MCU: The Marvel Cinematic Universe Official Discussion - Part 2

[InJustice]

I completely disagree, Batman barely even had a character in TDK. The only thing he did in the movie was physically react to the Joker's actions, but never reflected on them 'cause the movie would just jump to another action scene. The Joker makes a lot of valid points throughout the movie and Batman doesn't even consider that he might be right, there isn't any inner struggle about his own morality or anything like that. By the end of the movie he is the exact same guy he was at the start(psychologically), he's almost like a robot in the whole movie, the only time his character gets close to actually have some progression is when he tells Alfred that he wanted to inspire good and not madness.

Barely had a character? We must not have been watching the same movie. We start out seeing Batman with the same moral compass as in Batman Begins, and then through his actions in TDK, we see his moral compass gets pushed to the point where he's starting to consider doing things that he would never do: he starts to contemplate killing the Joker in the Interrogation scene, he invades the privacy of millions of people so he can catch this one person. And at the end, we see that Batman realizes the Joker was right as he was able to not only dump Harvey down to his level, but also have Batman and Gordon contradict their moral authority. Hence, the struggle isn't like Cap 2 where it's morality vs. cynicism, for Bruce it's "How far am I willing to go before I completely destroy my morals?" That being said, Batman is well-aware of the Joker being valid (at least as it pertains to having to break his rules in order to accomplish good), but for the most part, the Joker is still uncontrolled chaos, so it's not like he's completely valid.

Cap, on the other hand tries to question whether he should actually change his perspective on things. He didn't immediatly decided to quit SHIELD nor he decided adopt their view, he was struggling deciding which one was the right way. Staying would mean to him that he would be a part of a system that goest against his beliefs but leaving would mean that he wouldn't have the chance to protect people the only way he knows how to. Cap was emotionally and physically proactive, while the movie was about his interaction with this new environment which is the best way to develop a character rather than isolate him and not letting him change himself or his environment. This movie made it more simple, subtle and yet more effective.

The struggle doesn't really mean much because it comes down to being a choice as Batmannerism said. Which isn't to say that it's bad, but it's nothing like a character study. It's basically a choice between being akin to a government lackey and letting his moral compass go, or remaining the same old person. In fact, it's no different from Man of Steel's arc when Clark struggles with the conflict of whether to use his powers, or wanting to stay in the shadows because the world wasn't ready for him. The one problem that hurts both characters is that they are predictable do-gooders. Again, not inherently bad, but it kind of undercuts the study when you already know what they're going to do.

PD: If you dismiss a movie because it has a lot of comedy then you're a very simple minded person. Also, just because a movie is serious doesn't make it automatically good.

Sounds like you're twisting my words as I didn't dismiss the movies solely for having a lot of comedy. I dismissed the Phase 2 movies for being self-indulgent to the point of overelying on jokes, which in turns, undercuts the story they had (in some cases, the problems are worse like TTDW's underdeveloped villain). Moreover, where did I say that Cap 2 being serious meant that it was automatically good? It was a culmination of factors, starting from the Captain America's conflict against the world and SHIELD, to the brilliant cinematography and tone, and good script. I know that Captain America 2 is a good movie, but it's not a good character study like some here will say.

 

[Flint Marko]

No see post at top of the page. It only counts if Cap is the only character in the film. He shouldn't have any lines at all or anyone else to talk to, we should be focusing purely on getting into his head. They should set it on a desert or in space so that there's less chance of an extra wandering in front of the camera and invalidating it. As soon as you have 1 character in a Cap film that isn't Cap, all positives are done. It's a wrap. Game over.

Say what you want about TWS, any comic book character would be incredibly lucky to get a film half that good.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

There sure is a lot of **** getting shoveled around in this thread.

 

[Flint Marko]

Sounds like you're twisting my words as I didn't dismiss the movies solely for having a lot of comedy. I dismissed the Phase 2 movies for being self-indulgent to the point of overelying on jokes, which in turns, undercuts the story they had (in some cases, the problems are worse like TTDW's underdeveloped villain). Moreover, where did I say that Cap 2 being serious meant that it was automatically good? It was a culmination of factors, starting from the Captain America's conflict against the world and SHIELD, to the brilliant cinematography and tone, and good script. I know that Captain America 2 is a good movie, but it's not a good character study like some here will say.

