Superhero Cinematic Civil War - Part 57

[kguillou]

MCU Thor is the definition of wasted potential

I think it depends what youre looking to see out of Thor. I think theres a camp of people who want a LoTR type of film in tone and vibe thats heavy on the Norse mythology. I’m in that camp myself. Ragnarok wasnt really to my liking but i acknowledge its a very well done movie its just... not my kind of Thor vibe. I much preferred the look and feel of what Branagh was doing which kind of felt like a direct adaptation of the J Michael Stracynski run on the character.

 

[flickchick85]

Anyone think the rumored JJ Abrams reboot will recast Superman?

I can only hope so.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

View attachment 39620

Chest logo spider in a walking position instead of suspended from a thread position is yay, and it looks good here.

 

[Iceman]

I love Thor in Ragnarok and Infinity War, but I would still rather see a more fantasy version of him.

 

[Adhesive Boy]

T'Challa already had the herb in civil war, they took his powers away for the ceremony. From their reaction, it seems that other tribes don't usually fight for the throne, they were surprised when M'Baku challenged T'Challa.

There's no reason why Shuri would have the herb before a new ceremony since she's not trained to be a Black Panther, like T'Challa had been all his life and took over the mantle when T'Chaka got too old. There is a reason why she keeps staying back in the lab when they go on missions. As for the ceremony where M'Baku challenged T'Challa, people were surprised to see the Jabari tribe at all since they keep to themselves and no one expected them to attend at all. I'm not sure the other tribes see Shuri as the natural successor as they did T'Challa either.

Shuri would have to be changed quite a lot since she never shows neither the fighting capabilities or the leadership skills that her brother possessed. She's the super intelligent, fun loving character that doesn't take things all that seriously. Reasons why they went with the only remaining herb to M'Baku to get him to challenge Killmonger in the BP movie. From what we've seen in the MCU he seems like a more appropriate candidate, as he's not the villain he was in the comics.

 

[Fosterson]

I love Thor in Ragnarok and Infinity War, but I would still rather see a more fantasy version of him.

The thing is though, we pretty much got a "fantasy version" of Thor in the first movie and especially TDW. He was basically Aragorn-lite in those movies and yet it clearly didn't resonate with the majority of audiences and critics. If it had done, then its highly unlikely that they would have embraced Taika's wackier approach so wholeheartedly.

It seems to me that the entire reason why they first hired a Shakespeare aficionado like Branagh and then followed him with a Game of Thrones graduate like Taylor was precisely to establish Thor's side of the MCU as a fantasy-verse within the broader MCU, and then double down on it in the second movie. So you can't accuse them of not trying.

And given the unbelievable success of Ragnarok (and positive reception to the continuation of this portrayal in IW and EG), can you really blame them? Especially when you consider that Hemsworth himself has been pretty vocal about how much he came to hate playing the character in the pre-Taika era. You can hardly carry on portraying the character the same way when your main star is on the verge of leaving due to how dissatisfied he is, now, can you?

Maybe if Patty Jenkins had directed TDW and gotten to fulfill her creative vision (which from the sounds of it, was more along the lines of an epic romance/fantasy), and if the movie had been better received, perhaps we would still have that more serious version of Thor now.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

The thing is though, we pretty much got a "fantasy version" of Thor in the first movie and especially TDW. He was basically Aragorn-lite in those movies and yet it clearly didn't resonate with the majority of audiences and critics. If it had done, then its highly unlikely that they would have embraced Taika's wackier approach so wholeheartedly.

It seems to me that the entire reason why they first hired a Shakespeare aficionado like Branagh and then followed him with a Game of Thrones graduate like Taylor was precisely to establish Thor's side of the MCU as a fantasy-verse within the broader MCU, and then double down on it in the second movie. So you can't accuse them of not trying.

And given the unbelievable success of Ragnarok (and positive reception to the continuation of this portrayal in IW and EG), can you really blame them? Especially when you consider that Hemsworth himself has been pretty vocal about how much he came to hate playing the character in the pre-Taika era. You can hardly carry on portraying the character the same way when your main star is on the verge of leaving due to how dissatisfied he is, now, can you?

