#it's not like Ragnarok is the only 'bad' marvel movie and criticism of the films is usually backed up with canon/proof | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

amazingmsme · 1 year

Text

Top 22 of 2022

End of the year tag game created by the lovely @otomiya-tickles This was so much fun, you always make the best tag games! Thanks for tagging me!

Part 1: Fandom Faves

01. Favorite new fandoms of the year:

Our Flag Means Death, The Boys, Moon Knight, Workaholics, The Stanley Parable, (I know I’m super late to the game but this game rocks) Godless, other seasons of critical role, inside job & uh… does Goncharov count?

02. Favorite new ships since this year:

Blackbonnet, not new but still my faves, Namdermo, & Shadowgast & probably some more that I’m forgetting

03. Favorite anime/TV show of the year:

Despite not seeing the new season, my fave anime this year is Demon Slayer. As for my favorite show of the year, I think the latest season of WWDITS wins

04. Favorite movie of the year:

Prey, Pinocchio (Guillermo del Toro), but if I had seen NOPE it would undoubtedly be that, Where the Crawdads Sing, others I’m sure. But this year I have barely seen any new movies & I haven’t seen any new marvel film starting with Spider-Man NWH (I know I know, you’re gonna beat me with rocks & all that jazz)

05. Favorite character of the year:

Caleb Widogast has had me in a headlock ever since I first saw him & he hasn’t let me go since

06. Favorite soundtrack of the year:

I genuinely don’t have an answer xiavaowh I don’t tend to remember what movie soundtracks I like unless it really stands out, & I’ve barely seen any new movies this year. But my favorite soundtracks in general are Wild America, The Kings or Summer and O Brother Where Art Thou

07. Favorite book/manga/comic of the year:

I don’t keep up with what is published that year, but my favorite book I found this year is Night Film by Marisha Pessl

08. Favorite game of the year:

Favorite game actually released this year? God of War Ragnarok. Favorite one I’ve played this year? Either Doki Doki Literature Club or The Stanley Parable

09. Highlight of this year to remember:

Fuckin’ Goncharov babyyyyy!

Part 2: Community Review

10. Favorite Tumblr moments of 2022:

Goncharov obvi, the queen’s death crab rave, Nov. 5th anniversary, & all the memes that came out this year. I have no grip on time so I have no idea which ones came out this year & I’m so dead inside I can’t force myself to remember

11. Favorite fan art of the year:

I don’t keep things organized enough to be able to actually find my favorite fan art specifically, but @fluffomatic is one of my fave artists on here, along with @ssnicker-doodless & @shyticklemonster r, @fluffy-alien alien but of course tons of other blogs as well!

12. Favorite fic of the year:

Bold of you to assume I can pick favorites & actually remember them 12 months later skagdk fr tho, some of my favorites are You Got My Devotion & Temptation, Frustration, So Bad It Makes Him Cry- @nhasablogg A Gentleman's Torture- @august-anon & uh, basically every single critical role fic. But specifically Waiting For My Mind To Go To Sleep & Embarrassing and Undignified- @chockfullofsecrets lightning damage- @spritewrites & something good to celebrate- @sapphicquill

13. Favorite ask game of the year:

Even tho I never really get asks when I reblogged that kind of stuff, I really enjoyed the list of questions on the fic writer ask game

14. My top achievements as a writer/artist/creator/blogger:

I finally managed to participate in tickletober & finish it despite 2 major deaths in the family at that time, can someone say coping mechanism?

15. My own best fic/post of the year:

I gotta go through & actually look but Draw Me Something as Pretty as You did the numbers this year, like ever other steddie fic lol. MY personal favorite tho was Dare to be Bold & actually got over 100 notes.

16. My most underappreciated fic/post of the year:

Too many of my tickletober fics tbh but that’s what I get for writing for microscopic fandoms like new girl, tuck everlasting & wolf 359 which all clock in around 10 notes each. You’d think with only 4 notes my Night Film fic What A Prize would win this category. But my Imposters fic Junk in the Trunk & Workaholic fic Pizza Payback tie with a whopping 1 note!!!

17. A post of mine that got more popularity than expected:

My recent “porn bots want me carnally” shitpost. I guess because it’s so relevant? (Seriously don’t get me started on that, I had close to 10 try to follow me yesterday alone)

18. Something I changed on my blog since this year:

I made a kofi! So if you feel like supporting me or you really want a fic, feel free to commission me!

Part 3: Next Year

19. Something I didn’t post this year but would like to do next year:

Mark my words I WILL make a Goncharov tickle fic, just you wait & see. I also want to write more for new or smaller fandoms I enjoy & get back to writing my chaptered fics. I also have some long one shots I want to make

20. Goals for next year:

Keep writing as much as I can, get back into physical art like oil painting, post more of my chaptered fics that I accidentally. I also want to read more fics because I really fell behind this year due to mental health & school

21. 2023 releases I look forward to the most:

The new season of The Legend of Vox Machina & uuuuhhh yeah I’m brain dead, I have no fuckin’ clue what’s coming out next year

Part 4: Spreading Love

22. Shoutouts to people who made my 2022 a better year:

I can’t promise to remember everyone, but I can sure try. Thanks to everyone for making this year not suck as much as it could’ve, y’all don’t know how much it makes me smile

@happyandticklish @ticklishraspberries @ticklish-touch @raybidtickles @shunniebuns @sugarfics @hypahticklish @fluffomatic @fluffy-lee-boa @fluffy-alien @a-fluffer-nutter @a-simple-lee @lemonsandstrawberries @tickletastic @anasticklefics @tickle-bugs @tickle-fight-club @rosileeduckie @thebest-medicine @peachytickles @poesparakeet-fics @eldritchtickles @tickly-floof @spritewrites @august-anon @ticklygiggles @sapphicquill @nhasablogg @chockfullofsecrets @sunlitanon @shyticklemonster @ssnicker-doodless

& a ton of others! Love you all & I’m so glad I have y’all in my corner!

