Well now I have to hear that OUT LOUD.
Marvel Movies Thread - Holy Shitballs
-
-
@Robby said in Marvel Movies Thread - Holy Shitballs:
Just a miss on every possible level and it's both good and unfortunate that it was the last Marvel thing I caught up on because man, THIS is the reason the Marvels flopped. How well franchises do is partly based on how good the movie before them was and after this utter piece of garbage, I can see a LOT of people saying "I'm not watching any more of these. I'll make an exception for Guardians 3 and Deadpool 3 but then I'm done."
I didn't care much for Quantumania either, though I don't despise it as much as you did, but I have to say, I did go watch The Marvels in theaters and found it incredibly meh, personally. The dynamic between the characters was kinda cute, Brie was a lot more charming than in her first film and Kamala was great as always. But the villain was horribly forgettable (I don't even remember her name!), as was the plot. The storyline with the most potential, Captain Marvel been seen as a destroyer by the Kree, which could have been contrasted with Kamala's hero-worshipping and Monica's sort of disdainful opinion of Carol in interesting ways, was outright skipped. The "musical" section was a complete failure that actually made me feel secondhand embarrassment (and I actually like musicals!), the "switching positions while fighting" gimmick also, aside from a few fun scenes early in the film, didn't really live up to its potential either for me.
I dunno, they are both pretty weak and, worst of all, generic Marvel offerings. It's true to a degree, of course, what you said about the previous movie of a franchise partly affecting the success of the next one - Iron Man 3, Doctor Strange MoM and even the first Captain Marvel are all fair examples of that. But shouldn't "The Marvels" have gotten at least some goodwill from audiences after GotG Vol. 3 was received so well, then? I think it would have been at least a bit more successful if people, you know, cared much about any of the characters or if it's trailers looked more interesting, or if had actually gotten good reviews or anything. I think both movies have similar problems in that they just feel pretty lackluster and unimaginative and even, weirdly, kinds filler-ish? I don't mean necessarily just in terms of the greater MCU saga, but even in terms of continuing or resolving character arcs, neither film really accomplishes much. An also rather weak film like Thor LaT at least has going for it that it gives a more satisfying resolution to Thor's and Jane's relationship than what we got in Ragnarok (nothing at all really, that is).
-
As mediocre as the Multiverse Saga has been, I think my least favorite MCU film is still The Incredible Hulk, as I can't forgive how boring that movie is.
Quantumania was low-tier for sure, but it had some things I found interesting, at least visually.
-
Even when MCU films are trying to be more dramatic there is something incredibly sterile about them. I definitely think that the focus on a house style that is so bland and homogenized has rendered these films lifeless.
Like, the most exciting films I've seen in 2024 has been I Saw the TV Glow, Love Lies Bleeding, and Challengers. There's something human about those films on thematic level, of course, but also the manner in which they are filmed and lit are far more humanistic. Marvel films are just the lowest tier of action figure now, only the high price point doesn't go back into raising the quality of materials or the paychecks of the people who craft them.
-
@Riddler said in Marvel Movies Thread - Holy Shitballs: I did go watch The Marvels in theaters and found it incredibly meh, personally.
I'm not saying Marvels was a super amazing movie. It's middle tier Marvel at best. But it was a good time, had some great moments, and the best needle drop in the franchise. And Kamala is great, and it's failure sabotages any future projects with the character and the actress.
Amongst its peers, it shouldn't have been THE flop but after Eternals and Quantum and Thor 4 I can see why people would start dipping out and not trusting the brand by default.
Probably doesn't help that execs got nervous and cut half an hour out of the film and it shows. They very clearly spent more time on the singing planet originally, and there were the bones of a "Kamala gets disillusioned" arc that were pretty blatantly edited around. I'm all for a breezy perfectly paced 90 minute movie but when even the earliest and shortest Marvel movies are 2 hours and this one was only 90 minutes, something happened to it in the editing room. You can tell from the trailers too, they didn't want to show anything past the first 20 minutes, someone didn't know how to deal with the movie.
