Is the Marvel Age Of Movies Done?

[Vakanai]

Here is something I was thinking about in this context. The Indiana Jones franchise. Now he is basically a pulp hero. His movies are PG, but are pretty graphic. Now would/ could Disney go that far in one of their superhero movies? Not that they were any deeper or whatever than a typical marvel film. But Spielberg did use some classic horror violence and gross stuff within them. And I think it worked within that framework and helped make the movies more memorable. I don't know just got me thinking a little.

I remember flinching as a kid every time that one Nazi's face went into the plane propeller, even though we didn't ever see the actual graphic bit.

[inisideguy]

I remember flinching as a kid every time that one Nazi's face went into the plane propeller, even though we didn't ever see the actual graphic bit.

Yea I don't know. I mean that scene and eating monkey brains and melting faces ect. I can't remember everything. But the way the violence/ horror was done in that context yet still was basically a family friendly movie( I guess) sort of worked for that franchise right? Could Disney do that within a Moonknight franchise? Should they?

[Kirby101]

Here is something I was thinking about in this context. The Indiana Jones franchise. Now he is basically a pulp hero. His movies are PG, but are pretty graphic. Now would/ could Disney go that far in one of their superhero movies? Not that they were any deeper or whatever than a typical marvel film. But Spielberg did use some classic horror violence and gross stuff within them. And I think it worked within that framework and helped make the movies more memorable. I don't know just got me thinking a little.

Depending on the property. If they do something like The Punisher they should find a way to make it more graphic. Then again they don't have to make a movie with a character that requires more graphic content. Disney and Marvel are not obligated to make a movie about every superhero. And further, if they decide not to do one about someone's favorite, too bad, read the damn comic, you aren't entitled to a movie to your favorite character. You are not even entitled to a comic book about them.

It's funny that we don't see any demands that Star Wars or Star Trek or other franchises have R rated gritty, graphic films.

[inisideguy]

Depending on the property. If they do something like The Punisher they should find a way to make it more graphic. Then again they don't have to make a movie with a character that requires more graphic content. Disney and Marvel are not obligated to make a movie about every superhero. And further, if they decide not to do one about someone's favorite, too bad, read the damn comic, you aren't entitled to a movie to your favorite character. You are not even entitled to a comic book about them.

It's funny that we don't see any demands that Star Wars or Star Trek or other franchises have R rated gritty, graphic films.

Right I was just speaking about it in those terms. I mean in retrospect Speilberg could have done those Indiana Jones movies a little less graphic. And they would have still been good. But he did pick and choose areas where he thought the horror would work. I think it made the movie better. Now there is another Indiana Jones movie coming out this one made by Disney. Should they keep these tropes within that franchise?

[ed2962]

I cannot speak for Hulk as much as X-MEN, but X-MEN has factually earned the right for more r rated films because of

Deadpool
Deadpool 2
Logan

The X-Force (potential)
Multiple Man (Potential)

Those 2 films were what fox had in store before the disney buy out and they were confirmed to be r rated. Honestly I think Kevin Feige would have built better steam still trying to do this movies (x-force and multiple man) as a DC kind of Else world story, far away from the MCU, than the rumoured multiverse of some fox characters crossing over to the mcu, that is just done for hype and nostalgia with no challenging content.

As or Hulk, no doubt if Marvel has not been bought up by Disney and Edward Nortion was still playing character, I see him pushing that envelope considering his reputation for wanting to be very involved in the creative aspect of his movies. it may have given him a somewhat difficult reputation in the business but no doubt it has also defined him as one of the best actors of his generation that know how to deliver a strong performances in his movie. I see Norton doing a great R rated Hulk film.

Well, my point was that there's fringe characters in the MU that were inspired by other genres and that aren't used to sell children's lunch boxes and backpacks, that make a certain amount of sense to do edgy material with. But when we're talking about characters created 50yrs ago to sell to 14yr olds...sure we can do content that appeals to adults with them, but is it necessary to add more gore and curse words in order to pretend that we're more "serious"?

Hell, I have to raise an eyebrow about how DC/Warner Bros other media has handled Harley Quinn in the last few years...

[Kirby101]

Right I was just speaking about it in those terms. I mean in retrospect Speilberg could have done those Indiana Jones movies a little less graphic. And they would have still been good. But he did pick and choose areas where he thought the horror would work. I think it made the movie better. Now there is another Indiana Jones movie coming out this one made by Disney. Should they keep these tropes within that franchise?

Good question. I imagine it will keep those elements, as they are part of the DNA of the franchise. Of all of them, Temple of Doom had the most graphic content, and was my least favorite of the 4. Last Crusade had very little, and was wonderful.

