies were still pretty much self contained and their own thing, to the point he goes around calling Logan not really a direct continuation of any of the past films and he was very vocal about him making Logan on his own terms alone.

[Username taken]

I find it hysterical that the guy hates "tentpole" movies (never minding that he's generalizing across the board rather than assessing things case-by-case) despite making two such movies himself for the X-Men series.

Quoted for truth.

This is like criticizing someone else for drinking a soda while guzzling down a 7-up. Mangold himself directed tentpole movies from the Fox X-men universe conveyor belt, he's literally criticizing the exact thing that he's done before.

Mangold directed Logan and The Wolverine, both large scale blockbusters and in The Wolverine's case directly led into DoFP. Heck, The Wolverine had the dream scenes of Jean Grey flashed in between, it was NOT a stand alone movie. It's a stunning lack of self-awareness on Mangold's part and if this is what he feels, then he should have kept his feelings to himself.

[WebLurker]

I don't think he directly hates tempole movies. What Mangold just wants is to make his own movies and not really have to primary answer to anyone or have a Kevin Feige type telling him what to do because there is some bigger thing otuthere, that ends up reducing his own movies to nothing more but set ups, trailers or a part of some puzzle. James Gunn has also said sort of the same thing, when he admitted he never took into account the events of Birds of Prey when he made SS 2. I don't think Gunn even saw Birds of Prey.

Maybe. Seems like Gunn is good about working within the system when asked, though (and I suppose Birds of Prey being an "unreliable narrator" story does give it more leeway in terms of how it does or doesn't fit with the other movies). Course, given how the DCEU's interconnected cinematic universe is defined by how nothing really connects anymore, guess I wouldn't have a huge problem with it. (Heck, beyond the throwaway jokes, Birds of Prey doesn't fit very well with SS1.)

Also His X-MEN movies were still pretty much self contained and their own thing, to the point he goes around calling Logan not really a direct continuation of any of the past films and he was very vocal about him making Logan on his own terms alone.

Are you frakking kidding me? They're heavily tied to the larger film series, to the point that they don't stand on their own.

The Wolverine is a direct sequel to Last Stand (Logan still haunted by Jean's death and dreaming about her, when the ninja's capture him, we hear him remembering stuff from the past films, including Kayla's death in Origins: Wolverine, the end scene is a "commercial" for the next puzzle piece film, etc.).

Logan draws most of it's power from having Hugh Jackman and Sir Patrick Stewart playing the roles, thus bringing the history they have from the previous movies to bear in terms of this story. In the narrative, we see Wolverine's dog tags from the previous films, an adamatium bullet (from Origins: Wolverine) is a key maguffin, his samarai sword (from The Wolverine is hanging on the wall in one scene, Logan thinks that Xavier is rambling about their mission to the Statue of Liberty from the first movie at one point, and Xavier recalls that Logan was a drifting cage fighter before he joined the X-Men (also from the first movie). Not to mention that there was almost a Sabretooth cameo and a deleted subplot of Logan grieving Jean's death all over again. While some of the references are more than a little odd (given that Logan would've ostensibly been set in the new timeline), the only point they serve is to remind the viewers of the previous films and tie this movie to them as a finale of sorts. (Also, Apocalypse and New Mutants tied themselves to Logan via the mutant cloning project.)

So, yeah, despite messy continuity and being really good, Mangold's X-Men movies are the exact same kind of tentpole film he disparages. There is a place for true stand alones, but we need to get past this myth that long running series movies are inherently bad, just because they're part of a larger series and will continue beyond themselves.

[Castle]

Maybe. Seems like Gunn is good about working within the system when asked, though (and I suppose Birds of Prey being an "unreliable narrator" story does give it more leeway in terms of how it does or doesn't fit with the other movies). Course, given how the DCEU's interconnected cinematic universe is defined by how nothing really connects anymore, guess I wouldn't have a huge problem with it. (Heck, beyond the throwaway jokes, Birds of Prey doesn't fit very well with SS1.)
.