No movie deserves to do well by default, obviously, but in a franchise that has regularly cleared 600 million on every film for over a decade, (aside from covid era films) it sucks that one was the complete failure when Quantumania was so, so much worse. It didn't deserve to be THE big bomb that gets pointed at as a huge failure that lets assholes go "ah ha, woke is broke!
-
-
I expected a lot from Ant Man 3. For me, all of the trilogies had a weak link that is just drags the other 2 and I was waiting to see what Ant Man would do. Cap 1 was a disappointment. The heart of the film was Steve trying to make it into the army and Erskine made that film so good. Once Erskine died, the whole film became bland. The worst offense was that Red Skull is a top 5 villain of mine and they butchered him. Yeah, i'll admit my bias, I love Red Skull and wanted so much more.
I think the real issue is that Steve is boring. Nat, Sam, and Fury make Winter Soldier. Civil War has a similar situation where Cap is blessed with a supporting cast of Zemo, T'Challa, and Tony making the film so good. Steve isn't bad, just a bore if he is relied on to carry the film. The best use of him was in Endgame and Avengers 1 really. His old school, bravery shtick just stands out better in those.
I'd add Iron Man 3, Dark World, and Guardians 2 in there. I see what they were trying to do with Scott's daughter, but I feel like they didn't really commit to that plotline as much as they did with Janet/Kang. It was background noise. I felt there was room to connect the 2 where she feels guilt for leaving folks behind and Scott is trying to make his daughter proud. I'm not a better writer than them, so I won't rant on an alternative. I just see where they were going.
I just don't feel for Janet and Kang like that. The first film had this wholesome, sweet aspect of his relationship with his daughter and didn't feel like a superhero film first. More of a criminal trying to do right by his loved one. A bit of Heat in there. 2nd film had the Ghost issue and more of a family vibe.
I like Luis, but he doesn't make or break any of the films. He's just a decent amount of frosting on the cake. I assume the substitute for his humor were the Quantum Realm people. They didn't bother me honestly. They barely made a difference in the story.
I did enjoy Pym's ants getting a jab at Kang. I've always wanted to see more of the ants being a factor.
In the end, I liked it, but it was too weak. Janet and Kang's relationship were just too relied on to hold up the film. I wasn't too engaged with that. I wanted more from Scott and Cassie. The dynamic was very much similar to Kate and Hawkeye where her admiration for him ignited a fire back in him. Cassie was just not involved enough for me to feel Scott's triumphant moments where he found the resolve to be the hero she wants.
I'm not too big on visuals for films as i'm critical on writing. Visuals to me are a given. You're supposed to get that right. If you don't, i'm not gonna mark that against the film as much. It's just the nature of the industry.
Fans expect a film that took 5 years to write, film, and edit the initial one to be out with a sequel by 2025. Reeves started to write the Batman in 2017, filming by 2020 and it released in 2022. Realistically, the sequel should come out in 2027 to everyone time to do the same, but it is coming out in 2026 and there is some big fuss over it. Even if you erase Covid, a lot of films do take 3-5 years of writing, filming, and post.
Same for Into The Spider-Verse. "Why didn't you animate both 2 and 3 at the same time"? Yes, brilliant idea. Across comes out in 2024, instead of 2023 and the 3rd film comes out 2026. Fans don't want to admit that their demand for films to be release every 2-3 years is just as much responsible for the exhausted creative as the studio. "Where is Invincible, how long does it take to animate".
I notice that anime fans are more in tune with the process of animation than American cartoon fans care to be. Many that work in the industry are online going over horror stories of the conditions and it doesn't get to everyone.
Quantumania and Loki appear to be the last of Kang if i'm not mistaken. I can tell with the rings conversation at the end of Shang Chi, Tiamut being used for its resources, Quantum bands, etc, there was clear preparation for how to deal with Kang tech. A single Kang is never the issue. It's usually 1 utilizing the others which is the real threat. Quantumania and Loki had them dealing with a portion.
Oh well, the magic/cosmic energy/tech theme can easily just be transferred to Doom. Does he have to kill off the other Kangs to explain this? MCU usually just hand-wave it with humor.