#tag meme #tag game #otomiya tickles #best of 2022 #writer ask game #writer memes #fic meme

15 notes · View notes

fouroutoffivestars · 1 year

Video

youtube

The latest #AntMan offering, and possibly the last in the trilogy, has been subject to a lot of scrutiny ahead of the movie’s release yesterday. It’s widely publicised that this movie’s Rotten Tomatoes rating is one of the lowest in #MCU history, but does it really?

To start, the movie itself is good. It’s not great; it’s good. I sat in the theatre yesterday and found the credits appeared in the blink of an eye. Perhaps the movie could have been longer, allowing the characters to be a little more fleshed-out. But all-in-all, I found it a thoroughly enjoyable watch.

Without Michael Pena, there was a lack of the kind of humour that made the previous two issues of #Antman so fun, but Quantumania still had its moments. The Quantum Realm was a beautifully created alien landscape, so if you don’t like your movies with CGI, beware.

As you will have seen in reviews or any prerelease interviews, Jonathan Majors lines up as Kang the Conqueror, and he does a brilliant job as the MCU’s next big bad. Bill Murray’s cameo was also delightful. That said, however, I would possibly suggest that those were the only notable performances throughout. This isn’t to discredit any of the cast. It’s more of a reflection on the writing.

It’s painfully apparent that this film is not as lead-centric as Marvel movies typically are. Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania, the name itself lists two superheroes. However, Evangeline Lilly sadly lacks any strong dialogue or movie moments in this outing. When she did appear, it was almost a refreshing surprise. “Oh, yeah, Wasp’s in this too.”.

Paul Rudd is still afforded a lot of screen time, but I can’t help feeling that the “lead” role was split with both Kathryn Newton and Michelle Pfeiffer, who played Cassie and Janet, respectively. It may be another play by Marvel to introduce a strong, young female replacement to continue the role, and I’m all for that. But in this instance, it impacted the movie as a whole.

There have been many comments on how “weird” this movie is, don’t worry, it’s not. If you managed to cope with Ragnarok, Doctor Strange and any of the Guardians movies, you’re good. Clearly, some critics just have a very low bar regarding what’s considered “weird”. The creatures are a beautiful hodge-podge of ideas from all over, and they don’t look out of place for a second; except for a certain someone, but if you don’t know to expect him, I won’t spoil it here.

Let me bookmark this review by saying that at this moment, the movie is sat at 48% for critics and 84% for audiences, that’s with reviews numbering 292 and 2500+, respectively. I’m not trying to tell you that this movie is a must-see, but it is a worth-seeing movie.

Overall, kicking off Phase Five of the MCU, I think it’s an excellent start. The acting is as solid as you’d expect from names like Rudd, Lilly, Douglas, Pfeiffer, Murray, and Majors. The story could use a little work, but it adds just enough to show the audience what’s in store as the MCU moves forward.

I’ll give it 4 out of 5 stars.

#Ant-man #ant man and the wasp #quantumania #mcu #marvel #Marvel Universe #antman #ant man #the wasp #kang the conqueror #paul rudd #evangelline lilly #michael douglas #michelle pfeiffer #jonathan majors #Movie Reviews #movie review

2 notes · View notes

dashiellqvverty · 2 years

Text

i just feel have not seen a single post/tweet/etc about taika waititi or love and thunder that has felt normal or like a reasonable/proportional response to the film. (this post got way too long and i feel embarrassed and cringe about it so its going under a cut)

i see a tweet criticizing him for poking fun at the cgi in a clip used as promo, and like, okay the phrasing of the tweet kind of exaggerates how cruel he is being (about a character that he literally plays), but the points being made about how vfx artists are overworked and underpaid is absolutely true. but the tweet is made by a zack snyder stan account positioning taika waititi himself as the poster boy of the MCU and the symbol of the companies treatment of vfx artists as a whole. which is weird. i think.

i see a post on here about the same clip, half the notes are diehard loki stans who already view taika as the devil incarnate because he “disrespected” their baby boy in ragnarok talking about how hes an asshole and they hate him because he has a huge ego etc etc. and more posts using these moments as the core basis to talk about the MCU and why its bad as a whole and i just. since when was he the face of the MCU?? i know he made the movie that most recently came out but i am just.

we KNOW that the directors barely play a role in these films we all reblogged that article about how half the movie is made - not just written, but literally the scenes have been created digitally etc - before the director even signs on and we KNOW ragnarok is an outlier (and from what i hear this film is more standard MCU fare, though i also hear it reads like a kind of parody of that, which i could absolutely believe, but i need to see it for myself ofc). but suddenly when its a guy we’ve decided needs to get taken down a peg its ONLY his fault?

like obviously i like taika waititi a lot i have Feelings for him and also i like his work!!!! but the point of this post isnt to be like omg defending taika online isnt enough i need a sword im just like. why do i need to defend him?? what did he do??? he clearly doesnt give a shit about marvel like i think thats what it comes down to at the end of the day. marvel movies will never be truly good no matter who makes them so he made a(n apparently) bad movie and got his paycheck. obviously i don’t actually know him or his motivations etc etc and im not going to die on the hill of defending a fucking marvel director or whatever but the intensity of the backlash just feels. genuinely weird to me.

#sorry this got SO long i have had a long day #if you want to critique actual things about his work like that is one thing there are absolutely things to critique #im not like 'how dare you criticize him' im just like. what are we even mad about what did he DO???#in this specific situation #while i truly believe that marvel money rots your brain i feel like were not really seeing true brainrot #even if love and thunder is as bad as people are saying like.#it obviously didnt affect his ability to make amazing films.#like jojo rabbit was made after ragnarok. is my point.#oh my GOD and i didnt even talk about the 'they said the movie would be super gay and it WASNT'#it was a q&a at a promotional event i truly have no idea what else they could have answered with in that moment #i think i have heard stuff about like valkyries character overall (not just her sexuality) being sidelined in favor of jane #and THAT is like a real criticism #and obviously i dont think its GOOD that valkyrie's bisexuality was as minimal as it sounds like but. truly what did we expect #and i think its disingenuous to say they 'promised it was more substantial'#(and i feel like its genuine progress considering they tried to include a atiny nod in ragnarok and it was cut)#ANYWAY sure would love to. see the movie. the closest movie theater is 35 minutes away if i get there as fast as possible #i hate it here #r.txt

4 notes · View notes

emeraldspiral · 2 years

Text

Thoughts on MoM, having seen it twice now.

