Marvel phase 5 problem & critique

[Frontier]

Admittedly, in L&T they kind of pushed it, but a big part of why the MCU has been such a big hit is what made Marvel Comics as big of a hit as it is - their humanity. Tapping into the actor's humanity undoubtedly helped endear the characters to the audience and they've done a bang up job so far.

I think Thor is a very human character, but I don't think that needs to come off comedically. That comes off more as the actor than the character in my opinion.

Like I think the EMH cartoon struck a good balance between Thor the God and Thor as a person with good character writing and was closer to comics Thor.

[basbash99]

while i have yet to see WF, overall the movies from phase 5 were a pretty big disappointment imo. Start off with a prequel that came years too late and thus seemed to exist mostly as a vehicle for introducing characters for future projects. Most of the rest of this phase was sequels, and all of them seemed to suffer from sequelitis is some way, none were as good as their respective predecessor. Only 2 movies centered around new characters - one was the highlight of the movies in this phase (Shang-Chi) and the other was debatable the low point.

Overall, for all the talk of mcu being formulaic, it feels like what went wrong in phase 5 was being too deferential to the director's vision for each project. Feels like Raimi, Waititi, Coogler, and Zhao were all allowed to do what they wanted and that each of these films would actually have benefited from studio notes (as hard to believe as that might seem). Just to pick one, i think L & T would've been better had Waititi's humor either been more restrained, or perhaps with just better timing - too many abrupt tonal shifts made it hard to take stakes seriously, and to make matters worse a lot of the jokes just weren't that great.

[krazijoe]

while i have yet to see WF, overall the movies from phase 5 were a pretty big disappointment imo. Start off with a prequel that came years too late and thus seemed to exist mostly as a vehicle for introducing characters for future projects. Most of the rest of this phase was sequels, and all of them seemed to suffer from sequelitis is some way, none were as good as their respective predecessor. Only 2 movies centered around new characters - one was the highlight of the movies in this phase (Shang-Chi) and the other was debatable the low point.

Overall, for all the talk of mcu being formulaic, it feels like what went wrong in phase 5 was being too deferential to the director's vision for each project. Feels like Raimi, Waititi, Coogler, and Zhao were all allowed to do what they wanted and that each of these films would actually have benefited from studio notes (as hard to believe as that might seem). Just to pick one, i think L & T would've been better had Waititi's humor either been more restrained, or perhaps with just better timing - too many abrupt tonal shifts made it hard to take stakes seriously, and to make matters worse a lot of the jokes just weren't that great.

I am fine with the movies. We as consumers liked how everything needs to be all tied together in a neat little bow after each movie. There is nothing wrong with movies tangentially referencing each other. It wouldn't surprise me that each movie is somehow connected in a way we have not seen yet but will be explored the more we get into Kang and Thunderbolts.

[phonogram12]

I think Thor is a very human character, but I don't think that needs to come off comedically. That comes off more as the actor than the character in my opinion.

Honestly, they tried the stoic Thor I'm guessing traditionalists would've preferred. And it turned out to be one of the MCU's worst movies. Unlike the comics, where writers and pencilers can portray these characters any way they like, when you're dealing with real life people, you gotta lean into their strengths. If you don't lean into Hemsworth's you might as well find another actor to portray him altogether.

Like I think the EMH cartoon struck a good balance between Thor the God and Thor as a person with good character writing and was closer to comics Thor.

While enjoyed EMH, I found Thor to be pretty dull on it, tbh.

[Frontier]

Honestly, they tried the stoic Thor I'm guessing traditionalists would've preferred. And it turned out to be one of the MCU's worst movies. Unlike the comics, where writers and pencilers can portray these characters any way they like, when you're dealing with real life people, you gotta lean into their strengths. If you don't lean into Hemsworth's you might as well find another actor to portray him altogether.

I don't see Thor as stoic, he's just not overly comedic. I get leaning into what works for the actor, but again that makes it feel less like a character and more like the actor just playing himself.

While enjoyed EMH, I found Thor to be pretty dull on it, tbh.

I loved their take on him, personally! Rick Wasserman did an amazing job portraying him and I think he did have his humorous moments.

[phonogram12]

I don't see Thor as stoic, he's just not overly comedic. I get leaning into what works for the actor, but again that makes it feel less like a character and more like the actor just playing himself.

So do you think it was a mistake to hire Hemsworth?

I loved their take on him, personally! Rick Wasserman did an amazing job portraying him and I think he did have his humorous moments.

Honestly? While the storylines were great (many were pulled right from the comics, after all. Which is usually an approach I'm wary of, but here they did a good job), I found the villains far more engaging than the heroes. The only one I found remotely entertaining was Hulk.

[Frontier]

So do you think it was a mistake to hire Hemsworth?

I mean, I liked him in the role fine up until Ragnarok so I'm probably the wrong person to be asking.