-
The Marvels feels like the third film in a series but we never got the film between it and Captain Marvel that set a lot of its plot points up.
Complicating things since 2009.
-
@Robby said in Marvel Movies Thread - Holy Shitballs:
No movie deserves to do well by default, obviously, but in a franchise that has regularly cleared 600 million on every film for over a decade, (aside from covid era films) it sucks that one was the complete failure when Quantumania was so, so much worse. It didn't deserve to be THE big bomb that gets pointed at as a huge failure that lets assholes go "ah ha, woke is broke!
You’d get that even if the movie hadn’t flopped. Like if it made it’s budget back but made less than the first movie these people would still talk shit.
-
@Ubiq I'd count WandaVision, Ms. Marvel, and Secret Invasion as a collective 1.5.
The peace treaty between Skrulls and Kree is mentioned multiple times during Secret Invasion. It is explained how their current situation has an alternative where they can leave Earth if the summit goes well.
The Quantum Bands narrative goes back to Ms. Marvel and its history.
WandaVision has Monica's character arc and how she views Carol.
Outside of that, there was mostly a question of why Carol is so busy and can't address her own home planet. Well, these little explanations where she is trying to keep the peace, not just between Skrulls and Kree, but other groups as well where she got "married".
Not sure if you watched those 3 shows or not, they just fill in blanks at points which differs from Multiverse of Madness where they explain everything in story.
-
@Shiebs said in Marvel Movies Thread - Holy Shitballs:
@Robby I thought Jonathan Majors performance as Kang was great, best part about the movie to me, I was looking forward to seeing more of him but I can see why they dropped him
His performance was good. But as an actual menace he was completely ineffectual and beaten very easily and didn't feel in any way like an unstoppable cosmic threat.
"His suit was damaged" and "he had no power" only make it worse.
Then you show a room with thousands of the guy? Including three of them in more-ridiculous-than-usual outfits? That just turns him into a fodder army, not a bigger threat. Everyone knows the inverse rule of ninjas. One of them is unstoppable but a dozen melt like butter. Thousands of them? Aren't going to last a minute.
-
@Cockycent said in Marvel Movies Thread - Holy Shitballs:
Same for Into The Spider-Verse. "Why didn't you animate both 2 and 3 at the same time"? Yes, brilliant idea. Across comes out in 2024, instead of 2023 and the 3rd film comes out 2026. Fans don't want to admit that their demand for films to be release every 2-3 years is just as much responsible for the exhausted creative as the studio. "Where is Invincible, how long does it take to animate".
The problem is, they CLAIMED they were working on both at the same time, that it grew to two films because their ideas were too big, and that they would be released 9 months apart.
We were told these things repeatedly. No one would have expected two animated films from the same team that close together otherwise. And that would have been 5 and 6 years after the first film, which is a decent production time to put together a ~3 hour story if it was all written and boarded at once.
But that was all just a misdirect. Because the movie ends on a cliffhanger, so someone tried to do damage control and convince audiences it wouldn't be that long a wait, but that was clearly a total lie.
And they're right, the movie probably would have done a lot worse if people had been told "it ends on a cliffhanger and you won't get the resolution for at least 4 years. Maybe 5. Who knows, we haven't even started writing it yet, and half our animators quit because we treated them so poorly."
@Cockycent said in Marvel Movies Thread - Holy Shitballs:
"Where is Invincible, how long does it take to animate".
Invincible is psychological. It does hour long episodes so the entire season is over in no time and it doesn't feel like a full season. Take the exact same content and make it 16 episodes instead of 8, and thus have it release over 4 months instead of 2, and people instantly feel better about it. Leave in the mid-way gap they had last season, and suddenly the season is releasing over the course of 7 or 8 months... and then the wait for the next season is a matter of months rather than years, and that would make a HUGE difference.
Its a trick Netflix has pulled for a lot of its animated stuff and in a world where they just binge drop things, it helps a lot.
It also took Amazon a long time to greenlight season 2, so there was an extra long wait, it shouldn't have taken nearly 3 years to do that amount of episodes. Seasons 3 and 4 should be on a much more reasonable timetable of "about a year".