Top tier Marvel movie. I’m not as invested in Strange as I am in some other Marvel characters so I might not have the same kind of fondness for it that I have for Ragnarok. But I really dig Raimi’s directing in this movie, it has a very stylish, personal touch the likes of which only James Gunn and Taika Waititi have really infused any of the other Marvel films with. The standout fight scenes for me were Wanda vs the Illuminati and the musical note battle near the end. It’s very cool to see the concept of a superhero slasher fusion, which is similar to a desire I’ve previously expressed for a Star Wars slasher with a Sith Lord as the antagonist. The best parts of the movie were when it leaned more heavily into horror, like the parts where Wanda was escaping the mirror dimension through reflections, possessing her other self, murdering Patrick Stewart, and jumpscaring everyone in the tunnels. It makes me wish instead of just being a superhero movie that has moments of horror, it was actually just a straight-forward horror movie. It’s almost like Predator in a way, where instead of being just one big dude with a machete against a teenage girl it’s grown, capable powerful adults who are nevertheless way out of their league against an eldritch being they can’t kill, contain, or barricade themselves against.

I’ve seen a tiny bit of criticism of the movie on twitter. Some comments said the writing was bad, but weren’t really specific. Some said it was Wanda’s dialog. I really don’t understand what they’re talking about. Like, I can recall some pretty cringe dialog from the old Spider-Man movies, so I went into my second viewing thinking I’d find something like that in there. But there really wasn’t much of anything corny or hokey or not believable, at least not from Wanda. The only dialog I might consider bad would be a couple of standard Marvel quippy one-liners. If the problem people have is Wanda being OOC, they made a point of saying over and over that the Darkhold corrupts everything around it, including the reader, and this happened to Strange too. She doesn’t need to be in-character because there’s a plot device built into the story that forces people to act out of character. If anything it goes to show that Wanda is a good person deep down because she’s able to break free and do the right thing, just like she did in Westview.

Some people have complained that Maria!Marvel got taken down too easily by a statue, which I thought was odd too on my first viewing, but someone else pointed out that Wanda actually absorbed her powers, so she was just a regular human when she got crushed, and that was something I did pick up on on my second viewing.

Another thing I noticed on my second viewing was when Wanda destroys the book of Vishanti, it lies open face up and Strange looks at it as a page with America’s star symbol on it burns away. So Strange figuring out America was the key to defeating Wanda all along didn’t come from nowhere, there was a specific moment when he realized it. Also works as a call back to Strange 1 where he’s able to read and absorb information very quickly because he has a photographic memory. He just glanced at the page as it was being disintegrated and still got all the information he needed.

On my first viewing I noticed that the theme music from WandaVision episode 2 was playing in Wanda’s first scene where she dreams of Billy and Tommy, but I didn’t notice until my second viewing that the TV next to the rubble Xavier tries to pull that universe’s Wanda out of is showing clips from the intro to the first episode.

I think it was TVTropes where I read that the black and white cartoon behind Billy and Tommy in the ice cream scene is an Oswald the Lucky Rabbit short. Since Oswald is a pretty obscure character, this may indicate that in that universe Disney never lost the rights to Oswald and never created Mickey to replace him.

Near the end of the movie Christine puts a candle in front of a relic that causes a huge pillar of fire to shoot out and destroy the souls of the damned that are attacking Steven and she says it’s name like it’s clearly familiar to her and it definitely wasn’t a thing that was highlighted earlier in the movie but I feel like it must’ve been something we were shown in the first movie and expected to remember.

Despite what other posts on the internet claim, you really don’t need to have watched anything besides Dr. Strange 1 and WandaVision to understand the story. WandaVision has flashbacks that explain relevant backstory from Infinity War/Endgame and references to anything else don’t affect your understanding of the plot without context. I didn’t know Black Bolt was an established character from that Inhumans show no one watched and it did not matter in the slightest. It’s literally no different than going into any Marvel movie without having read the comics so you can see when the designs are comic accurate or the shots are directly based on comic panels or catch all the easter eggs and references.

I really only have a few gripes with the movie. The biggest is that it’s edited in a way that makes it unclear when things are happening in relation to one another. Like, there’s a moment where Patrick Stewart says “We should tell him the truth” and then it cuts to Wanda for several minutes and then when it cuts back to Patrick Stewart it seems like it’s just picking up exactly where that scene left off. So, was there a bunch more dialog before Patrick actually got around to telling Strange the story while Wanda was off doing her thing, or was all that stuff that happened with Wanda actually a flashback to like, an hour earlier? And that’s not the only time where it feels like too much time is passing in scenes following one set of characters for me to believe that nothing is happening with another set while those scenes play out. It’s probably worst at the end where it seems like Wanda has America in her clutches and is actively in the process of taking her powers for ages without Wong or anyone getting up to disrupt the process and buy Strange time, so it’s hard for me to believe that somehow Wanda wouldn’t have already finished long before Zombie Steven came to America’s rescue.

Compounding this wonky timeline issue is the fact that Zombie Steven for some reason seems to have decomposed pretty quick for a guy who died like, a day ago.

Only other minor gripe I have is that when Sinister Steven says he’ll give Sacred Timeline Steven the Darkhold in exchange for Christine, they missed a perfect opportunity for ST Steven to respond with “What are you? The Phantom of the Opera?”

I definitely don’t think Wanda is dead. I’ve seen someone say there was a flash of red light before the Darkhold castle collapsed and someone else has said Feige said Wanda’s story wouldn’t end with MoM. There’s definitely some loose threads to tie up still. Like, we haven’t seen what happens between her and White Vision now that he has his memories back. Agatha was set-up to return whenever Wanda had need of her, and in the comics she’s an ally to Wanda, not an antagonist, and it was just firmly established that the Darkhold, which she was in possession of before Wanda, has a corrupting influence. So Agatha may not be so bad anymore now that the Darkhold is gone. The biggest loose thread of all though is that they established two specific possibilities for Wanda’s future; rule the multiverse or destroy it. Neither happened in this movie.