Maybe if Patty Jenkins had directed TDW and gotten to fulfill her creative vision (which from the sounds of it, was more along the lines of an epic romance/fantasy), and if the movie had been better received, perhaps we would still have that more serious version of Thor now.

I think with TDW you kinda can blame them for trying though. Jenkins and then Taylor wanted a more serious movie with a more epic tone and LOTR vibe. Then Marvel/Feige made him insert a joke every 5 mins and made him delete more dramatic scenes like Malekith's back story. The jokes are what ruined the movie for me yeah plenty of why TDW is the worst MCU movie is on Marvel for me.

I thought the first Thor movie had a great balance between humour and drama.

And Ragnorak cleverly at times (not so cleverly at others) used the humour as part of its drama.

 

[MadVillainy]

I don't get why/how people say TDW was more serious.
It was really jokey as well. Selvig's whole character, Darcy was still there, so many of the action scenes had a lot of humor, a lot of Loki's dialouge (compare Loki in Thor and Avengers and TDW) .
Even relative to the rest of the MCU its not that serious.
And I don't get how in the world anyone can say Thor was "Aragon lite" if you've actually seen LOTR. They're nothing alike except for beard and hair. That's just a wrong take

Also don't get how people are saying it was more fantasy based. Look at the aesthetic of a lot of the Asgard stuff, the Dark elves with their laser guns and spaceships, Thor and Loki flying around on a hovercraft, the way the whole portal thing was handled. Yeah that opening with Thor and them on that planet was more fantasy tinted. But after that it was about the same as the first movie, if not more Sci fi like.

But yeah still the worst movie if the MCU to me. But even then I still think it's watchable. Like a 6/10 movie. I still don't think the MCU has made a straight up bad movie. TDW, TFA, and Captain Marvel are the bottom 3 for me though

 

[Fosterson]

I think with TDW you kinda can blame them for trying though. Jenkins and then Taylor wanted a more serious movie with a more epic tone and LOTR vibe. Then Marvel/Feige made him insert a joke every 5 mins and made him delete more dramatic scenes like Malekith's back story. The jokes are what ruined the movie for me yeah plenty of why TDW is the worst MCU movie is on Marvel for me.

Thing is though, we have no idea whether any of that cut stuff with Malekith was any good. And given Taylor's record (Terminator: Genisys - yikes), I can't say that I have much confidence that his cut of the movie would have been so great.

And besides, its not as if Marvel aren't capable of making movies with more serious tones (TWS, IW etc) so that does make me suspect that if the Taylor Cut had been TWS-level in terms of quality, Marvel would have released it.

And FWIW, it doesn't seem like any of the actors really enjoyed the experience of working with Taylor either, what with Idris Elba describing working on TDW as "torture" and Eccleston saying that he wanted to shoot himself everyday on set.

 

[Fosterson]

I don't get why/how people say TDW was more serious.
It was really jokey as well. Selvig's whole character, Darcy was still there, so many of the action scenes had a lot of humor, a lot of Loki's dialouge (compare Loki in Thor and Avengers and TDW) .
Even relative to the rest of the MCU its not that serious.

The movie had a lot of gags sure, but Thor himself was a much more serious character. He wasn't running around threatening people on Fortnite or hitting himself in the face with a rubber ball.

Also don't get how people are saying it was more fantasy based. Look at the aesthetic of a lot of the Asgard stuff, the Dark elves with their laser guns and spaceships, Thor and Loki flying around on a hovercraft, the way the whole portal thing was handled. Yeah that opening with Thor and them on that planet was more fantasy tinted. But after that it was about the same as the first movie, if not more Sci fi like.

Again, my point is that Thor as a character adhered much more closely to the stereotype of a fantasy hero, as opposed to the goofball of Ragnarok.

 

[Green Goblin]

The biggest problem with the MCU is the diversity within it. I'm not talking about representation of different people (they're doing well there) but rather the tone and feel of each character or franchise.