I'm not saying thats THE solution for invincible, the hour long format lets them do some pacing stuff you can't do in a half hour... but the trade off IS shorter seasons and longer waits for the exact same amount of work and that's a choice they made.
It's not just an Invincible problem. Shows used to do 26 episode seasons so there was new stuff year around with a summer break to catch up on reruns, and you'd get 150 episode series in a few years and spend time with those characters year around. (And animated shows would do 13... the craziness of 65 episode animated seasons is mind-boggling but that's obviously a quality issue at that pace)
Now we get 8-10 episode seasons once every 2 years and.... it's not the same. Production values are higher and there "no filler" (which is not actually a good thing, you need down time to relax with the character) but the tradeoff is there's no time to really sink into a series and let it become a part of your life... you binge it in a weekend and then forget about till it shows up again in a few years.
-
@Robby said in Marvel Movies Thread - Holy Shitballs:
@Cockycent said in Marvel Movies Thread - Holy Shitballs:
Same for Into The Spider-Verse. "Why didn't you animate both 2 and 3 at the same time"? Yes, brilliant idea. Across comes out in 2024, instead of 2023 and the 3rd film comes out 2026. Fans don't want to admit that their demand for films to be release every 2-3 years is just as much responsible for the exhausted creative as the studio. "Where is Invincible, how long does it take to animate".
The problem is, they CLAIMED they were working on both at the same time, that it grew to two films because their ideas were too big, and that they would be released 9 months apart.
We were told these things repeatedly. No one would have expected two animated films from the same team that close together otherwise. And that would have been 5 and 6 years after the first film, which is a decent production time to put together a ~3 hour story if it was all written and boarded at once.
But that was all just a misdirect. Because the movie ends on a cliffhanger, so someone tried to do damage control and convince audiences it wouldn't be that long a wait, but that was clearly a total lie.
And they're right, the movie probably would have done a lot worse if people had been told "it ends on a cliffhanger and you won't get the resolution for at least 4 years. Maybe 5. Who knows, we haven't even started writing it yet, and half our animators quit because we treated them so poorly."
Invincible is psychological. It does hour long episodes so the entire season is over in no time and it doesn't feel like a full season. Take the exact same content and make it 16 episodes instead of 8, and thus have it release over 4 months instead of 2, and people instantly feel better about it. Leave in the mid-way gap they had last season, and suddenly the season is releasing over the course of 7 or 8 months... and then the wait for the next season is a matter of months rather than years, and that would make a HUGE difference.
Its a trick Netflix has pulled for a lot of its animated stuff and in a world where they just binge drop things, it helps a lot.
It also took Amazon a long time to greenlight season 2, so there was an extra long wait, it shouldn't have taken nearly 3 years to do that amount of episodes. Seasons 3 and 4 should be on a much more reasonable timetable of "about a year".
I'm not saying thats THE solution for invincible, the hour long format lets them do some pacing stuff you can't do in a half hour... but the trade off IS shorter seasons and longer waits for the exact same amount of work and that's a choice they made.
Both of these are just generally the same situation. Every announcement feels like a way to calm down impatient fans that don't care to understand it takes too long. Especially in Invincible's case.
I blame Oda for the same. Whether it is "I want to be finished" or whatever it is, this kind of messaging is just in bad taste to me.
At least in Oda's case, I feel like it is just words and he won't rush himself.
The Invincible team really screwed up. They pissed off the Korean studio Maven Image that did the first season.
They had to split the 2nd season into 3 different Korean studios including Maven. They not only have to find time to get that ensemble cast to do voice work, 3 separate studios who are busy with other works have to now make time to animate.
Their messaging felt more frantic than anybody else like they were allowing fans to really get to them and rush.
American companies are overworking these Korean studios and then putting their name in front for at the most writing and storyboarding. NE4U and Tiger Animation among other Korean studios are on X-Men 97 and so many more.
American companies and the graduate programs are going away from 2D tracks. It just takes too long and is more difficult. Sending and recommending students to settle for VFX or 3D tracks.
Then they throw all the 2D work on Korean, French, and anime studios.