[ed2962]

Also, Disney has a family friendly brand. It would just be bad business and not worth the headache from the backlash if they were to make some of the Marvel shows as dark and violent as the Netflix shows. Why would they, WandaVision, FWS and Loki were good shows that were very well received. It's not like they have to look art the MCU and second guess themselves, the way WB had to with the Snyderverse's lackluster performance. What would be to point of R rated shows on Disney+. To prove they are serious film makers?

To be fair Disney did put out R-Rated movies, but of course they did it under their Touchstone line. But yeah, they weren't nuts enuff to do R-Rated Rescue Rangers or something.

[Username taken]

Here is something I was thinking about in this context. The Indiana Jones franchise. Now he is basically a pulp hero. His movies are PG, but are pretty graphic. Now would/ could Disney go that far in one of their superhero movies? Not that they were any deeper or whatever than a typical marvel film. But Spielberg did use some classic horror violence and gross stuff within them. And I think it worked within that framework and helped make the movies more memorable. I don't know just got me thinking a little.

The Indiana Jones movies really stretched the PG rating.

Temple of Doom (and Gremlins) led to the creation of PG-13 because those movies had a level of graphic violence that no PG could get away with. I’m not sure Temple of Doom would have been given a PG-13 rating today, the MPAA would probably have asked them to tone it down (not related but Spielberg and Lucas both said they weren’t at a good place mentally when they made Temple of Doom hence the “meaness” of the film).

It’s an interesting observation though. The most violence I’ve seen in a Marvel movies were probably in the first Avenger, Black Widow and Endgame where Thor straight up decapitated Thanos on screen. All that’s nothing compared to that Temple of Doom heart removal scene (that scene kept me up at night..no joke) or the Nazis melting in Raiders of the Lost Ark. Heck, Donovan rapidly aging into dust in the Last Crusade was pretty horrifying.

[ed2962]

Exactly.

There are characters that operate within the sphere of what could termed as R-rated.

Let's see those ones get the R-rated treatment. All this talk of R-rated X-men, Hulk, Captain America is just meaningless.

If Marvel made an PG Punisher movie for example, then I'd fully understand the complaits.

What's funny is Marvel did toy with softening the Punisher. For a moment, he was walking around shooting people with "mercy bullets" which were supposed to rubber bullets. I don't think that lasted long cuz of course, the character stops making sense.

[Username taken]

What's funny is Marvel did toy with softening the Punisher. For a moment, he was walking around shooting people with "mercy bullets" which were supposed to rubber bullets. I don't think that lasted long cuz of course, the character stops making sense.

Yeah..now that you mention it I actually remember that.

I think with the 80s series (which was extremely violent) Marvel just gave up on that.

[ed2962]

Right I was just speaking about it in those terms. I mean in retrospect Speilberg could have done those Indiana Jones movies a little less graphic. And they would have still been good. But he did pick and choose areas where he thought the horror would work. I think it made the movie better. Now there is another Indiana Jones movie coming out this one made by Disney. Should they keep these tropes within that franchise?

It's worth noting that Temple of Doom is directly the movie that lead to the PG-13 rating

[Castle]

Exactly.

There are characters that operate within the sphere of what could termed as R-rated.

Let's see those ones get the R-rated treatment. All this talk of R-rated X-men, Hulk, Captain America is just meaningless.

If Marvel made an PG Punisher movie for example, then I'd fully understand the complaits.

It is not actually meaningless, sorry it just isn't because x-men has 3 r rated moves, Blade has also 3. I do remember some of those movies been well received for doing what MCU movies could not do. so they do work in within that r sphere.

I remember flinching as a kid every time that one Nazi's face went into the plane propeller, even though we didn't ever see the actual graphic bit.

Here is something I was thinking about in this context. The Indiana Jones franchise. Now he is basically a pulp hero. His movies are PG, but are pretty graphic. Now would/ could Disney go that far in one of their superhero movies? Not that they were any deeper or whatever than a typical marvel film. But Spielberg did use some classic horror violence and gross stuff within them. And I think it worked within that framework and helped make the movies more memorable. I don't know just got me thinking a little.

This is true about the Indiana Jones films, I never even saw those films been R rated because they were created by George Liucas and Steven Spileberg who back then were the two biggest money makers of hollywood, so an R Rated Indiana Jones was out of the question. however what you will notice that becomes a pattern when comic films are discusses is that some will say, everything is all pg or everything work in pg 13 atmosphere but what they always tend not to do is to get very deep in the content of these pg 13 I am someone who even still prefers pg to r rating, since you can still have a pg 13 movie have many good context.