I feel like after the huge success of The Avengers, Marvel Studios felt that all future films needed to replicate that approach to superhero films which is essentially very comedic in nature. That might work well with some of their properties but it doesn't lend itself to others.

Take Doctor Strange for example. A movie that deals with mysticism & the supernatural is something that lends itself to horror elements. What we got was the same comedic tone as the rest of the MCU has. Even it's the portrayal of magic wasn't very weird or even unique. It was mostly just making various objects out of beams of light or shooting beams of light etc. Not that it's a bad movie by any means (it's fine) but it's a good example of how the one colour for all approach has led to so many missed opportunities to really make their movies stand on their own.

With more MCU releases coming each year it's only going to look more noticeable. WandaVision at least looks to be something unlike we've seen in the MCU.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Thing is though, we have no idea whether any of that cut stuff with Malekith was any good. And given Taylor's record (Terminator: Genisys - yikes), I can't say that I have much confidence that his cut of the movie would have been so great.

And besides, its not as if Marvel aren't capable of making movies with more serious tones (TWS, IW etc) so that does make me suspect that if the Taylor Cut had been TWS-level in terms of quality, Marvel would have released it.

And FWIW, it doesn't seem like any of the actors really enjoyed the experience of working with Taylor either, what with Idris Elba describing working on TDW as "torture" and Eccleston saying that he wanted to shoot himself everyday on set.

While what you say about Taylor is true (though his GoT work is still awesome), he can’t have been happy himself about not getting to do the movie he wanted, so that may have filtered down to the cast, who knows. But it was definitely Marvel who made him add the comedy elements, which I hated.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The biggest problem with the MCU is the diversity within it. I'm not talking about representation of different people (they're doing well there) but rather the tone and feel of each character or franchise.

I feel like after the huge success of The Avengers, Marvel Studios felt that all future films needed to replicate that approach to superhero films which is essentially very comedic in nature. That might work well with some of their properties but it doesn't lend itself to others.

Take Doctor Strange for example. A movie that deals with mysticism & the supernatural is something that lends itself to horror elements. What we got was the same comedic tone as the rest of the MCU has. Even it's the portrayal of magic wasn't very weird or even unique. It was mostly just making various objects out of beams of light or shooting beams of light etc. Not that it's a bad movie by any means (it's fine) but it's a good example of how the one colour for all approach has led to so many missed opportunities to really make their movies stand on their own.

With more MCU releases coming each year it's only going to look more noticeable. WandaVision at least looks to be something unlike we've seen in the MCU.

Having comedy in a film, doesn't not essentially make a film "very comedic". I have a hard time calling Civil War, Infinity War, Endgame or Black Panther that. These are comic book films. Of course they have a very action adventure film feel to all of them. Just like Star Wars and the comics and serials that inspired them, they take on these genre's and blend them together in these romantic tales. A big aspect of that is comedy. Even Nolan had plenty of comedy in his comic book flicks, it was all just a lot more British. It's why I fLedger's Joker incredibly funny.

One thing I have an issue with when it comes to these conversation, is that while there is definitely an overall style to Marvel flicks, what I feel like is focused on is only the comedic aspect. Take Captain Marvel. Does it have comedy in it? Of course. But that is in no way the heart of the story, but to make there overriding connection, it is the only thing focused on. There is no way Thor Ragnarok, feels like either Thor flick that came before or any Marvel movie to that point. Even with Taika's comedic chops. I mean using this general idea presented in these conversation, Jo Jo Rabbit is a typical Marvel movie.

Bringing up horror is actually a really good example of why I think these conversations are off. Sam Raimi, is a horror legend. Arugably the GOAT. He's coming into do Doctor Strange 2. Are people going to be surprised when there is a lot of comedy in Doctor Strange 2, and call it the, "Marvel Style"? Because long before there was a Marvel studio, Raimi was doing horror and comedy together. A decade ago, he showed he still got it.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

While what you say about Taylor is true (though his GoT work is still awesome), he can’t have been happy himself about not getting to do the movie he wanted, so that may have filtered down to the cast, who knows. But it was definitely Marvel who made him add the comedy elements, which I hated.