Birds of Prey is not an unreliable narrator, it is a cannon movie still part of the DCEU. Additionally it will not be directly accurate to say just because DCEU is now more loosened with their movies, Gunn will not have a problem with it. Gunn himself has spoken about how SS2 was his best film experience, DCEU gave him freedom to do what he wants, including killing of characters not to mention Gunn SS2 is rated R and R rating is not used on every DCEU movie, unless ofcourse the directors want it. It feels ridiculous to make any comparison to Gunn directing a DC and MCU film, considering MCU directors have to stick to certain rules. rules I am sure James Mangold will never have gone along with it.



The X-MEN spin off like Deadpool and New Mutants were not all that connected to the main films like the MCU shared universe. Part of the whole point of DOFP was to try and do some kind of pseudo reboot that will not really have any connection to the older films anymore. So, we got the stick that X-MEN Apocalypse and Dark Phoenix taking place in a different timeline or whatever the mess those were.


There is a misconception about what Mangold actually meant, when he says connecting movies. I think X-MEN movies should be more compared to other franchises like Harry Potter, Fast and Furious, The first Batman film series and James Bond because they have directors come and go and every director gets to make his own movie. sometimes it is bad, great good. Mangold is talking more about creative freedom even within a film series.


James Mangold is not bound by any law or contract to use the same cinematography as Mathew Vaughn used in First Class, neither is he bound by contract that he must follow a story plot point form another film if he does not want to, neither is he bound by any rules where he needs to have followed a certain tone from a past film if it was not to his liking.

It will be wrong to say X-MEN movies are not connected, because they are, they are sequels and prequels and even spin offs like Deadpool and New Mutants would not have happened if not for the main films. however it will also be wrong to say xmen movies had a cooperate iron clad formula and all their directors were just model directors all their to primary serve one producer's purpose (kevin feige) and their movies all has a certain one likeness. This is what Mangold is trying to say also.

What I know about X-MEN with copying some version of the tentpole film style of MCU is that Simon Kinberg was trying to be like the Kevin Feige of the series which would have covered that tentpole.

However I really truly doubt Kinberg will have gotten the same power as Feige has or even pushed for it because there would have been no need to. Fox could carry way more diverse content in their movies and their directors had more say on their films and if I also remember correctly, this is what made Mangold quite lukewarm to Disney buying fox.


https://****************/logan-direc...ox-disney-deal
LOGAN DIRECTOR WORRIED ABOUT FOX & DISNEY DEAL

[WebLurker]

Birds of Prey is not an unreliable narrator, it is a cannon movie still part of the DCEU.

One which has nothing to do with the other. Also, the whole point of the movie is Harley's unreliability; she starts out claiming that she handled the break up maturely in her narration, while we see that she's totally not, not to mention all the times she has to backtrack and all that. Not saying they will use it, but it's baked into the film's DNA.

Additionally it will not be directly accurate to say just because DCEU is now more loosened with their movies, Gunn will not have a problem with it. Gunn himself has spoken about how SS2 was his best film experience, DCEU gave him freedom to do what he wants, including killing of characters not to mention Gunn SS2 is rated R and R rating is not used on every DCEU movie, unless ofcourse the directors want it. It feels ridiculous to make any comparison to Gunn directing a DC and MCU film, considering MCU directors have to stick to certain rules. rules I am sure James Mangold will never have gone along with it.

Apparently, James Gunn doesn't agree:

"No, I totally think I could do whatever I think the story requires. I would never do an R-rated Guardians of the Galaxy. It just wouldn't be what that show is. It's for families, and old people love it. It's more like a fairy tale. And I think it is completely, that is what it is. Suicide Squad is something very different than that, and the stakes are different. All of that is different. But if I were to do say a Shazam movie, which I'm not saying I'm going to do a Shazam movie, I don't think that should be R-rated either. I think if I did that, it would be PG-13. If I did Deadpool, it would be rated R. So, I mean, it just depends on the project. I think everything is different and the audience you're speaking to is different. And I love PG-13 movies, and I love R-rated movies. I don't have any problem with either of them." - James Gunn, 2021 (In context, he was asked if he'd do PG-13 again after getting a taste of R-rated superheroes with

The X-MEN spin off like Deadpool and New Mutants were not all that connected to the main films like the MCU shared universe.

Which is why they all tied into the Nathaniel Essex story arc the Fox movies were trying to do before the cancelation?