#multiverse of madness #doctor strange #scarlet witch #wanda maximoff #dr strange #dr strange in the multiverse of madness #dr strange mom #marvel #marvel comics #mcu

5 notes · View notes

sagevalleymusings · 2 years

Text

Thor: Love and Thunder - Praising with Faint Damnation

I have this really bad habit. I like consuming all of a thing. I’ll eat the whole bag of potato chips, cheat to get all 151 pokemon, and if I start a movie, I have to finish it, even if I hate it. I’ve watched a lot of bad movies this way. I absolutely regret turning Artemis Fowl back on after I got eight minutes in and realized it was trash.

Marvel movies bank on this kind of collectible habit. They’re fan films for people who are already fans of a longstanding genre. They can reliably assume that anyone who’s watched three of their movies is planning on watching all of them. I think a lot of Phase Four’s steam is relying on this momentum. Black Widow was forgetful. Spider-Man: No Way Home was a desperate nostalgic plea. Doctor Strange had poor CGI and a frustrating plot. I personally liked Shang Chi but it received critical reception. The shows have not been bad. Or at least… some of the shows some of the time have not been bad. I don’t think I’ll be able to re-watch Wanda knowing how Doctor Strange: Multiverse of Madness plays out. It makes the redemption arc of WandaVision meaningless. I’m struggling to get through Moon Knight. Falcon and the Winter Soldier felt very queer bait-y.

My point is that I think Marvel fans are becoming divided rapidly. I’m not the only person who’s growing increasingly critical of Marvel. I say all this to justify my feeling that Thor: Love and Thunder is not as bad as the critics are painting it.

I am happy to be critical of Marvel movies. I have definitely succumbed to burnout with these movies. But Thor: Love and Thunder is ranking below Dark World right now and that’s just undeserved. In fact, I would say that Love and Thunder is even a pretty decent movie - except for the part where it takes place in Phase 4 of the Marvel Extended Cinematic Extravaganza.

I want to end on a high note so let’s start with the things I didn’t like. Others have already said that it’s disappointing. Everyone loved Thor: Ragnarok so Waititi made it Thor: Even More Ragnarok. It’s too much with the gimmicky jokes and one-line gags. The comedy parts of the movie don’t give the serious parts enough breathing room.

I’ve also heard that the movie itself is ultimately meaningless, because it takes back all of the weighty deaths by the end of the movie. Everyone lives, just this once. But that means that the movie simply doesn’t have the weight that it should.

I agree, but I think a compelling rebuttal can be made for both these points.

I have a couple of critiques myself outside of this. Firstly, and no one is going to like me for saying this…

Taika Waititi likes to laugh at fat people.

Depending on which small corner of the internet you tend to run in, you may have even seen this coming. Everyone in fat activism was worried that Waititi was going to montage away the fat suit, and, yes that did happen, but I could be talked around on this point. I think Waititi almost, but not quite, manages to turn that montage into a character flaw. After defeating Thanos, Thor becomes obsessed with fitness to the point of detriment for a normal person. He spends all his days doing nothing but exercising and meditating and waiting for people to ask him to come save the day. That’s not healthy, and I think the movie is trying to fold that kind of unhealthy behavior in its “love saves the day message” - Thor becomes a dad by the end of the movie. But the fact that so much of this movie is given so little weight means that the message doesn’t quite land.

For example, I’ve read interviews now of Hemsworth and his wife, who said that the amount of bulking up he needed to do was painful, and neither one of them was happy with the new look. It isn’t natural. He’s even more muscly than he was in the previous movies. I look back at footage of Thor in Love and Thunder and he’s so jacked it looks painful to move. I’m just sad.

But then there’s a scene where he gets his clothes ripped off and all the women faint in glee. Thor’s body is as unhealthy as it was when he was eating junk food and drinking - yes, really. Overexercising can cause a whole host of symptoms including straining your heart. But where fat Thor was shown with comedy and disgust, buff Thor is shown with lust and praise. If Waititi was trying to make a point about unhealthy coping mechanisms, it fell flat.

The thing I take umbrage with more is the fact that Melissa McCarthy cameos in this movie at all. She’s literally only there - shoved into an unflattering cosplay - so we can go haha fat people. This is not the first time a production of Waititi’s has had a haha fat people moment. In fact, I would argue that Thor: Ragnarok had the exact same haha fat people moment. I can’t help but notice that Matt Damon looks quite a bit more trim in his reprisal as Actor Loki.

I don’t like having to put up with Waititi’s haha fat people moments. It’s really boring. But much like any of his haha fat people moment’s, it’s also just the one scene, and then we can move on. So let’s move on. I’m suddenly realizing that Waititi has a bigger problem.

Women.

There are only two named female characters in Thor: Ragnarok - Valkyrie and Hela. Valkyrie is playing a useless drunk, which is at least a new and different way of making women useless on screen, and Hela is a villain. Come to think of it, a lot of Waititi’s productions have very few women, and the women that are there serve a narrative role for the men starring in the production. I suppose I don’t necessarily expect a lot of women in a show about pirates, but I do think it’s extremely telling that the majority of women in Our Flag Means Death for almost the whole series can be described most easily by their relation to other people. Jim’s foster mother, Stede’s wife, Ed’s mother. Spanish Jackie is a notable exception but Spanish Jackie is in less than half the show.

It is by no means everything. JoJo Rabbit had strong and assertive female protagonists. Reservation Dogs has a great ensemble including girls.

The thing is, Love and Thunder’s portrayal of women is so bad that it had me reflecting on Waititi’s other work. The narrative revolves primarily around men, and there are women in their lives, but they play supporting characters. This is also true of… probably 90% of male directors 90% of the time. So I wouldn’t necessarily critique Waititi for this. After all, if you have one main character, probably most of your cast can, ultimately, be described in terms of how they relate to that main character. I could just as easily describe Thor: Ragnarok as Thor fighting Thor’s sister over control of Thor’s people, and fighting alongside Thor is Thor’s brother, Thor’s co-worker, some random lady who used to work for Thor’s dad, and a rock monster.

So women having some kind of relation to the other characters in the narrative isn’t actually an issue… until it’s their only character trait.