Same for Marvel. I do not like TDW. It feels like a very poor attempt at a patch job from start to finish. I wish they had delayed it, and found a proper visionary. When the worst aspect of Marvel Studios was dusted, we say that with Ragnarok.

 

[Sithborg]

Having comedy in a film, doesn't not essentially make a film "very comedic". I have a hard time calling Civil War, Infinity War, Endgame or Black Panther that. These are comic book films. Of course they have a very action adventure film feel to all of them. Just like Star Wars and the comics and serials that inspired them, they take on these genre's and blend them together in these romantic tales. A big aspect of that is comedy. Even Nolan had plenty of comedy in his comic book flicks, it was all just a lot more British. It's why I fLedger's Joker incredibly funny.

One thing I have an issue with when it comes to these conversation, is that while there is definitely an overall style to Marvel flicks, what I feel like is focused on is only the comedic aspect. Take Captain Marvel. Does it have comedy in it? Of course. But that is in no way the heart of the story, but to make there overriding connection, it is the only thing focused on. There is no way Thor Ragnarok, feels like either Thor flick that came before or any Marvel movie to that point. Even with Taika's comedic chops. I mean using this general idea presented in these conversation, Jo Jo Rabbit is a typical Marvel movie.

Bringing up horror is actually a really good example of why I think these conversations are off. Sam Raimi, is a horror legend. Arugably the GOAT. He's coming into do Doctor Strange 2. Are people going to be surprised when there is a lot of comedy in Doctor Strange 2, and call it the, "Marvel Style"? Because long before there was a Marvel studio, Raimi was doing horror and comedy together. A decade ago, he showed he still got it.

The bigger question will be Raimi continues to have Cumberbatch continue to do his RDJ impression...

 

[SwordOfMorning]

Having comedy in a film, doesn't not essentially make a film "very comedic". I have a hard time calling Civil War, Infinity War, Endgame or Black Panther that. These are comic book films. Of course they have a very action adventure film feel to all of them. Just like Star Wars and the comics and serials that inspired them, they take on these genre's and blend them together in these romantic tales. A big aspect of that is comedy. Even Nolan had plenty of comedy in his comic book flicks, it was all just a lot more British. It's why I fLedger's Joker incredibly funny.

One thing I have an issue with when it comes to these conversation, is that while there is definitely an overall style to Marvel flicks, what I feel like is focused on is only the comedic aspect. Take Captain Marvel. Does it have comedy in it? Of course. But that is in no way the heart of the story, but to make there overriding connection, it is the only thing focused on. There is no way Thor Ragnarok, feels like either Thor flick that came before or any Marvel movie to that point. Even with Taika's comedic chops. I mean using this general idea presented in these conversation, Jo Jo Rabbit is a typical Marvel movie.

Bringing up horror is actually a really good example of why I think these conversations are off. Sam Raimi, is a horror legend. Arugably the GOAT. He's coming into do Doctor Strange 2. Are people going to be surprised when there is a lot of comedy in Doctor Strange 2, and call it the, "Marvel Style"? Because long before there was a Marvel studio, Raimi was doing horror and comedy together. A decade ago, he showed he still got it.

Raimi absolutely is not the GOAT of horror. Is there really anyone who seriously considers him that? He’s real good, but he’s clearly a comedy director above all else - his horror movies are almost all incredibly wacky. Which is fine, but horror comedy is its own separate entity.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Raimi absolutely is not the GOAT of horror. Is there really anyone who seriously considers him that? He’s real good, but he’s clearly a comedy director above all else - his horror movies are almost all incredibly wacky. Which is fine, but horror comedy is its own separate entity.

Horror comedy is horror, and he made the Evil Dead trilogy. That makes him the GOAT in my house. He also made Darkman, which you will find all over a certain genre and is heavily horror based as well.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The bigger question will be Raimi continues to have Cumberbatch continue to do his RDJ impression...