That 2nd season of Invincible was clearly rushed and I hope Lord/Miller don't allow the same for Spider-Verse.
Fans swear these things can just come out 3-4 years later, then complain when it doesn't look up to par. Even if it is less than 12 episodes. Some of these studios have other works to do.
I have to disagree with "no one would have expected". The pressure for creatives to address or comfort fans comes from fans and the studio. Fans have been craving not only a sequel, but Miles Morales content in general.
Completing the story with a 2 parter as opposed to 1 film might be a cash grab, but constantly feeling the need to give out dates that are too early is a clear sign to settle greedy fans.
-
@Cockycent said in Marvel Movies Thread - Holy Shitballs:
I have to disagree with "no one would have expected". The pressure for creatives to address or comfort fans comes from fans and the studio. Fans have been craving not only a sequel, but Miles Morales content in general.
Is Spiderverse 2 had been a standalone, resolved most of its plotlines, and didn't end on a cliffhanger... it'd sit better. Then waiting another 3 or 4 years would be fine.
It's entirely the making it half a story and the explicit promise there will be more that creates a promise, and a demand, for a follow up sooner than later.
Same with something like Game of Thrones or Kingkiller Chronicles. If George Martin or Patrick Ruthfus had finished their stories, no one would care when the next book came, and would just be happy when it happened. Ending on cliffhangers with no resolution though? That's when it gets wonky. Meanwhile Guy Gavriel Kay takes 3 years per book and no problems. Brandon Sanderson is writing an expansive universe that's taken 20 years to get this far and is going to take another 20 years to get through but no one complains because he has regular output, updates, and communicates with his audience.
If you promise the audience a sequel, then you're also promising to do your best to get that out in a reasonable amount of time. Life happens, stuff gets in the way, creative block happens, but you do what you can do to resolve the cliffhangers that you set up.
-
Back to Quantumania, it did legitimately have one kind of brilliant scene. The scene where Scott shrinks down and splits into multiple copies of himself and they all have the same objective, like a hive mind, and start climbing on top of each other to reach their goal.
You know. Like ants.
-
@Robby That just brings it back to my original point. What is a reasonable amount of time vs what fans want.
The first took 5 years to write, animate and edit, then Across came out 5 years after that. 2027/28 would fit in there, even with an original promise of 2024.
They want it 2025/26 with disregard of how long it should really take. It is 2024, so that original promise is just out the window.
-
It on average takes about 3 years to make an animated film start to finish normally. 4 isn't unheard of, especially started from scratch on a new IP, but 5 is really unusual if the sequel was greenlit right away and they kept the same creative team.
Expecting a 6 year total cycle for a pair of film described as "being developed at the same time", when they had already developed the characters and visual style, wasn't unreasonable,
Until it turned out they'd done literally nothing on the third one and had been abusing the animators.
-
I hope projects learn a bit more from anime that have recently indulged in series/series premiers that are the length of four episodes. Oshi no Ko did this for its first episode to really set up the series properly and it's an amazing first episode, for example. Re:Zero did it first with a double-length first episode for its first season, then began just regularly doing 30 minute (without commercials) episodes and now its third season is beginning with a 90 minute episode (the length of four episodes, or there abouts). Invincible's reliance on double-length episodes is smart, but the major issue that it faces is that eight episodes a season is still really short. They should be committing to higher episode counts and longer production schedules, or at least shelling out the cash for better studios. Batman (1992) might've dropped a ton of cash per episode, but if it did that now in an era where it is easier to learn what skills your animators have you can plan a lot better.
-
Most of these American companies shuffle between the same 8 Korean animation studios. My favorite part is when they refer to a few of them as anime. "Adult cartoon" isn't marketable anymore. Calling them anime with no anime studio attached been a decent strategy by Netflix for almost 7 years now.
Last 2 years, i've seen more and more fans call it out more often. No longer stuck in the "anime is just cartoon anyway" trick.
-
It's honestly embarrassing when they do that—like, it's really weak-sauce to try to market your American cartoon sub-contracted to a Korean studio with the word that is accepted to refer to Japanese cartoons in English-speaking nations.