And that brings us to Love and Thunder. Love and Thunder has some of the most obvious fridging I’ve ever seen in a modern movie. It’s so bad it has me questioning the female representation in Waititi’s other productions. I know they got Jane having cancer from the comics but… why is Valkyrie even there? She spends the whole movie looking uncharacteristically sad and tired except for when she’s fighting, and literally says that the reason she’s fighting is because she wants to die. That’s depressing as hell.

And at the lowest point of the movie, Gorr is literally hiding and revealing these two women in an effort to get Thor to reveal the macguffin. They’re literally being used as silent props to motivate Thor into action.

And after that, Thor tells the womenfolk to stay behind and look after the house while he goes off to be the breadwinner.

And of course people are crying - yeah but Valkyrie is injured! Which, sure, is true. But the film is the one that made that choice. And they didn’t do a good enough job dwelling on the fact that Valkyrie got injured because she’s fighting recklessly in an effort to die in battle to really give that scene the weight it needed.

This movie could have made different choices that didn’t make it seem so much like fridging. It could have given us more time with Jane and Valkyrie, explored their characters in a way that let us actually see who they are. Instead we got Korg telling us what Valkyrie’s motivation is.

My last minor point that no one seems to mention is the casting of Love. I am a little uncomfortable that all three of Hemsworth’s children are cast in this movie. In fact, Hemsworth’s wife and brother are also in Thor: Love and Thunder. In some ways I get it. You need a bunch of kids for the child kidnapping scene, your children are there anyway, you cast your children. Bale, Portman, and Waititi all volunteered their children for the movie. But there’s something a little unnerving, I find, when actors cast their children in roles where the role is also them playing their child. For starters the child didn’t choose this, and depending on the age it might be difficult to keep those lines separate between fantasy and real life.

Love is especially egregious because it’s a big role, but there is something a little off about having your kids be the kids in the movie. Is it better than parents of poor families essentially auctioning their children off to become breadwinners? Probably. But I think it remains to be seen what kind of an impact being the child of a Marvel-level superstar will do to a kid. There’s probably no ethical way to have children in a movie, ultimately..

I could spend a lot longer on why I thought the movie was weak, but most reviews I’ve read are pretty critical, so I’d like to say some positive things to balance it out.

As Thor’s story, this is pretty weak, but as Gorr’s story, there’s a fairly strong narrative arc there. Gorr hits a serious low point very on, so much so that he becomes a villain. He learns through the Necrosword’s magic that in order to reach Eternity, he needs some kind of weapon that can harness a bifrost and right now there’s only one of those - Thor’s axe Stormbreaker. So he devises a plan to obtain Thor’s axe but quickly becomes outnumbered and changes tactics. He decided to capture a bunch of children to lead Thor to him rather than try and overpower him from the start.

For Gorr’s character, this is a mistake, because it allows him a moment of weakness. He doesn’t feel good about capturing these kids because they remind him of his daughter, who his mind has crystalized on. And of course it has, that was an incredibly tragic moment. Gorr is entirely justified in his actions at the start of the movie. His entire population was destroyed, and as he was praying in desperation to Rapu who was completely oblivious to his pleas. His daughter dies. He stumbles upon Rapu’s domain - called there by All-Black - and gets into a confrontation where Rapu, in a fit of rage, is about to kill him.

Gorr reaches out to All-Black the Necrosword in desperation, in a bid just to survive. He kills a complacent, greedy, loathsome god who let an entire people be destroyed. In a different movie, Gorr would be a hero.

But that’s not the movie we have, and in this movie, there may be a glimmer of longing for the daughter he lost enough that Gorr isn’t entirely unsympathetic, but he’s still unambiguously the villain for most of the movie, and the screen portrays it as such.

His uncharacteristically sympathetic nature isn’t the only thing at odds. Thor: Love and Thunder is a comedy but Gorr is perhaps the most frightening villain we’ve had in the MCU. And that’s saying something, considering Phase 4 seems to be ramping up the supernatural creepy factor with Scarlet Witch and Moon Knight. Those creepy shadow hands coming into bedrooms to steal children could easily be dropped into a much more serious horror movie without blinking an eye.

It’s almost discordant with the rest of the movie, a fun romantic comedy romp, and I can see a version of this that’s more effective where that discordance is the point.

After all, Gorr isn’t the villain. The Necrosword is. Gorr is just a sad dad lashing out in pain, who only took up the sword in question - which is stated to have brainwashing powers - because his life was in danger. Gorr is a victim.

And we see that in the end, because the MCU finally - finally! - has a sympathetic character that’s redeemed in the end. He still dies, but he’s allowed to win. Thor stops fighting. You win. Make your wish. Gorr is so close to the finish line that Thor literally can’t stop him now - rushing him would just have Gorr reaching out to his wish in desperation. Instead, he tries to talk him around, reminds the recently freed Gorr that killing the gods was never his wish in the first place. His wish - which once had been denied - was for his daughter to live.

And so we see the parallel here. Gorr got what he wanted right at the very beginning, but the path it took to get there had him going through the worst of himself to get there, and he didn’t come out of the other end unscathed.

That’s a compelling story. Much more compelling than anything else Thor: Love and Thunder has going on. I wish it were in a better movie.

What I would have done differently to improve this movie:

There’s one thing I think would have fixed a ton of the tone issues and mischaracterizations that would have made this the fun romp people wanted after Thor: Ragnarok.

Make it bad on purpose.

I know I’m losing the precious little audience I have left (hi one person!) so hear me out. Thor: Love and Thunder starts off with Korg giving a kind of poor description of previous events, catching us up to speed on what has happened both in previous movies we may not have seen, and in between movies. His voice as the narrator pops up only a couple of times.

I’m not saying it should necessarily pop up a lot more, but a couple of fourth-wall breaking, especially in particularly tense scenes, would have lightened the tone in a way that didn’t make it feel as flippant.

For example: Gorr shows up to harass the kids, and the kids are scared but it’s told in such a goofy way that we kind of have to take the villain a little less seriously. And also there’s, just towards the very end, almost a glimmer of pity. Because he’s obviously thinking of his daughter. And he’s sad about that, and I get that.