This is a good neutral take on censorship in films


https://www.movie-censorship.com/news.php?ID=5315

We already reported that China gets a little extra Iron Man 3 and now, some interesting info surfaces that affects the rest of the world, as well. In the early stages of the Iron Man 3 production, it was mentioned that the Demon In A Bottle storyline of the 70s comic series could play a vital part in the third film. Generally, this is a story that fans value. It shows Tony Stark battling alcoholism. And even if such a problem was hinted at in the previous movies, it will not pursued any further in the third installment. Tony Stark will not be displayed as an alcoholic because Disney made it clear to director Shane Black that they wouldn't like that:

Shane Black: I think we were just told by the studio that we should probably paint Tony Stark as being kind of an industrialist and a crazy guy, or even a bad guy at some points, but the Demon in a Bottle stuff of him being an alcoholic wouldn't really fly. I don't blame that. (Source).


I don't see how this will be anymore graphic than Indiana Jones PG 13 on context. I feel bad Shane Black, he was even asked to make some bigger errors than Iron Man 2.

[Username taken]

It is not actually meaningless, sorry it just isn't because x-men has 3 r rated moves, Blade has also 3. I do remember some of those movies been well received for doing what MCU movies could not do. so they do work in within that r sphere.







This is true about the Indiana Jones films, I never even saw those films been R rated because they were created by George Liucas and Steven Spileberg who back then were the two biggest money makers of hollywood, so an R Rated Indiana Jones was out of the question. however what you will notice that become pattern when comic films are discusses is that some will say, everything is all pg or everything work in pg 13 atmosphere but what they always tend not to do is to get very contents of these pg 13 and that is because they know MCU PG rating is actually even more watered down other pg 13 film. I am someone who even still prefers pg to r rating, since you can still have a pg 13 movie have many good context.

This is a good neutral take on censorship in films


https://www.movie-censorship.com/news.php?ID=5315

We already reported that China gets a little extra Iron Man 3 and now, some interesting info surfaces that affects the rest of the world, as well. In the early stages of the Iron Man 3 production, it was mentioned that the Demon In A Bottle storyline of the 70s comic series could play a vital part in the third film. Generally, this is a story that fans value. It shows Tony Stark battling alcoholism. And even if such a problem was hinted at in the previous movies, it will not pursued any further in the third installment. Tony Stark will not be displayed as an alcoholic because Disney made it clear to director Shane Black that they wouldn't like that:

Shane Black: I think we were just told by the studio that we should probably paint Tony Stark as being kind of an industrialist and a crazy guy, or even a bad guy at some points, but the Demon in a Bottle stuff of him being an alcoholic wouldn't really fly. I don't blame that. (Source).


I don't see how this will be anymore graphic than Indiana Jones PG 13 on context.

I was referring to the mainline X-men movies and not the spin-offs like Deadpool or Logan.

[Castle]

What's funny is Marvel did toy with softening the Punisher. For a moment, he was walking around shooting people with "mercy bullets" which were supposed to rubber bullets. I don't think that lasted long cuz of course, the character stops making sense.

LOL, As a person who remembers having or seeing Punisher's ads were he is in a Archie Comic, Punisher is a character that can be open to any interpretation. I even thought he was quite a funny character when he guest starred in Spiderman TAS, what is the problem is that with MCU, Punisher may never reach his full potential in a big block buster MCU movie.

Ha, you think Punisher, what of Kingpin. To me easily a top 5 Marvel comic villain of all time and not to mention he is the main villain in Into Spiderverse, a pg 13 cartoon. it is sad and makes marvel look bad that such an awesome grounded villain like Kingpin was relegated to cheap Netflix shows, when Kingpin is well deserving of a billion dollar blockbuster film like the Joker even if the film is pg 13 like The Dark Knight and this is will likely never happen because Kingpin may be too strong for MCU POV of PG 13. However if it was Sony, it is a piece of cake.

[Vakanai]

Right I was just speaking about it in those terms. I mean in retrospect Speilberg could have done those Indiana Jones movies a little less graphic. And they would have still been good. But he did pick and choose areas where he thought the horror would work. I think it made the movie better. Now there is another Indiana Jones movie coming out this one made by Disney. Should they keep these tropes within that franchise?

I figure Disney's got a 50/50 chance here. With Indiana Jones the films are hit and miss.
Raiders - the best. Temple of Doom - the historical weak link. The Last Crusade - second best, darn good. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - I'm actually fine with the sci-fi/alien stuff, but crap there's so many what the hell scenes there...

If anything, if the pattern of good bad good bad holds out we might be in luck with Disney's take.