Page 19 of 26 FirstFirst ... 9151617181920212223 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 285 of 382
  1. #271
    Mighty Member useridgoeshere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,623

    Default

    Love the trailer. I was a huge fan of Ragnarok, saved the franchise and character for me, so this is right on. There's a ton going on, with the GOTG, Olympus, Gorr, Jane, so interested to see how it balances. I wondered if Gorr was going to be too Voldemort visually, but looks like they avoided that.

  2. #272
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    86,843

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HollowSage View Post
    Then what is the formula? Iíve heard it mentioned a lot but no one has ever really explained what it is. What is it? How does it work? Why has no other studio been able to replicate it? Does Feige keep it locked in a vault beneath Marvel Studios?

    I have questions.
    Well, some would say Shazam and Aquaman successfully copied the formula.

  3. #273
    The Kid 80sbaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    1,578

    Default

    The "formula" is the exact same thing action/adventure films have been doing since the beginning. It's not something that's unique to Marvel Studios at all. That's why attributing it to them as some sort of critique is silly.

  4. #274
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,588

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Somecrazyaussie View Post
    Having a slightly more serious film every now and then won't hurt them.
    So the question becomes, what do you consider a "serious" film? Because Infinity War and Endgame felt pretty serious. Like, epic and world ending-ly serious. Black Widow is a serious film. Shang-Chi is a serious film. Eternals was bad, but a serious film. Doctor Strange 2 is a frickin Greek tragedy in film form.

    Just because a film has humor doesn't make it a comedy. Having laughs doesn't make a film "not serious." The only MCU films that are genuinely comedies are the two GotG films and Ragnarok. And, honestly, Ragnarok plays with the action comedy mold from the 80's. Nothing wrong with that at all.

    You sound like you want dour. Dour isn't fun, the world doesn't need dour right now. The Batman was dour. And boring AF.

    You say you want your hero to be taken seriously. But life doesn't always take people seriously. Sometimes even the most stoic and straight laced are in an elevator when someone farts. Not necessarily funny, but real. We all find ourselves out of our depth from time to time. And sometimes all you can do is laugh. Particularly when the alternative might be breaking under the stress.

  5. #275
    Better than YOU! Alan2099's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    5,514

    Default

    I'm curious and I want to hear from a detractor on this one.

    What separates Captain America, Ironman, and Thor from movies like Indiana Jones, James Bond, or Terminator 2?

    Does Batman '89 fit the Marvel formula? What about The Dark Knight? What about Adam West?

    Black Panther and Guardians of the Galaxy are both very different in tone and theme. How far do they need to go before they're NOT formula anymore?

  6. #276
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 80sbaby View Post
    The "formula" is the exact same thing action/adventure films have been doing since the beginning. It's not something that's unique to Marvel Studios at all. That's why attributing it to them as some sort of critique is silly.
    Indeed.

    Though, if I had to single out the most important elements for interconnected storytelling, the kind of serialized continuity that the MCU and other series have, I would say it comes down to 2 very basic things that most films in general try to have: loveable characters and a compelling [I]enough[I] conflicts. Everything else can be strictly functional, but those elements have to be good enough - and I think the one imitators and peers seem to struggle with the most is the "loveable characters" one, since not all creators know what mix of personality traits and ensemble members create that... or necessarily want that.

    The MCU always first strives to make the characters loveable, and fine-tune the formula to get there if the first results are lackluster - which is why the characters can shift to reflect the skills, chemistry and natural charisma of the actors. Hemsworth clearly does well when allowed to mix some braggadocio, pathos, and self-deprecation into his performance, and his chemistry with Tessa Thompson and Waititi himself is a clear boon comparable to him and Hiddleston.

    But that kind of observational improvement isn't clear to all producers and creators - look at Zach Snyder clearly losing track of where Cavill most excelled as Superman and making the mistake of thinking Eisenberg made a good Lex, or where Rian Johnson looked at John Boyega's charisma and chemistry with Daisy Ridley and had a moment of Sad White Guy Panic and then proceeded to punish Boyega while trying to force Ridley to sell Adam Driver's great hair as the worthy centerpiece for Star Wars.
    Like action, adventure, rogues, and outlaws? Like anti-heroes, femme fatales, mysteries and thrillers?

    I wrote a book with them. Outlawís Shadow: A Sherwood Noir. Robin Hoodís evil counterpart, Guy of Gisbourne, is the main character. Feel free to give it a look: https://read.amazon.com/kp/embed?asi...E2PKBNJFH76GQP

  7. #277
    The Kid 80sbaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    1,578

    Default

    Correct. It's something I've been saying for years. Marvel excels at creating characters people want to see again. That's literally the secret to their success but it isn't something they invented. All popular franchises have the same thing in common, i.e. the titular characters are liked by the audience. The plot, settings, etc can all be switched up.