But like. This guy captured a wagon full of kids and is now deliberately scaring them. This guy sucks.

But let’s imagine that instead, right before Gorr shows up in the wagon to torture those kids, we hear Korg’s voice say something stupid like, “Gorr’s just trying his best. Here he is trying to make sure his hostages are at least comfortable.” and *then* the whole scene plays out exactly the same.

It would give the scene a completely different tone. It would be so much more relatable. All of a sudden this guy isn’t trying to scare those kids - he’s being sincere, trying to engage with them on their level. He’s just now incapable of doing it because he’s been corrupted. That’s sad. Like, really sad. It makes me sympathize with a character who has done horrible thing.

A couple of scenes like that thrown in to demonstrate an unreliable narrator would soften the bad parts of the movie, because I, the viewer, could assume that when things like fridging Jane and Valkyrie happen, that’s just Korg telling his version of events to make Thor seem extra cool, but that doesn’t mean that’s what happened.

We even see an example of this in the movie we got! When Korg is montaging Thor and Jane’s previous relationship, we see Jane waiting for Thor to leave in the middle of the night while she pretends to be asleep, then leaving a note, and then leaving.

But when we catch back up with Jane later, she says that the reason she left a note was because Thor wasn’t there.

The way that Jane says it implies that Thor had been gone for a while. Which is of course not what we see. Is Jane lying? Or is this simply the only obvious example that the entire movie is told from a biased perspective on purpose?

A much more subtle scene is shortly after this, when Jane asks if Thor has a girlfriend. It’s said in a way that feels very out of place. Why is Jane suddenly wearing that helmet and flipping her hair like she’s a schoolgirl? This feels like an immature man’s version of how they would want this conversation to go, not like a sincere portrayal of how a director thinks this conversation would actually go. And I know that Waititi is better than that in some of his other works. So is this really a flaw of his writing, that his female characters are this much of a caricature? Or is this supposed to read as a bit artificial, because it’s a story being told by Korg?

If I’m being honest it’s probably more of the former than it is the latter, but if choices had been made to lean into the latter, it would have improved the movie overall. Making the movie bad on purpose would make the movie less bad.

And, too, I think it would have been the only thing that could have saved it from Sequel Syndrome.

The main flaw of Thor: Love and Thunder is that it’s the fourth Thor movie and the 29th Marvel movie. None of the Marvel movies post Endgame have been good. How could they be? Endgame was a conclusion so epic it needed an entire movie to set it up. Frankly, I think Infinity War is the far superior of the two. I saw that movie opening night and the energy when characters started dying left and right and then the movie just ends was absolutely palpable. No one was expecting Marvel to pull something like that. And for a brief moment, because nothing like this has ever been done, you think that maybe, just maybe, Marvel was really going to kill off half their cast. And ultimately they didn’t because the entire plot of Endgame was reversing the consequences of Infinity War in a way that was emotionally satisfying. I think they did a pretty good job of it. But there were some loose threads that, in the messy process of Phase Four’s journey to tie those threads up, has been pretty unsatisfying. It would have been better to start fresh with a mostly new cast - to skip the growing pains of Phase Four entirely.

The entire point of Phase Four is to move the game pieces from where they ended in Endgame to where they’ll begin in Kang the Conqueror. We’ve already seen Kang, we know this is where they end up. But there’s a big difference between the movies now and the movies then.

Phase One and Two movies were standalones. The Avengers film concluding them was more like a fun team mashup than a genuine conclusion of a grander plot. That started to change in Phase Three. Phase Three knew they were part of a larger plan but were given breathing room. Phase Four is controlled. SpiderMan’s movie had a specific end goal in mind - Peter Parker is alone. How we get there doesn’t matter but that has to be how it concludes. So you get these unbelievable characterizations from people we think we know very well at this point. WandaVision has a satisfying conclusion that Doctor Strange reneges on. Love and Thunder teases the introduction of Jane Foster as the Mighty Thor then kills her off in the same damn movie. Black Widow takes place in the past. Loki is a fun and interesting show where the main character does exactly zero character growth. This is post-Avengers 1 Loki we're talking about, acting more like post-Infinity War Loki.

Speaking of Loki, let's come back around to the critique that the deaths in L&T don't stick.

Exhibit A is the show Agents of Shield, constructed entirely around fan fervor that Phil Coulson not die. In fact Infinity War and Endgame killed off then resurrected trillions of people. It is a comic staple that deaths don't stick.

In this particular movie, I also think it's a bit disingenuous. After all, this isn’t Supernatural. Each person dies and is “brought back” for a specific reason. The death of Gorr’s daughter is his entire motivating force. He’s about to win and destroy an entire universe full of gods when he’s convinced by Thor to resurrect his daughter instead. Just that one simple wish.

It’s the kind of wish we would see from an Avenger, really. I’m reminded of parallels from previous movies - Hawkeye’s revenge fugue, the soft plea of Natasha Romanov to “let me go,” Iron Man’s conviction that they had to try to fix the world but only by bringing everyone forward because he didn’t want to lose his daughter, Steve Rogers choosing to stay behind for Peggy. These simple, quiet, individual narratives make up a lot of the tapestry of motivating force behind our protagonists. It’s strange and discomfiting when that same narrative makes up our villain’s stories too. Wanda just wants to be with her children again, and is prepared to pay any price. Gorr wants to avenge his daughter. Where is the line between good and evil?

I think this movie is the first one to say there is no line. Gorr is a good person who was originally motivated by just means. It was being brainwashed (grief or depression) that was his undoing, and when that source of poison in his mind was removed, he went back to the simple motivations he had at the start, and resurrects his daughter.

That’s a really satisfying conclusion to Gorr’s narrative arc. Trading his life for his daughter’s is the noblest thing he can do in this scenario. His daughter becomes a symbol that people are, all of us, good by nature. And the bad that we do is often a product of trauma or desperation. Punishing that trauma and desperation isn’t actually the way to defeat it. Love is.