He didn't do it in Infinity War, so maybe what we need is for RDJ to be in the movie, so he is forced to contrast himself.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

Horror comedy is horror, and he made the Evil Dead trilogy. That makes him the GOAT in my house. He also made Darkman, which you will find all over a certain genre and is heavily horror based as well.

I don’t even think he’s the GOAT of horror comedy. I’ll take Peter Jackson or Edgar Wright over Raimi in a heartbeat. Purely subjective, of course.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I don’t even think he’s the GOAT of horror comedy. I’ll take Peter Jackson or Edgar Wright over Raimi in a heartbeat. Purely subjective, of course.

Edgar Wright is one of my two favorite directors. He's made one, arguably 2 but really one, horror flick. It's also the movie I enjoy the least from him. Peter Jackson... well he made the LotR. If that is the standard, then I'd throw Taika in there as well. I will always love him for that.

For me when it comes to horror, most flicks I like are one off for directors. It's why I have a hard time thinking of a director other then Raimi, Flanagan, Wan and del Toro. Raimi has made 4 (5 if you count Darkman), films I love in the genre. My favorite work from Flanagan is his television work though I do genuinely love him, Wan has had as many hits as misses for me (Conjuring 2 might be my favorite flick though) and del Toro hasn't made that one flick that I adore in every way. Closest being Pan's.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Edgar Wright is one of my two favorite directors. He's made one, arguably 2 but really one, horror flick. It's also the movie I enjoy the least from him. Peter Jackson... well he made the LotR. If that is the standard, then I'd throw Taika in there as well. I will always love him for that.

For me when it comes to horror, most flicks I like are one off for directors. It's why I have a hard time thinking of a director other then Raimi, Flanagan, Wan and del Toro. Raimi has made 4 (5 if you count Darkman), films I love in the genre. My favorite work from Flanagan is his television work though I do genuinely love him, Wan has had as many hits as misses for me (Conjuring 2 might be my favorite flick though) and del Toro hasn't made that one flick that I adore in every way. Closest being Pan's.

Raimi's Evil Dead trilogy is also my favorite horror franchise. Just awesome in all the ways. . Also each entry is high quality, which is something I cannot say for most horror franchises. Only the Phantasm films would probably rival them as a franchise for me, but 1 and 2 of that series are amazing, 3-4 of that series while good are a noticeable dip, and Phantasm Ravager is basically a fan film. Evil Dead, I love all the movies and the show.

 

[Ninjablade]

There's a reason one of Spider-Man 2's best sequences is Otto's arms wreaking all the doctors in the hospital. It's Sam Raimi at his best, horror.

The Evil Dead trilogy is seriously one of the greats, all three of them are quality in their own right, and Drag Me to Hell isn't a movie to sleep on either. As great as it is to see Sam come back to the super hero genre, I would almost prefer he revived his directing career with another horror flick.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

Evil Dead is awesome and I like his Spider-Man movies but I’ve always felt like Raimi was a super shallow filmmaker with a knack for fun camera work and a good sense of humor (I don’t connect with his Spidey movies at all emotionally, but they’re hilarious action/comedies) but pretty lacklustre as a storyteller when he isn’t just doing pure slapstick like Evil Dead 2. To each their own, he’s just never clicked for me as a particularly great director.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Raimi absolutely is not the GOAT of horror. Is there really anyone who seriously considers him that? He’s real good, but he’s clearly a comedy director above all else - his horror movies are almost all incredibly wacky. Which is fine, but horror comedy is its own separate entity.

Of course he isn't, that honor should go to Wes Craven and he should reign undisputed.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Same for Marvel. I do not like TDW. It feels like a very poor attempt at a patch job from start to finish. I wish they had delayed it, and found a proper visionary. When the worst aspect of Marvel Studios was dusted, we say that with Ragnarok.

But again it was Marvel's decision not delay it when they should have. I love the MCU, but they aren't blameless and most certainly for TDW. Thankfully they moved on.