There was no "over reliance" on jokes in any movie that I saw, and the humor that was present didn't hinder the story. There were some moments in TDW were the humor was jarring, but that's it.
This is one of the most tired and overused complaints I see about the Marvel films, and there really isn't anything to base that off of.
Go back and watch IM3. Or guardians. Or cap 2. There are jokes when it is appropriate and fits the character (Iron Man and Rocket are going to be making jokes; Cap and Pepper and Drax won't, as that isn't really who they are).
Humor aids story telling and helps you get inside the characters head. Downey's swarm and flippancy is perfectly in line with who Stark is. Rocket cracking jokes about stealing amputees prosthetic's is not only hysterical, but shows you how reckless and uncaring he can be at times.
I'm not necessarily accusing you of this, this is just a time for me to bring this up as it gets on my nerves, but to fault a movie for making the audience laugh at appropriate moments is beyond stupid. A lot of people seem to operate under the ridiculous notion that if a film is devoid of humor or joy than it is automatically "mature" and "dark", therefore an elevated form of story telling, and if a film has some humor in it than it is for children and can't be taken seriously.
Completely stupid.

 

[Iceman]

Worked well for Coulson. Coming in 2016 -- Captain America: T.A.H.I.T.I.

Great call. Noone could complain with this.

 

[Loki882]

There was no "over reliance" on jokes in any movie that I saw, and the humor that was present didn't hinder the story. There were some moments in TDW were the humor was jarring, but that's it.
This is one of the most tired and overused complaints I see about the Marvel films, and there really isn't anything to base that off of.
Go back and watch IM3. Or guardians. Or cap 2. There are jokes when it is appropriate and fits the character (Iron Man and Rocket are going to be making jokes; Cap and Pepper and Drax won't, as that isn't really who they are).
Humor aids story telling and helps you get inside the characters head. Downey's swarm and flippancy is perfectly in line with who Stark is. Rocket cracking jokes about stealing amputees prosthetic's is not only hysterical, but shows you how reckless and uncaring he can be at times.
I'm not necessarily accusing you of this, this is just a time for me to bring this up as it gets on my nerves, but to fault a movie for making the audience laugh at appropriate moments is beyond stupid. A lot of people seem to operate under the ridiculous notion that if a film is devoid of humor or joy than it is automatically "mature" and "dark", therefore an elevated form of story telling, and if a film has some humor in it than it is for children and can't be taken seriously.
Completely stupid.

It's not that they have humor. It's that they had TOO much of it, it wasn't integrated well into the narrative, it killed tension in scenes that should have been taken more seriously, and it just plan-on wasn't that funny a lot of the time. You remember the cave scene from IM 1. Go back an watch it again, and notice the distinct lack of one thing, Stark making a lot of jokes. He took the situation seriously because it needed to be taken seriously. So no, he DOESN'T always crack jokes, he knows when to get serious once the situation calls for it. IM 2 and IM 3 apparently forget that fact. I'm supposed to find the dumb jokes in TDW amusing when there's a villain trying to exterminate all life in the universe, no that's out of place and tonally-jarring. You want to have humor elsewhere in the film, in more appropriate situations, then that's fine. But not in situations like that.

 

[Matt Mortem]

IM3 was the only time I felt there was too much humor, but it didn't completely spoil it for me. IM3 had more problems than humor to worry about.

 

[InJustice]

There was no "over reliance" on jokes in any movie that I saw, and the humor that was present didn't hinder the story. There were some moments in TDW were the humor was jarring, but that's it.
This is one of the most tired and overused complaints I see about the Marvel films, and there really isn't anything to base that off of.
Go back and watch IM3. Or guardians. Or cap 2. There are jokes when it is appropriate and fits the character (Iron Man and Rocket are going to be making jokes; Cap and Pepper and Drax won't, as that isn't really who they are).
Humor aids story telling and helps you get inside the characters head. Downey's swarm and flippancy is perfectly in line with who Stark is. Rocket cracking jokes about stealing amputees prosthetic's is not only hysterical, but shows you how reckless and uncaring he can be at times.
I'm not necessarily accusing you of this, this is just a time for me to bring this up as it gets on my nerves, but to fault a movie for making the audience laugh at appropriate moments is beyond stupid. A lot of people seem to operate under the ridiculous notion that if a film is devoid of humor or joy than it is automatically "mature" and "dark", therefore an elevated form of story telling, and if a film has some humor in it than it is for children and can't be taken seriously.
Completely stupid.