Not all the time. Some of the time people are Zeus - so privileged and in their own ego that they stop seeing others beneath them as people the way that they are people. Zeus is, in some ways, a villain in this movie. The hyper violent attack at Omnipotence City and splashes of golden blood spattered everywhere feels out of place because we’re used to thinking of things in this color palette as good, just, protagonistic. Zeus is surely the good guy. But he imprisons our protagonist, humiliates him in public, and prevents him from saving a dozen children. Zeus is acting as a villain.

I saw someone make a point that by killing Zeus, we’re drawing a direct parallel to Gorr - Thor is becoming a godkiller which harkens back to a far less mature version of himself responding in an overly hotheaded manner to a situation. But is that actually what happened? Thor only kills Zeus after Zeus kills Korg. He’s avenging. It��s literally the name of the game for Thor. Is our protagonist’s behavior in any way different to what we have seen them do against Thanos? Against Gorr’s shadow monsters? Against dozens of owl monsters at the beginning of the movie?

We don’t actually see Zeus die, and in villain language, that means he isn’t dead. It’s not at all strange that Zeus comes back in a cameo at the end to threaten Thor with vengeance.

Lastly there’s Jane Foster, who enters Valhalla. The article I read argued that by seeing Jane immediately again, we the audience don’t feel the weight of her loss the way we would otherwise, and maybe that’s true, but I don’t think something like this is a good argument for a character that can’t stay dead. After all, we see examples like this all the time in movies, comics, and TV shows. The first example that comes to mind is a bit silly but bear with me - Hocus Pocus. Thackery Binks dies, almost immediately comes back as a ghost, and then walks off into the sunset to spend eternity with his sister. We feel the character’s grief and get a different payoff of believing that this character is in whatever passes as heaven for this universe.

For this one I would argue we don’t really need it. We already saw Jane dissolve into stardust, we know she’s a god. Including Valhalla in the end credits does a specific different thing: it introduces the concept of Valhalla as a place that exists which we might see again in the future. And that is a pretty poor reason to bring Jane back for a cameo with Heimdall.

Ultimately I didn’t think Thor: Love and Thunder was a very good movie. But I don’t think it’s the worst Thor movie. I think if this movie had been dropped into Phase One, people would have thought it was groundbreaking. But because it’s in Phase Four, it feels like a rehash.

I can also see the movie this could have been if it had trimmed some things, or made slightly different directing decisions. There are definite flaws and definite weaknesses, but I appreciate that they actually redeem the villain.

#spoilers #thor: love and thunder #movie reviews #everything is feminism #mild fatphobia

0 notes

worstloki · 3 years

Note

Ragnarok Loki is Loki actually making moves toward growing up bye

Just because you don’t like a thing doesn’t mean it’s Objectively Bad Actually. I Statements are your friend.

Anon darling, I would like you to tell me one move Loki made towards “growing up” that wasn’t ‘Loki let’s go of the issue he had with X’ because what I’m seeing when the movie skips over development to frame the conclusion of ‘Loki’s fine with being jotun and having been lied to and being treated unequal to Thor and punished unfairly’ as something implicit I’m not seeing anything but Loki's narrative being sidelined to the point where breakdowns were tantrums and holding a grudge (which he in my opinion had every right to do if he wanted to) is an overreaction.

That Loki’s ‘moving on’ features resigning himself to continued bad treatment but now no longer complaining about it... shouldn’t be where the character ends up or what he amounts to neither generally or as a continuation of his arc from the previous movies in my opinion, not when he had legitimate grievances that still haven’t been so much as acknowledged.

Just because you like a thing doesn't mean it's Objectively Good Actually either. It is very clear you haven't taken the time to look into posts/interviews detailing why, objectively, the film is a retcon, (along with a majority of posts which thoroughly make clear when things *are* a matter of opinion) but I see that you are happy to criticize whilst not using any 'I statements' yourself.

If you see character changes as consistent continuity that's fine! I've got to remind you that being critical is okay though, and that everyone is free to how they see things.

Additionally, I think you need to hear that a post detailing negative points of a movie is not equivalent to saying there aren't positive factors.

#''Just because you don’t like a thing doesn’t mean it’s Objectively Bad Actually'' ANON I ENJOY RAGNAROK BUT NO #THE MOVIE ACTUALLY DOES HAVE VERY CONVOLUTED MESSAGES AND A LOT OF IT IS DUE TO FRAMING #EVEN IF I COMPLETELY IGNORE THE ABSOLUTE DEMOLITION OF THE MAIN CHARACTER'S ARC AND CHARACTERIZATION AND ABUSE APOLOGISM #ignore the yelling #even if I ignore all that objective actions in the film everyone is free to interpret diegetic factors and build their own opinions #but as someone who enjoys both the critical thinking off and the analysis side of discussions #i do find the summation of a character who has (supposedly) gotten over his many issues as 'growing up' not good anyway #because there WAS legitimate trauma behind his bad actions and while it's not in any way an excuse for anything it made him compelling #ragnarok essentially decided that 'nah loki's over all that haha also treating him bad is funny bc he kinda deserves it'#after Thor 1 Avengers 1 and Thor 2 established Loki's villainous behaviour as unlike him to do #the movie was fun and loving it is fine! i don't mind the changes to loki even though marvel is generally insulting and sidelines abuse!#i think the main issue is that a lot of people insist that the characters are the same when even their previous actions are retconned #if you find the characters consistent well good for you! enjoy your film! but there IS objective proof that the movie is bad #where we're not defining 'bad' by how entertaining something is because THAT is subjective #it's not like Ragnarok is the only 'bad' marvel movie and criticism of the films is usually backed up with canon/proof #on the note of which you may realize that someone else saying a movie is bad doesn't mean you have to agree #you're allowed to look away or read about why they think that or skip the post because it doesn't matter and fandom is supposed to be fun #if you don't like seeing anything negative about marvel then ignore the posts #most of the meta i see is neutral it just doesn't praise the movie for stuff it didn't do :/#feel free to send another anon in to argue or discuss anything i've said because i'm not trying to say it's bad to like the film #like... it's completely fine to prefer the Ragnarok characterisation?? the entire tone of the movie is more comedic so consider that too #marvel messes up loads of characters and their arcs idk why everyone likes to argue when people say loki was changed too #i think it might ACTUALLY be a case of ''i liked the thing so it's objectively good so don't say anything bad about it'' for a lot of fans #a lot of people know the character is different and still love/prefer the ragnarok loki #seriously everyything is fine no one is saying dont like the thing #no one is insulting you personally for deciding people who were abused/traumatised need to 'grow up'#it's about how Ragnarok acted as a standalone rather than something that was inherited as continued part of an established universe #and how that kinda maybe obliterated a lot of old stuff to recreate the characters #truly fitting for a movie named Ragnarok #i think I get why they called it that despite the limited links to mythology now