  8. #278
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 80sbaby View Post
    Correct. It's something I've been saying for years. Marvel excels at creating characters people want to see again. That's literally the secret to their success but it isn't something they invented. All popular franchises have the same thing in common, i.e. the titular characters are liked by the audience. The plot, settings, etc can all be switched up.
    Another good example outside of the MCU, but one dealing more with cast chemistry, would be the first three Pirates of the Caribbean movies - you can go utterly bonkers, but if the audience is seriously invested in about half of your main cast, even your villains, you can print money even when the rest of the story goes nuts.

    Arguably the difference between two "meh" MCU Phase 2 movies, Thor: The Dark World and Iron Man 3, was that The Dark World was smart enough to focus on Loki and Thor's relationship even though the rest was lackluster, while Iron Man 3 was a stronger film on a technical level but didn't really sell enough of the characters and their relationships, even compared to Iron Man 2.
    Like action, adventure, rogues, and outlaws? Like anti-heroes, femme fatales, mysteries and thrillers?

    I wrote a book with them. Outlawís Shadow: A Sherwood Noir. Robin Hoodís evil counterpart, Guy of Gisbourne, is the main character. Feel free to give it a look: https://read.amazon.com/kp/embed?asi...E2PKBNJFH76GQP

  9. #279
    Incredible Member Jack The Tripper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    Well, yeah, because they kind of blew everything up.

    I'm only just realizing now that the only major Asgardian character left other than Thor is Valkyrie because they've killed everybody else off (Sif will probably just get a cameo).

    It's also weird to think Thor has spent more time interacting with and palling around with Korg, whose only relevance to the Thor franchise was as like a one-shot villain who eventually went in a completely different direction in another title, than he did the Warriors Three.
    I mean, Iíve been a big fan of Thor comics since years before the MCU, and Iíd love another adaptation in the future that is more comics accurate - BUT, the way they initially developed it from the first film onwards felt so bland to me that I really didnít mind them upending the source material in order to make this iteration work better. If they had gone all in on the first film Iíd probably feel different but they didnít, they diluted it too.

    The Warriors Three felt so completely useless (and character-less) in those first two movies, that it felt way better just getting Valkyrie and Korg, who both seemed better (Valkyrie as a character, and Korg as comic relief) for the way they decided to go with Thor.

    So yeah, I liked them blowing it up, I donít think Iíd be as excited for another Thor movie if they kept it chugging along the same route after Thor 2. I like this idea of him as a Space Viking - it sounds stupidly 80ís hair metal, but I love it. Iím sure one day there will be a more comics accurate rendition, but Iím happy with what we have at the moment!

  10. #280
    Incredible Member Jack The Tripper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HollowSage View Post
    Then what is the formula? Iíve heard it mentioned a lot but no one has ever really explained what it is. What is it? How does it work? Why has no other studio been able to replicate it? Does Feige keep it locked in a vault beneath Marvel Studios?

    I have questions.
    The only formulaic thing about the MCU imo is the VFX due to the fact itís the same supervisors on every movie but I donít think thatís enough to say that itís what makes the MCU so popular haha. The characters are different, the stories are different (the occasional overlap in origin stories as usual etc), the scripts are different, the jokes are different, the arcs are different.

    I agree with others who are saying itís more of a ďblockbuster formatĒ rather than an ďMCU formulaĒ that originated with Marvel Studios

  11. #281
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    86,843

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZeroBG82 View Post
    So the question becomes, what do you consider a "serious" film? Because Infinity War and Endgame felt pretty serious. Like, epic and world ending-ly serious. Black Widow is a serious film. Shang-Chi is a serious film. Eternals was bad, but a serious film. Doctor Strange 2 is a frickin Greek tragedy in film form.

    Just because a film has humor doesn't make it a comedy. Having laughs doesn't make a film "not serious." The only MCU films that are genuinely comedies are the two GotG films and Ragnarok. And, honestly, Ragnarok plays with the action comedy mold from the 80's. Nothing wrong with that at all.

    You sound like you want dour. Dour isn't fun, the world doesn't need dour right now. The Batman was dour. And boring AF.