No one is saying that having humour is a bad thing, but there needs to be a time and a place for it. And that's the problem with the Phase 2 movies, it wasn't integrated well into the narrative. Take IM3 for instance, if you look at the end of the Avengers, Tony handles a rather traumatizing situation by cracking a joke after Hulk grabs him falling from a dimension hole. That's one way of taking us inside Tony's head, albeit in a short time. But, in IM3, we're supposed to see a Tony Stark that has PTSD-like symptoms after the battle of New York, and yet that side story was completely ignored in favour of exploring larger plot workings, and excessive humour. It's hard to take the film seriously when the humour undercuts some of the more serious and tension-filled stuff they had. Again, as Loki882 said IM1 is one of the examples of a film where seriousness and humour were well-balanced together.

 

[TeeKay]

*Enters thread*

 

[Batmannerism]

Cap suffers from the same "problem" as Superman in that many modern fans don't like what defines the character, so they hope for and appreciate changing it. The Winter Soldier was darn near a perfect Captain America movie...but some people just don't like Captain America.

The great thing about the movie is that Captain America IS The Winter Soldier. I mean...sure...not in name...but in deeds. I think that was handled subtly enough, but was clear. Cap is the guy with old fashioned values who believes in what America used to stand for...and he was willing to fight against his own system in order to preserve those values. Cap isn't, and shouldn't, change. He is not conflicted on these issues. He knows who he is and what his version of America is, and he will die to protect it. The purpose of the character is to celebrate what is right with America and also offer critique on what is wrong with it currently.
.

Yeah, that's a very fair call - I loathe Cap, my least favourite Marvel hero, but I still enjoyed TWS (I only went due to peer pressure, there I admitted it).

I think your point of Cap being a critique of American values, that is the best comment so far. But I see it differently from you. Doesn't make me right or you wrong, but there are other ways of looking at Cap and what he's all about.
As far as what Cap stands for, how about saying that Cap stands for what America could should stand for ? (rather than what it used to stand for, because it's arguable whether it ever really stood for the same values as Cap).

When the rest of us, in the wide world, look at America we see lots of great things, and lots of terrible things too - well okay, at least I do. I've been to the states many times, and I think Americans are great people, with a kind of energy that you don't find anywhere else. But, there are some things really, really wrong with America - and the sad thing is that I don't know if they can be fixed. Like I said, the people of America are generally fantastic, but the structures that exist around them.........some of those are a lot less admirable.

So how does this relate to Cap ? I guess what I'd respect in a Cap film, is Cap having a good hard look at his values, and then maybe realising he needs to let go of his black and white view of the world and adopt a more nuanced perspective in order to really make a difference. He doesn't need to stop being a great guy, but IMO he needs to let go of his simplistic view of right and wrong, and freedom - because freedom is a very complex thing, and brings with it a lot of consequences.

Anyone who clings to anything absolutely either gets broken or breaks a lot of stuff around them ( Einstein said that insanity was doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results).

It's true that TWS dealt with Cap seeing himself as outdated, but instead of changing (and I don't mean giving in to Hydra - which was a terrible contrivance and a cop-out really, it would have been much more meaningful if he turned against his masters, not because they were secretly a nazi-based evil cult, but really because their way of operating was doing more harm than good and out of sync with his values).

But Cap merely realising that yes, he's out of touch, but then not having to change at all...well that doesn't do much for him.

Which is where the contrast with TDK is most apparent - and why IMO, it's a better film.

IMHO what is great about TDK (and make no mistake TDK is a great movie) had very little to do with Bruce and Batman. If you want a good 'Batman' movie rather than a good movie that 'happens' to have Batman in it, then watch Batman Begins.

