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!
-
@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
-
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.
-
@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.