Honestly? While the storylines were great (many were pulled right from the comics, after all. Which is usually an approach I'm wary of, but here they did a good job), I found the villains far more engaging than the heroes. The only one I found remotely entertaining was Hulk.

That show made me more of a fan of practically everybody that was in it. Especially Wasp .

[godisawesome]

I don't see Thor as stoic, he's just not overly comedic. I get leaning into what works for the actor, but again that makes it feel less like a character and more like the actor just playing himself.

I loved their take on him, personally! Rick Wasserman did an amazing job portraying him and I think he did have his humorous moments.

I honestly think Hemsworth's best work with Thor was in Raganarok and Infinity War, because he CAN do the serious stuff with a non-stoic Thor lethally well... they just freestyle too much dialogue for him along the comedic lines, instead of letting him contain the humor mostly to his physical acting and emoting.

Thor shouldn't be laconic, mind you, but I think Hemsworth's best humor and best serious moments are when the character is portrayed as not giving a **** or being laser focused.

Love and Thunder has several great serious moments, and honestly, the humor of the more ridiculous moments doesn't need Hemsworth to say anything, it just needs him to act, or the film to not have narration - like, imagine if his "riding Stormbreak like a witch's broom" had no dialogue, form him, just a complete confidence in the ridiculousness of the moment.

[phonogram12]

I mean, I liked him in the role fine up until Ragnarok so I'm probably the wrong person to be asking.

Even in Dark World?

That show made me more of a fan of practically everybody that was in it. Especially Wasp .

That show made me appreciate the source material. The heroes came off as rather flat to me, imho.

[Frontier]

Even in Dark World?

Yeah, I don't think he was the problem with that movie.

That show made me appreciate the source material. The heroes came off as rather flat to me, imho.

Honestly I felt like the Avengers in that show had more personality than they do in the movies.

[phonogram12]

Yeah, I don't think he was the problem with that movie.

IDK, he came pretty lifeless to me. Not to mention he really didn't have any sort of story arc in that movie. He was basically exactly the same at the beginning as he was at the end.

Honestly I felt like the Avengers in that show had more personality than they do in the movies.

We're going to have to disagree on that one as well. The heroes themselves came off as the least engaging part of that show, imho.

[Frontier]

IDK, he came pretty lifeless to me. Not to mention he really didn't have any sort of story arc in that movie. He was basically exactly the same at the beginning as he was at the end.

The plotting was definitely an issue in that film.

I think his mothers' death and contending more with his father and his love of Earth was a bit of an arc for him in the film, and then getting to go back to Earth for longer.

We're going to have to disagree on that one as well. The heroes themselves came off as the least engaging part of that show, imho.

That feels impossible when their version of Wasp, Hawkeye, and Black Panther exist .

[phonogram12]

The plotting was definitely an issue in that film.

I think his mothers' death and contending more with his father and his love of Earth was a bit of an arc for him in the film, and then getting to go back to Earth for longer.

Sure, but as far as his characterization goes, literally nothing changed. His relationship with his parents were dealt with much better in Ragnarok and Endgame, respectfully.

That feels impossible when their version of Wasp, Hawkeye, and Black Panther exist .[/QUOTE]

Yeah, their version of BP fell a bit flat to me, imho. Hawkeye was *meh* and Wasp was a bit too bubbly for my tastes.

[Frontier]

Sure, but as far as his characterization goes, literally nothing changed. His relationship with his parents were dealt with much better in Ragnarok and Endgame, respectfully.

Well, how much should a characters' actual characterization actually change?

Yeah, their version of BP fell a bit flat to me, imho. Hawkeye was *meh* and Wasp was a bit too bubbly for my tastes.

I thought their version of T'Challa was awesome! And Hawkeye was classic Hawkeye.

Wasp being bubbly was kind of why she was so memorable and cute and set up what I expect from The Wasp (better than Hope "it's about darn time" Van Dyne ever did). She was basically just channeling Jans' energy and sass from the comics.

They all had the perfect voices for those characters.

[Omega Alpha]

while i have yet to see WF, overall the movies from phase 5 were a pretty big disappointment imo. Start off with a prequel that came years too late and thus seemed to exist mostly as a vehicle for introducing characters for future projects. Most of the rest of this phase was sequels, and all of them seemed to suffer from sequelitis is some way, none were as good as their respective predecessor. Only 2 movies centered around new characters - one was the highlight of the movies in this phase (Shang-Chi) and the other was debatable the low point.

Overall, for all the talk of mcu being formulaic, it feels like what went wrong in phase 5 was being too deferential to the director's vision for each project. Feels like Raimi, Waititi, Coogler, and Zhao were all allowed to do what they wanted and that each of these films would actually have benefited from studio notes (as hard to believe as that might seem). Just to pick one, i think L & T would've been better had Waititi's humor either been more restrained, or perhaps with just better timing - too many abrupt tonal shifts made it hard to take stakes seriously, and to make matters worse a lot of the jokes just weren't that great.

Heh...phase 5 hasn't even started yet.