Now I partially agree with that, TDK is a great film period. However, I think that Batman's character arc in the film is a big part of that, in fact a lot of what happens only happens because of Batman- the primary theme of the film is escalation, the Joker being a response to Batman ( "You complete ME .") The path that Batman travels is a lot more conflicted than Cap's and this was best said by Injustice:

We start out seeing Batman with the same moral compass as in Batman Begins, and then through his actions in TDK, we see his moral compass gets pushed to the point where he's starting to consider doing things that he would never do: he starts to contemplate killing the Joker in the Interrogation scene, he invades the privacy of millions of people so he can catch this one person. And at the end, we see that Batman realizes the Joker was right as he was able to not only dump Harvey down to his level, but also have Batman and Gordon contradict their moral authority. Hence, the struggle isn't like Cap 2 where it's morality vs. cynicism, for Bruce it's "How far am I willing to go before I completely destroy my morals?

I think it says a lot about TWS in that it was entertaining, even for people who don't like Cap, it was a good movie. I'm also saying that there are people who like Cap has he is (and that's probably the majority, at least on this thread) but there are also others that think the character could do with more of an arc than a straight flat line, in terms of his character development.

Just IMO.

 

[Loki882]

No, HYDRA wasn't a cop-out. Making the US Government the bad guy would have opened up a can of worms that the movie really didn't need. And it's still a critique on the government because the government let HYDRA corrupt it's biggest intelligence agencies for over sixty years.

 

[Iceman]

This current rollout seems so ambitious. What the hell are they going to do post IW2?! t:

 

[Heretic]

If you need Cap to be something else other than what he is, then you are not a Cap fan. Fortunately, there are PLENTY of other superheroes who are probably more in line with what you are looking for. Not every character should be a perfect fit for every movie-goer.

 

[Iceman]

Every Universe needs one Cap/Supes.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

This current rollout seems so ambitious. What the hell are they going to do post IW2?! t:

Slapstick
Great Lakes Avengers
Spider-Ham

 

[Iceman]

Slapstick
Great Lakes Avengers
Spider-Ham

Oh damn now I want those now. **** Infinity War!

 

[Whiskey Tango]

I know right?

 

[StarLord]

*Enters thread*

 

[PunyGod]

This current rollout seems so ambitious. What the hell are they going to do post IW2?! t:

A good question that I think deserves its own thread.

Its clear that Infinity War is the grand finale to the current MCU. So where do they go from there?

The biggest issue is the actors. Many of them like RDJ are not returning. And even if they did they are getting kinda old. (the fundamental problem with live action actors )

A full reboot? Unlikely since they are already casting people like Black Panther to multi-picture deals.

Recast? Maybe for certain characters. But there is still an age issue for characters themselves. The MCU seems to be unfolding mostly in real time with a year between films (unlike the comics where major events might only be weeks apart in Marvel time). So how long is Tony Stark going to be Iron Man? Into his 60s? Will they have to introduce Marvel Time for the MCU too?

New characters like Bucky taking up the mantle of existing characters? Again might be possible for certain characters. But this runs as much risk of audience backlash as a recast would.

Move forward with new characters like Captain Marvel and have the older heroes retire?

Probably a combination of all of the above.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Establish new properties which can take over for a time while Cap, Iron Man, etc get a break. After a few years they can recast with minimal difficulty.

 

[Batmannerism]

No, HYDRA wasn't a cop-out. Making the US Government the bad guy would have opened up a can of worms that the movie really didn't need. And it's still a critique on the government because the government let HYDRA corrupt it's biggest intelligence agencies for over sixty years.

Disagree.

That Hydra could keep a guy with a cyborg arm on ice and unfreeze him for the occasional assassination was far-fetched, but still worked. That Shield itself , an intensely secret and well resourced security organization, could be completely infiltrated by a group like Hydra......that was a bit much (I mean MI-5 was infiltrated by 5 KGB double- agents but do you really think the CIA or ISA could be effectively taken over by a neo-nazi group ? )

But that's not really the point, the real point is that it doesn't force Cap to make a difficult choice - because Hydra are so obviously and intrinsically evil. To me that's not a particularly interesting choice at all.

But if you like Cap just the way he is, and most people seem to , then fair enough. I don't, and still enjoyed TWS.

 

[Dr. Evil]

The reaction of most of us after Tuesday:

 

[Lilbaz]

Disagree.