I honestly hope more US studios take a page from Isekai Suicide Squad. That series' main production crew was entirely from the Japanese animation industry, with a story crafted and then a series production led by Japanese creators rather than a US producer. A Justice League series in that style would be amazing, IMO.
-
Bento Box seems to be doing well, both as Bob's Burgers and Hazbin Hotel's animators, along with lots of other projects.
-
There are a couple American animation studios that I see still doing well like Titmouse. They recently did Scavengers Reign and helped on Boys Diabolical.
-
I think a lot of the Castlevania stuff is done in-house in the US? There's some really good animation there, but I haven't been able to watch it because when I tried watching the first episode I was instantly repulsed by the terrible dialogue lol. But yeah, I think Castlevania is a really good starting point for other titles to learn from?
-
Part of Hazbin's popularity is that it came from an independent American studio which all the nerds love, and thus when bought by A24 it became their first animation project and was assigned to Bento Box. Because A24 loves their local projects.
-
Well, the trailer was fun, but, um, what does the asterisk mean?
And Bob . . . . that can't be Deadpool Bob, can it?
-
@Satsuki said in Marvel Movies Thread - Holy Shitballs:
Well, the trailer was fun, but, um, what does the asterisk mean?
And Bob . . . . that can't be Deadpool Bob, can it?
I believe that it is Sentry, Robert Reynolds.
-
2025
-
Too much in one year, but okay.
-
Wait is Blade actually coming out next year?
-
@Satsuki said in Marvel Movies Thread - Holy Shitballs:
Well, the trailer was fun, but, um, what does the asterisk mean?
Apparently that will be explained during the movie and/or after the movie's release.
-
Probably means they’ll be retitled the Dark Avengers at the end of the movie
-
-
@Satsuki said in Marvel Movies Thread - Holy Shitballs:
Well, the trailer was fun, but, um, what does the asterisk mean?
And Bob . . . . that can't be Deadpool Bob, can it?
Probably that it's going to carry the same "twist" as the comic and they'll come out as a full blown "Team Evil" by the end and the end credits will have another name.
Except that worked in Thunderbolts because they wore new costumes. Here it's a collection of all the crappy C-list villains that the movies did poorly the first time so there's no twist.
They could have played it off as Bucky is making a team and dropped the twist an hour in but with this squad and those outfits it just feels like a low rent Suicide Squad.
-
I prefer this group because everything is catered to Sentry, they are weapons that aren't outright villains, and there isn't room to really use the original team.
The original was a joke that ended up becoming a real opportunity after saving Goliath. Even in the trailer, it is shown that element of it is similar how they came for 1 thing and they were set up for a different opportunity.
Instead of a remix on a former group that they were part of, this is a fresh new group where most didn't work w/ each other prior to this.
Sentry already looks like a gov't science project/weapon.
- Dreykov violated and manipulated Antonia, Yelena, and Alexei
- America did the same to Ava (used as assassin after accident), Bucky (HYDRA disguised as SHIELD), Walker
A bunch of gov't weapons going through misunderstandings and possibly might find a way to piss off the gov't.
I can't see Bucky forming a team, it isn't in his character going by his recent character arc. He goes from job to job and tries to do little good or be left alone.
I've seen some throw Suicide Squad on them and they are just far apart. SS are a bunch of criminals being forced to kill and usually obtain an object as some secret mission. This group aren't even villains really. Antonia was controlled and so was Yelena. When left to themselves, they are more hero like or not involved with superhero mess at all. Ghost thought she could get a cure if she just did what SHIELD said.
Even their name is about keeping your real agenda and values hidden because if the world seen the real you, they wouldn't like it. Valentina as the head of the CIA and Ross as president are obviously up to no good. I can add Fisk as NYC Mayor there too.
I can see this group and the one formed in Brave New World as a spit in the face to the US current approach to "heroes".
-
@Robby said in Marvel Movies Thread - Holy Shitballs:
Here it's a collection of all the crappy C-list villains that the movies did poorly the first time so there's no twist.