    You say you want your hero to be taken seriously. But life doesn't always take people seriously. Sometimes even the most stoic and straight laced are in an elevator when someone farts. Not necessarily funny, but real. We all find ourselves out of our depth from time to time. And sometimes all you can do is laugh. Particularly when the alternative might be breaking under the stress.
    I mean, I think you can argue that while levity has its purpose and those were fairly serious movies in general...the humor might have, at times, undescored or taken away from the seriousness of what was going on or felt out-of-place. But that can be a case-by-case basis.

    I've always felt like the Cap films and Black Panther had a pretty solid balance between the seriousness, the stakes, and the humor.

    The Batman may have been a very dark and serious film but considering how much of a box office and critical success it was it seems like it's approach was equally valid.
    Quote Originally Posted by godisawesome View Post
    Another good example outside of the MCU, but one dealing more with cast chemistry, would be the first three Pirates of the Caribbean movies - you can go utterly bonkers, but if the audience is seriously invested in about half of your main cast, even your villains, you can print money even when the rest of the story goes nuts.

    Arguably the difference between two "meh" MCU Phase 2 movies, Thor: The Dark World and Iron Man 3, was that The Dark World was smart enough to focus on Loki and Thor's relationship even though the rest was lackluster, while Iron Man 3 was a stronger film on a technical level but didn't really sell enough of the characters and their relationships, even compared to Iron Man 2.
    I feel like emphasizing Thor and Loki so much (and the human side) might have actually been a negative for The Dark World when it could have used more world-building and development of the rest of the supporting cast or Asgard/The Nine Realms in general. I know a lot of character stuff for Malekith got put on the cutting room floor to make more room for Loki.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack The Tripper View Post
    I mean, I’ve been a big fan of Thor comics since years before the MCU, and I’d love another adaptation in the future that is more comics accurate - BUT, the way they initially developed it from the first film onwards felt so bland to me that I really didn’t mind them upending the source material in order to make this iteration work better. If they had gone all in on the first film I’d probably feel different but they didn’t, they diluted it too.

    The Warriors Three felt so completely useless (and character-less) in those first two movies, that it felt way better just getting Valkyrie and Korg, who both seemed better (Valkyrie as a character, and Korg as comic relief) for the way they decided to go with Thor.

    So yeah, I liked them blowing it up, I don’t think I’d be as excited for another Thor movie if they kept it chugging along the same route after Thor 2. I like this idea of him as a Space Viking - it sounds stupidly 80’s hair metal, but I love it. I’m sure one day there will be a more comics accurate rendition, but I’m happy with what we have at the moment!
    I think we can agree in terms of them not adapting the mythos well enough to get people invested enough in it, which I view as a failure on the filmmakers part and how they approached the material.

    The fact that Waititi unceremoniously killed off the Warriors Three just to turn Korg into a comedy relief character screams not really getting what you have to work with. Because, really, if you need comedy relief (with a dash of pathso) in a Thor movie, you should use the Warriors Three. Although Korg is actually Waititi so there's probably some bias there .

    It's like when they had Ganke pal around with Peter Parker in the MCU. Peter Parker has such an extensive supporting cast of characters, he doesn't need to be cribbing an entire character from Miles Morales. But I don't think they even used his supporting cast that well in general in the MCU Spider-Man movies.

    "Space Viking" reminds me too much of Jason Aaron's take on Thor. I guess I should be hoping he won't be yelling about mead the entire movie.

  12. #282
    Extraordinary Member ChrisIII's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,748

    Default

    ^Well, it is pretty much based on two major story arcs from his run on the comics.
    chrism227.wordpress.com Info and opinions on a variety of interests.

    https://twitter.com/chrisprtsmouth

  13. #283
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    86,843

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisIII View Post
    ^Well, it is pretty much based on two major story arcs from his run on the comics.
    Yeah, and I think Waititi's teased they'd be keeping Jane's cancer condition in the movie, which makes me wonder if her Thor tenure will be as finite as it was then as well.

  14. #284
    Extraordinary Member ChrisIII's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,748

    Default

    Wonder if (apart from the flashback from the first trailer) they'd have the past and future (King) Thors from the run as well, to maybe tie into the current Multiverse storyline somehow.
    chrism227.wordpress.com Info and opinions on a variety of interests.

    https://twitter.com/chrisprtsmouth

  15. #285
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,743

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Panic View Post
    It plays a lot of it for laughs. Luthor and his lackies in particular. It's much more jokey than the comics were.
    But it knew when to be serious when it had to be. Every time Ragnarok got to the point where the dramatic tension was about to hit the right notes along came a gag or one-liner. It's reached a point where you know they are coming.

    Ragnarok may have been a funny film. I'm also not disputing it wasn't expertly directed or acted. But it was tonally off.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •