Stephen Strange: Doctor Strange Appreciation 2021

[Clea]

I think Doctor Strange's first movie was extremely well-received. And it deserved to be. Stephen's debut film and Thor Ragnarok are two of the most visually appealing films in the MCU in my opinion. Maybe that's because of the Kirby and Ditko influences, I dunno. I consider Strange to be a "grown up" version of Harry Potter, but yeah the Inception comparisons are apt. I actually liked the film more because of that stuff. I thought the introduction of "sling rings" was cool. Don't know if that happened in the comic books.

I've only seen Cumberbatch in Marvel movies. And I really like him in them. I can't picture him being a serious guy anymore. He's just too snarky now. Which is great in my opinion. He seems like he almost always has a one-liner ready which is so much fun. I even think his American accent is fine (though some folks think Strange should have had Cumberbatch's British one).

I used to think it was annoying and irritating when entertainment media asked directors and actors/actresses for their opinions on superhero films. And sometimes the responses they gave were VERY self-serving, cynical, gatekeeping, snobbish and pretentious. I respect folks like Scorsese and Campion, but I'm no stan of theirs. I'm more of a Woody Allen kind of dude. But lately I've changed my mind on the matter. Superhero films ARE changing the cinematic landscape in ways that couldn't even be imagined a decade ago. They're such a HUGE part of the cultural zeitgeist right now and are becoming more and more ubiquitous in different forms of media. I think people in the entertainment industry have a right to give their opinions on superhero films/shows. I think a majority of them probably like them (just like practically everybody else), but FAIR criticism should be welcomed and I think the MCU can improve on the remarkable success they've had in recent years. And to ask Campion for her opinion on superhero films seems entirely reasonable to me. The Power of the Dog features Benedict Cumberbatch and Kirsten Dunst (both of whom have acted in some HUGELY popular superhero films in the past).

I don't mind Strange 2 being an "event" movie. When I read comics in the 90s, events and crossovers were not THAT common, but I've heard that in the past twenty years they occur on an almost a yearly basis now. So I'm not surprised that the films are imitating the source material (even though I REALLY disagree with that approach because events and crossovers will be less special if they happen so often). I just don't want Doctor Strange 2 to turn into Doctor Who 2. I think it's really unfair to a guy like Raimi to have to deal with so many storylines in the MoM when he just wants to make a good Strange movie. I LOVED his show Hercules: The Legendary Journeys. So I'm quite fond of his work. Growing up in the 90s, I understood the horror genre was not regarded with much respect at all during that decade. According to Ted Raimi doing horror was BARELY better than doing PORN at that time. But now it's totally a "thing" and a well-regarded genre. I respect it now in a way I didn't before. If Marvel wants to do horror, then I have absolute confidence in Raimi's ability to make the MoM into a great Disney "horror flick". But only if Marvel Studios lets him!

There are no 'sling rings' in the comics. That was invented for the MCU to demystify magical teleportation and align the magic users with the tech-oriented superheroes and make them more acceptable to the superhero fans. Likewise, the Eye of Agamotto is not an Infinity Stone in the comics. It's a purely mystical amulet.

I recommend the following to get a better understanding of Cumberbatch's range as a performer: Both filmed versions of the British National Theater's live recording of the Frankenstein play that Cumberbatch starred in along with Jonny Lee Miller. (They each took turns playing The Creature and Dr. Frankenstein); Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy; The Imitation Game; The Hollow Crown, War Horse (good performance/mediocre film), and even his voice acting as Smaug in the Hobbit films. If you like those, you could check for more of his work. He's as good as possible in the MCU films, given how limited those films are in terms of character development and expression. He plays MCU Strange well, but Strange isn't the sum of his acting range by any means.

[GenericUsername]

I didn't like the sling rings because it felt like they were holding back too much on the fantasy of magic and too afraid to just let magic be what it's always been. It doesn't need rooted in reality to be understood. Magic as a concept has been around well before movies were even.

[Clea]

I didn't like the sling rings because it felt like they were holding back too much on the fantasy of magic and too afraid to just let magic be what it's always been. It doesn't need rooted in reality to be understood. Magic as a concept has been around well before movies were even.

I didn't care for them either, but I can see the reason to use them in the MCU. It provides an immediate shortcut to justify teleportation and inter-dimensional travel in the story without having to spend any screen time or dialogue talking about the magical/metaphysical background of teleportation. Just pop on a sling ring and off you go! The story doesn't get slowed down, and 99.9% of the viewers don't care anyway. It's so expensive to make a film. Every minute of screen time is precious and not to be wasted on unnecessary exposition. The comics first fans may grumble when the film magic doesn't match the comics magic, but so far as I am concerned, if the story works in the film, that's good enough. The films don't have to match the comics. I judge them on their own merits (or lack thereof). Plus, these Marvel films have a global audience, and not all cultures have the same understanding of how magic works, so blending it all down into simplified things like sling rings makes it generic enough to work for almost any viewer anywhere.

[GenericUsername]

I didn't care for them either, but I can see the reason to use them in the MCU. It provides an immediate shortcut to justify teleportation and inter-dimensional travel in the story without having to spend any screen time or dialogue talking about the magical/metaphysical background of teleportation. Just pop on a sling ring and off you go! The story doesn't get slowed down, and 99.9% of the viewers don't care anyway. It's so expensive to make a film. Every minute of screen time is precious and not to be wasted on unnecessary exposition. The comics first fans may grumble when the film magic doesn't match the comics magic, but so far as I am concerned, if the story works in the film, that's good enough. The films don't have to match the comics. I judge them on their own merits (or lack thereof). Plus, these Marvel films have a global audience, and not all cultures have the same understanding of how magic works, so blending it all down into simplified things like sling rings makes it generic enough to work for almost any viewer anywhere.

I wish they had decided instead to go into the Vishanti, but I guess that wouldn't be action packed enough. I feel like his 2007 animated film created a nice balance with that.

[Albert1981]

There are no 'sling rings' in the comics. That was invented for the MCU to demystify magical teleportation and align the magic users with the tech-oriented superheroes and make them more acceptable to the superhero fans. Likewise, the Eye of Agamotto is not an Infinity Stone in the comics. It's a purely mystical amulet.

I recommend the following to get a better understanding of Cumberbatch's range as a performer: Both filmed versions of the British National Theater's live recording of the Frankenstein play that Cumberbatch starred in along with Jonny Lee Miller. (They each took turns playing The Creature and Dr. Frankenstein); Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy; The Imitation Game; The Hollow Crown, War Horse (good performance/mediocre film), and even his voice acting as Smaug in the Hobbit films. If you like those, you could check for more of his work. He's as good as possible in the MCU films, given how limited those films are in terms of character development and expression. He plays MCU Strange well, but Strange isn't the sum of his acting range by any means.

Oh, I didn't know that. Thanks for the heads-up. I actually agree with BOTH of those decisions. I like how SO many characters in the MCU are connected to the Infinity Stones. Very accessible to viewers. And the sling rings are a great way to explain how magic users get from one dimension to another without massive info dumps. I didn't know Cumberbatch has maintained such a strong commitment to theater work! I think that's wonderful. Whether its actors/actresses, musicians or dancers, I appreciate it when they ply their craft with live performances. I didn't know Cumberbatch was in movie based on a John le Carré novel! I don't have a snobbish view towards different genres. I'm happy that superhero, horror and true crime fare are getting more respect in the form of new movies, shows and podcasts these days. They didn't really get much even twenty years ago. I really respect the spy fiction genre as well so that's why I admire le Carré. Although I sort of don't like the MCU's "espionage thriller" offerings thus far. There's hardly any "spying" going on in them at all. I also didn't know he was the voice for Smaug either. I was not a fan of that trilogy though. It seems to me that Cumberbatch mostly acts in dramas. I'm happy he's showing his funny side in the Marvel movies/shows. I know Strange fans on this thread don't like him acting like an immature ******* with a penchant for snarky quips, but I do feel that kind of personality is making him popular in the MCU.

[Albert1981]

I didn't like the sling rings because it felt like they were holding back too much on the fantasy of magic and too afraid to just let magic be what it's always been. It doesn't need rooted in reality to be understood. Magic as a concept has been around well before movies were even.

I think too much "explaining" in movies in particular can ruin the pacing in them. I thought Endgame dragged SO much because the film went over how time travel worked, and yet at the end audiences were still confused by it. Loki spent a lot of time setting up rules of the multiverse, but people still wondered why Loki was on trial for being a variant, when his existence helped the Avengers achieve their goal in Endgame (and the TVA did state that the events of Endgame were "supposed" to happen). This dude did a good job of describing how exposition and info dumping can turn off audiences so I'm okay with the sling rings being used repeatedly in the movies:

[Clea]

I wish they had decided instead to go into the Vishanti, but I guess that wouldn't be action packed enough. I feel like his 2007 animated film created a nice balance with that.

If the MCU ever does get around to doing another Doctor Strange sequel that isn't just another event tie-in story, perhaps they could explore beings like the Vishanti, and calling on the power of gods and demons and misc. spirits and powers to fuel spells, not to mention all of the years of hard work and research it takes to be a proper sorcerer. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that, though. LOL. Honestly, I was super pleased with the fact that in the first movie, Strange used his wits to outsmart and defeat Dormammu and it didn't all just come down to the usual MCU pyrotechnic brawling and bashing, and having Strange simply "out power" Dormammu. They can keep their silly sling rings so long as they continue to demonstrate that Strange out thinks his opponents, and doesn't just pummel them with magical laser beams shooting out of his hands.

Seriously though, I'm not sure they'll ever get around to the truly magical aspects of the Marvel magical universe. Even when the Ancient One was explaining magic to Strange, she described it as getting and manipulating energy from other parts of the Multiverse, and she left it at that. That might be all they'll ever say about how magic works. Hard to know until the sequel(s) come out.

[Spiderfan001]

I didn't care for them either, but I can see the reason to use them in the MCU. It provides an immediate shortcut to justify teleportation and inter-dimensional travel in the story without having to spend any screen time or dialogue talking about the magical/metaphysical background of teleportation. Just pop on a sling ring and off you go! The story doesn't get slowed down, and 99.9% of the viewers don't care anyway. It's so expensive to make a film. Every minute of screen time is precious and not to be wasted on unnecessary exposition. The comics first fans may grumble when the film magic doesn't match the comics magic, but so far as I am concerned, if the story works in the film, that's good enough. The films don't have to match the comics. I judge them on their own merits (or lack thereof). Plus, these Marvel films have a global audience, and not all cultures have the same understanding of how magic works, so blending it all down into simplified things like sling rings makes it generic enough to work for almost any viewer anywhere.

I like the sling rings.The visuals for them are nice as well.

On another note I want future Strange movies to be solos, maybe cameos or something like have Spider-man or Wanda(depending on how MoM goes) at the start to develop relationships but that's it.

Also really hope Strange isn't nerfed in MoM, Wanda is more powerful in canon but Strange has vastly superior skill and w/ what we've seen of magic in the MCU I think skill is very much important.

[GenericUsername]

I think too much "explaining" in movies in particular can ruin the pacing in them. I thought Endgame dragged SO much because the film went over how time travel worked, and yet at the end audiences were still confused by it. Loki spent a lot of time setting up rules of the multiverse, but people still wondered why Loki was on trial for being a variant, when his existence helped the Avengers achieve their goal in Endgame (and the TVA did state that the events of Endgame were "supposed" to happen). This dude did a good job of describing how exposition and info dumping can turn off audiences so I'm okay with the sling rings being used repeatedly in the movies:

I'm not asking for a bunch of exposition dump. Magic doesn't really need that considering most people get it's concept. Considering it's also been around forever. They are likely going into the Vishanti at some point anyway.

[GenericUsername]

If the MCU ever does get around to doing another Doctor Strange sequel that isn't just another event tie-in story, perhaps they could explore beings like the Vishanti, and calling on the power of gods and demons and misc. spirits and powers to fuel spells, not to mention all of the years of hard work and research it takes to be a proper sorcerer. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that, though. LOL. Honestly, I was super pleased with the fact that in the first movie, Strange used his wits to outsmart and defeat Dormammu and it didn't all just come down to the usual MCU pyrotechnic brawling and bashing, and having Strange simply "out power" Dormammu. They can keep their silly sling rings so long as they continue to demonstrate that Strange out thinks his opponents, and doesn't just pummel them with magical laser beams shooting out of his hands.

Seriously though, I'm not sure they'll ever get around to the truly magical aspects of the Marvel magical universe. Even when the Ancient One was explaining magic to Strange, she described it as getting and manipulating energy from other parts of the Multiverse, and she left it at that. That might be all they'll ever say about how magic works. Hard to know until the sequel(s) come out.

If they don't go into it this next film at least somewhat and have him actually named as the Sorcerer Supreme then cancel everything. I think they are building up the supernatural side, so it's always possible.

[MaximoffTrash]

Well, Shang-Chi kinda brought up the idea of patreon deities.(That protector dragon giving people of Talo mystical powers.) I hope Vishanti will be brought up in the future as well.

[GenericUsername]

Yep, that movie had magic, and didn't fill up with exposition. And I think a lot of times people confuse exposition and world building. Sometimes it comes off like people just want action scenes and witty banter, and that's it.

[Clea]

Well, Shang-Chi kinda brought up the idea of patreon deities.(That protector dragon giving people of Talo mystical powers.) I hope Vishanti will be brought up in the future as well.

Yep, that movie had magic, and didn't fill up with exposition. And I think a lot of times people confuse exposition and world building. Sometimes it comes off like people just want action scenes and witty banter, and that's it.

Very good point about the Shang Chi film introducing the idea of Chinese supernatural beings and patron gods. I think that movie struck the right balance between wordy exposition and visual world building. A lot of the worldbuilding was done in a 'show - don't tell' manner. I love the fact that Marvel ditched the cringeworthy Fu Manchu origin story and gave Shang Chi this terrific origin that's part Chinese myth/part awesome wuxia films.

The MCU also introduced actual witches (not superheroes, not mutants, but actual witches) in WandaVision. It's like they're taking tiny steps towards introducing more actual supernatural content into the MCU. I guess I should remain hopeful that they'll introduce the Vishanti one day. That would be cool.

[Albert1981]

I'm not asking for a bunch of exposition dump. Magic doesn't really need that considering most people get it's concept. Considering it's also been around forever. They are likely going into the Vishanti at some point anyway.

I know you aren't. But the sling rings, to me, seem sort of self-explanatory (which is good for audiences watching these movies). I actually don't mind exposition. I can't because EVERY story needs some to a certain extent. It's just that in the Disney Plus shows, characters just dump info on audiences in a way that is very monotone and repetitive. And the execution sometimes is just downright awful. Like when Melina Vostokoff was describing what Natasha's "family" was doing in the United States WHILE have a pig suffocate at the same time. Too distracting! Sometimes the shows and movies don't even use flashbacks (maybe it's too expensive to do so)? I had absolutely no problem with the exposition in Shang-Chi. I don't feel it disrupted the flow of the movie that much. And it was a VERY funny movie (loved all the characters in it. Katy, Xu Xialing, Xu Wenwu, and Trevor Slattery were great)! And the fight choreography was awesome (something the MCU sometimes struggles with). But the third-act felt like a totally different movie from the first two. Like I was watching a Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon film that morphed into a Hobbit movie! A simple fight between Xu Wenwu and Shang-Chi would have made more sense to me:

https://www.inverse.com/entertainmen...vel-cant-shake

[GenericUsername]

Very good point about the Shang Chi film introducing the idea of Chinese supernatural beings and patron gods. I think that movie struck the right balance between wordy exposition and visual world building. A lot of the worldbuilding was done in a 'show - don't tell' manner. I love the fact that Marvel ditched the cringeworthy Fu Manchu origin story and gave Shang Chi this terrific origin that's part Chinese myth/part awesome wuxia films.

The MCU also introduced actual witches (not superheroes, not mutants, but actual witches) in WandaVision. It's like they're taking tiny steps towards introducing more actual supernatural content into the MCU. I guess I should remain hopeful that they'll introduce the Vishanti one day. That would be cool.

I'm also glad they got rid of Fu Manchu and all the yellow peril stuff.

I really feel like they are building up to Midnight Sons in the MCU.