Doesn't this only apply to Taskmaster and maaaaaybe Ghost (though I personally wouldn't call her character crappy)? Yelena and Alexei weren't villains in Black Widow and imo two highlights of the film. And Walker, despite the hate he got from fans, was one of the best characters in Falcon and the Winter Soldier (the episode/scene where he goes berserk and murders that one dude with Cap's shield was probably the best moment in the show).
-
@Riddler said in Marvel Movies Thread - Holy Shitballs:
@Robby said in Marvel Movies Thread - Holy Shitballs:
Here it's a collection of all the crappy C-list villains that the movies did poorly the first time so there's no twist.
Doesn't this only apply to Taskmaster and maaaaaybe Ghost (though I personally wouldn't call her character crappy)? Yelena and Alexei weren't villains in Black Widow and imo two highlights of the film. And Walker, despite the hate he got from fans, was one of the best characters in Falcon and the Winter Soldier (the episode/scene where he goes berserk and murders that one dude with Cap's shield was probably the best moment in the show).
They were protagonists, sure, but Yelena was an assassin and Alexi was off-brand Russian Captain America so however lovable he is we have to assume he did things in the past, particularly since he's being pulled into this group.
You can make arguments for them but unless you're really into the spy side of the Marvel universe this is an incredibly weak lineup of samey powers, designs and personalities. Three knock off super soldiers, three Black Widow assassins... and a Superman knock off.
(I have no real hope for because Sentry has always been terrible and I don't know what a movie could do to fix him that the comics haven't tried for 25 years but Mr. "power of one million exploding suns" is just awful and was a total mistake to introduce.)
They ALL have terrible costumes, or are much worse than their comic book counterparts (especially Ghost and Taskmaster) and their power-set is extremely samey.
They aren't Red Skull, Loki, Ultron, Dr. Doom, Mysterio, Purple Man, Kingpin, Hela, Green Goblin or Doc Ock in terms of memorable designs, powers, or abilities. Outside of Russian Cap and metal arm Bucky, they're just the black leather gang.
I assume Baron Zemo is going to be in this as a surprise reveal at some point with the purple mask and maybe they'll get more interesting looking outfits then or something.
-
@Cockycent said in Marvel Movies Thread - Holy Shitballs:
I've seen some throw Suicide Squad on them and they are just far apart. SS are a bunch of criminals being forced to kill and usually obtain an object as some secret mission.
You're looking at the minutia, as someone that knows the material, and the source its based on, and not what most audiences are going to see.
"Team of villains that couldn't carry a movie on their own tossed together where they turn out to still be better than the ACTUAL bad guy."
Sounds EXACTLY like Suicide Squad even if the details are different. Except with no giant shark man or Harley Quinn.
I can't see Bucky forming a team, it isn't in his character going by his recent character arc.
I phrased it badly. Obviously Bucky wouldn't form a team.
But the commercials could easily have faked it out, and made him the obvious centerpiece focus since he's the best known character of the bunch with the most appearances and the most distinct design.
"Winter Soldier movie" is an easier pitch than "seven spy characters with an asterisk after their name" even if the actual content is exactly the same.
-
I really wish they had gone with the original six members and concept from the comics
The idea of villains pretending to be heroes for some evil scheme and then end up liking being heroes and wanting to go legit sounds far more interesting
-
@Robby said in Marvel Movies Thread - Holy Shitballs:
@Cockycent said in Marvel Movies Thread - Holy Shitballs:
I've seen some throw Suicide Squad on them and they are just far apart. SS are a bunch of criminals being forced to kill and usually obtain an object as some secret mission.
You're looking at the minutia, as someone that knows the material, and the source its based on, and not what most audiences are going to see.
"Team of villains that couldn't carry a movie on their own tossed together where they turn out to still be better than the ACTUAL bad guy."
Sounds EXACTLY like Suicide Squad even if the details are different. Except with no giant shark man or Harley Quinn.
I just have to disagree. Most of them are villains just as much 1 would say Wolverine is for his stint as Weapon X.
They aren't even presented as villains. Ant-Man & The Wasp had Sonny who in both source and the film, was the villain. All they had to do was help Ava with her condition and she pulled off.