That Hydra could keep a guy with a cyborg arm on ice and unfreeze him for the occasional assassination was far-fetched, but still worked. That Shield itself , an intensely secret and well resourced security organization, could be completely infiltrated by a group like Hydra......that was a bit much (I mean MI-5 was infiltrated by 5 KGB double- agents but do you really think the CIA or ISA could be effectively taken over by a neo-nazi group ? )

But that's not really the point, the real point is that it doesn't force Cap to make a difficult choice - because Hydra are so obviously and intrinsically evil. To me that's not a particularly interesting choice at all.

But if you like Cap just the way he is, and most people seem to , then fair enough. I don't, and still enjoyed TWS.

Are you being serious? Maybe not nazi. But neo-conservatism. More recently the evangelical influence on politics in America is absolutely frightening.

 

[Batmannerism]

Are you being serious? Maybe not nazi. But neo-conservatism. More recently the evangelical influence on politics in America is absolutely frightening.

Ah- I think you've misunderstood me there, I'm highlighting the ridiculousness of a group like Hydra completely infiltrating and taking control of Shield - I used the neo-nazi reference because of Hydra's Nazi origins.

I apologize for not being clear enough - in no way am I comparing the CIA with the Nazis, that would be crazy.

The evangelical influence is a bit scarier, but what scares me more is the ignorance of some people who hold themselves up as legitimate commentators
- I'm thinking of Ann Coulter. It's not that I don't think she should have freedom of speech, everyone should have that it's what keeps western democracies running - no it's just that her beliefs are so shockingly untutored, yet she purports to be an authority (as in someone who actually knows something).

 

[Johnny-Oh]

Barely had a character? We must not have been watching the same movie. We start out seeing Batman with the same moral compass as in Batman Begins, and then through his actions in TDK, we see his moral compass gets pushed to the point where he's starting to consider doing things that he would never do: he starts to contemplate killing the Joker in the Interrogation scene, he invades the privacy of millions of people so he can catch this one person. And at the end, we see that Batman realizes the Joker was right as he was able to not only dump Harvey down to his level, but also have Batman and Gordon contradict their moral authority. Hence, the struggle isn't like Cap 2 where it's morality vs. cynicism, for Bruce it's "How far am I willing to go before I completely destroy my morals?" That being said, Batman is well-aware of the Joker being valid (at least as it pertains to having to break his rules in order to accomplish good), but for the most part, the Joker is still uncontrolled chaos, so it's not like he's completely valid.

How? He never acknowledges this. He also never really contemplates killing the Joker, he was just threatening him by saying that. Again like I said, Batman is a reactive character, the movie barely focuses in him.

The struggle doesn't really mean much because it comes down to being a choice as Batmannerism said. Which isn't to say that it's bad, but it's nothing like a character study. It's basically a choice between being akin to a government lackey and letting his moral compass go, or remaining the same old person. In fact, it's no different from Man of Steel's arc when Clark struggles with the conflict of whether to use his powers, or wanting to stay in the shadows because the world wasn't ready for him. The one problem that hurts both characters is that they are predictable do-gooders. Again, not inherently bad, but it kind of undercuts the study when you already know what they're going to do.

I fail to see how TDK is even remotely close of a character study of Batman. Conceptually yes, the movie was about pushing him to his limits but the actual film never acknowledges his perspective on this, we never actually see him dealing with his struggle. 90% of his dialogue is exposition, whether him delivering it or asking questions to get it.

Contrast that to The First Avenger and The Winter Soldier where Cap gets a lot of small talk and we get to see a lot of his personality, morals, principles, fears, etc. I never read the comics but the movies made me love the character, something that unfortunately TDK trilogy didn't do for Batman(despite being really good films). I wouldn't even call TWS a character study either, to me it was about Captain's old school optimism contrasted with the present more complex world and at the same time influencing it. I have to repeat it: Cap was a proactive character, he answers back and has conviction unlike Batman in TDK.

Its perfectly fine if you don't like TWS because its not a strong character study(it wasn't meant to be) but what bothers me is that your example of a character study is much worse than Cap. A better example would be Professor X and Magneto in First Class, both have strong points of view and the clash of ideologies is amazing(a better execution of the good vs evil theme from TDK). Other examples are Tony from Iron Man and Peter from SM2