Part of the whole point of DOFP was to try and do some kind of pseudo reboot that will not really have any connection to the older films anymore. So, we got the stick that X-MEN Apocalypse and Dark Phoenix taking place in a different timeline or whatever the mess those were.

Still the same series. Agree that it was a shame we didn't get more better stuff out of the new timeline plot.

There is a misconception about what Mangold actually meant, when he says connecting movies. I think X-MEN movies should be more compared to other franchises like Harry Potter, Fast and Furious, The first Batman film series and James Bond because they have directors come and go and every director gets to make his own movie. sometimes it is bad, great good. Mangold is talking more about creative freedom even within a film series.

James Mangold is not bound by any law or contract to use the same cinematography as Mathew Vaughn used in First Class, neither is he bound by contract that he must follow a story plot point form another film if he does not want to, neither is he bound by any rules where he needs to have followed a certain tone from a past film if it was not to his liking.

Very MCU-esque, no?

It will be wrong to say X-MEN movies are not connected, because they are, they are sequels and prequels and even spin offs like Deadpool and New Mutants would not have happened if not for the main films. however it will also be wrong to say xmen movies had a cooperate iron clad formula and all their directors were just model directors all their to primary serve one producer's purpose (kevin feige) and their movies all has a certain one likeness. This is what Mangold is trying to say also.

It would also be wrong to say that the MCU has a formula, when they do not (Thor, anyone?).

What I know about X-MEN with copying some version of the tentpole film style of MCU is that Simon Kinberg was trying to be like the Kevin Feige of the series which would have covered that tentpole.

However I really truly doubt Kinberg will have gotten the same power as Feige has or even pushed for it because there would have been no need to. Fox could carry way more diverse content in their movies and their directors had more say on their films and if I also remember correctly, this is what made Mangold quite lukewarm to Disney buying fox.

Funny how that same lack of direction also lead to some of the worse stuff in the Fox series. So far as whether Marvel Studios now having the X-Men back, I'm waiting to see what they actually do with it.

[Castle]

One which has nothing to do with the other. Also, the whole point of the movie is Harley's unreliability; she starts out claiming that she handled the break up maturely in her narration, while we see that she's totally not, not to mention all the times she has to backtrack and all that. Not saying they will use it, but it's baked into the film's DNA.
.

When I was using the term unreliable narrator. I meant Gunn's own story. the events of Birds of Prey does not need and did not really need to narrate SS 2 because Gunn never took birds of prey to high account.

The reason Gunn will also never make an R rated GOTG movie is because that is impossible with Disney. he has accepted that and is speaking from that point. It is will be ridiculous for anyone to even push a GOTG R rated film when you think GOTG is the most Disney themed of the MCU movies.

Gunn can do what he wants in the Disney box space he is given, but I really doubt he can do what he wants like breaking out of the box to enter another box. I was reading an interview of his, about how he speaks to NASA before he makes his GOTG movies, which seems to be a must for any movie that is space related. all the directors claim they talk to NASA.

The only thing is people who tend to speak to nasa before they make their space movies like Chris Nolan or Ron Howard, I noticed that their space movies always tend to end up looking like actual science documentaries even the one that still lean more into fantasy as Ridley Scott The Martian. GOTG barely looks like a sci fi documentary, because it is so insanely colourful in a child minded way, without any realism of how we see space and the universe.

I trust this is so because Disney loves their comic movies to looks a certain way to market it more to kids and keep the fun comedy tone. So even if I give Gun the benefit of the doubt that he does speak to NASA, it is does not seem up to the serious state of Ridley Scott's The Martian or Nolan's Interstellar and that is something I will put more on the MCU formula that he must work under than Gunn himself.

Very MCU-esque, no?

No.

Funny how that same lack of direction also lead to some of the worse stuff in the Fox series. So far as whether Marvel Studios now having the X-Men back, I'm waiting to see what they actually do with it.

What lead to the worst stuff of the fox series was not really lack of direction. it was more about either the director and writers not been good enough or not understanding some things about their universe. This is separating dark phoenix and new mutants since those movies faced different challenges. Additionally everything you want to see in MCU X-MEN, has already been seen before, by watching the 25 MCU films. Feige still has to stick to his script. Additionally Mangold should be given the benefit of the doubt.