As said before, these are more weapons that have been manipulated than full on villains like Zemo, Erik, etc.
It isn't a mistake that all of them were shown to be more in a gray area where Walker helps saves the day or Antonia is freed from her father by Natasha.
For all purposes, they are Sentry coded, but i'll wait for the film to see more.
-
@Cockycent said in Marvel Movies Thread - Holy Shitballs:
I just have to disagree. Most of them are villains just as much 1 would say Wolverine is for his stint as Weapon X.
Like I said, you're looking at the minutia. That you can articulate those distinctions at all is way above what most audiences are going to see.
"They are all weapons that have been manipulated" is way, way too nuanced for general audiences and a teaser trailer.
Keep in mind, someone is going to have to have seen AND clearly remember Ant Man 2, which by the time Thunderbolts comes out will be seven years ago. AND the Black Widow movie which suffered from Covid attendance so not a lot of people saw it, which will be five years old. AND the Falcon/Winter SOldier tv series which a lot of people found dull and stopped watching after the first episode because it had a long setup period.
If you personally loved the Ant Man movies or the Marvel spy stuff and have rewatched those films recently or really paid attention, you have that nuance. But if you saw Ant Man 2 just once seven years ago and don't remember anything about it?
It's a team of assassins, not-Cap super soldiers, and a couple characters in scary masks that were clearly villains. They're on a team together, I guess they were all badguys.
-
@Robby Yeah, I do agree that the trailer is more catered to those who care to remember the character arcs of these individuals.
These past 6-8 films, they have put an effort into summarizing things in story like for example with Wanda in MoM, so you don't have to watch the series and have the info at your disposal.
Suicide Squad just feels way off and more closer to the Thunderbolts comic interpretation. Which wouldn't fit for what they are doing here with Sentry.
SS would be sent to kill some big bad because they are heartless enough to do it to get time off or just off self-preservation. This group appears to be fooled into monitoring someone who is just like them - Sentry.
Meanwhile this trailer has "careful who you assemble" which is clearly an Avengers thing and I don't think general audiences can miss that.
It makes sense that while they use small elements of Zemo's Thunderbolts, the twist is possibly Bendis Dark Avengers. Especially with the opening being Yelena feeling empty and venting to Alexei.
-
I mean the twist is obviously going to be Dark Avengers. They're not even being coy about it, since they're throwing an asterisk onto the title.
The only real question is when exactly does the title get replaced.
-
Was Antman 2 really that bad, I actually had fun watching it lol
Though I agree the choreography in that scene in the trailer is way more dope than anything in ant man and the wasp
I still wish they had gone with the original six members from the comic books though, Citizen V, Songbird, Mach V, Meteorite, fixer, and Atlas
-
Antman 2 was fine. 3 was the one seriously lacking.
-
@Satsuki said in Marvel Movies Thread - Holy Shitballs:
Antman 2 was fine. 3 was the one seriously lacking.
3 was terrible but I did love Jonathan Majors performance as Kang, I thought he was the best part of the movie
-
He was. And now we've lost him.
-
lol Ant Man wasn't even paid attention to before 3 like that in comparison to other franchise. This is why I don't care to hear talking heads. Dude is doing all that over design.
You ask them to speak to writing, they have no clue what is left from right. They can go all day about if Superman should have trunks, be taller than Batman, or if the eyes on Iron Man's helmet are too big.
Visuals being more important than writing is where I walk away from with these clowns. It's like the recent chapter with the character's design reveal in OP. Whether or not I like the design doesn't make or break anything. Still have to wait for characterization.
Peyton Reed gave a character lacking a real background, a name, a father who tragically died, motivation, and a personality away from just being a kill for hire. Especially the way she interacted with Bill. Oh, but look, more "sauce" because of how the VFX looks as she moves and catches a knife. Writing to this clown is who displays VFX and costumes better and that is all I need to know. Worst than powerscalers and shippers.
-
Fandom is terrible in general, so there's really no point in singling out 'shippers'—especially when the term is being used to specifically refer only to people who go out of their way to attack other people for their ships, rather than simply espousing their love for the ships they love.