89 notes · View notes

in-defense-of-loki · 2 years

Text

I think the worst thing about Ragnarok is being that movie that was almost okay. And what I mean is, after being a fan of Loki since Thor 1 (which opened me up to the wonderful comic world, and Norse mythos), I was excited for the next movie that featured Loki. I felt a little off about him not dying in TDW only to show up on the throne he didn't actually want, but I could move past it. And now realizing that Loki was supposed to die, and the next film was going to take place in Helhiem, I'm so disappointed about what we could have had. It also makes it glaringly obvious Loki on the throne was such an afterthought.

But I went to the theaters with my band of movie-goers, and sat through Ragnarok feeling....off. It was enjoyable for what it delivered, I wasn't bored or disinterested, and it kept me distracted enough I didn't immediately realize it's fatal flaws. And I imagine nor did most people, and most those people continue to ignore it (at this point I think maybe on purpose). After it was over, and my band of peeps discussed what we watched, I was left feeling...empty. Something was bereft. And then going on to talk to my other friends who watched it, but not with me, expressing their like of the movie, I felt even more awkward. Because I didn't really enjoy it. I didn't understand why, at first, but I didn't want to be left out, so I pretended it was great.

And maybe a lot of others did this, too.

Then I went online with my feelings, only to find a massive amount of posts about how much it actually wasn't good, how much of the original movies were erased, replaced with soulless replicas, continuity gone, problematic themes afoot, trauma erasure, and how out of place it actually is by taking a 180° on style, atmosphere, and characterization.

I felt seen, heard, and then I started reading metas being critical of the movie and all it's elements....and then the truth behind what Waititi did to us fans on top of admitting his skewed perception. And my feelings were realised, I found what was bereft, a name to all that which I experienced with the film. And what was wrong with Ragnarok wasn't as blatant or immediately obvious as with the Loki show, least not to me, and that's part of the problem with the movie. And before anyone goes, well at least the story wasn't bad, I read a side by side comparison of Thor 1 and Ragnarok and they are identical, with some elements differing. But that's just saying it was Sakaar instead of Earth type shit. I am gonna guess that Love and Thunder is gonna be a redo/copy of what happened to Thor in IF and EG, because Waititi hasn't shown he can be creative by himself, but maybe that was the writers, Pearson, Kyle, and Yost, fault? Dunno.

But Ragnarok has a great fake-out, and I'm sure it's vivid colors and new characters helped fool us at first. I think most people get hung up on that, and that's why they don't find issue with it, willing to pretend it doesn't have any flaws. I'm sad and angry we were handed such a film and expected to sit pretty and take it, like a loyal dog, and that many people fell for it. To continue the analogy, perhaps the rest of us are more like cats snuffing the new food because we liked what we were served before. It's why I will not be watching Thor 4, I'm sure I'll get to know what happens anyway via posts on here.

But I'm done, I'm done with the MCU, I'm done with Waititi, I'm done with the direction they're taking things. I've stopped consuming their media, and I won't support them in other endeavors, OFMD is not the only thing I'll be skipping. I don't care how many times people will tell me this new Marvel show is actually really great, it's like they're listening! It's bait, and I'm done being fooled.

I'll still engage with meta on here, though, it soothes a bit.

#anti thor: love and thunder #anti thor love and thunder #anti thor ragnarok #anti taika waititi #anti loki show #anti disney

50 notes · View notes

kneelbeforeclefairy · 3 years

Text

Okay my problem with sylki isn't it's selfcest or they're the same person. It's literally fiction, loosen up Tumblr puritans if anyones gonna get down with themselves it's Loki. If it's not your thing, no shame, but there's nothing WRONG with it as, as I've mentioned , it's FICTION, has no bearing on who you ar as person what fictional ships you like, and has no real world consequences because it isn't even possible.

My problem isn't even the "he's bi why can't he be in a gay relationship" cause, yes, why CAN'T he, but he can also be in a "straight" relationship too. That's the point of being bi. Also at least Tom's Loki is gender fluid , Sylvie probably is too, so any realtionship between them is automatically queer cause they're both enby, and neither are a woman or a man .

(but YES it does feel disingenuous of marvel to take a charecter who has had no love interest for SIX MOVIES , and shown no romantic or sexual interest in anyone, reveal he's bisexual and THEN get him together with a woman in the next episode. Like, Loki's bi, and nothing marvel will do can ever take that away from me, but ....it does feel like having your cake and eating it too. We'd be very happy with no love interest too)

It isn't even that I don't like Sylvie herself. I DO. I LOVE her Loki, her version of Loki's life, the ways they're similar, the ways they're different. The way I think she kind of reminds Loki of Thor sometimes (angry blondes gonna hit something she shouldn't hit. Must stop before it gets worse!) (Cause that moment when she was about to kill he who remains , Loki's tactic to calm her down and reasons behind it were eerily similar to him stopping Thor from attacking the frost Giants in movie 1) I think that Sylvie is a rare occurance--a female charecter that is fully developed, has goals and wants of her own, and isn't just a love interest. I would very much like to see more of her.

My problem is. Loki. LOKI Loki. Tom's Loki, is our mail charecter. Main characters must go through charecter development. They must have a WANT and to contrast with it a NEED. they must pursue said WANT and at the end of the day , get not necessarily what they WANT but what they NEED.

So what does Loki WANT? Well in episode one we get a very clear want. Loki wants to destroy the TVA. He wants to figure out who's behind this and get rid of them. Right. Good. That's the plot.

Now we're looking at his internal arc. Mobius lays it out, again, in episode one. Loki is, BAD. He causes pain and suffering wherever he goes and hurts everyone he loves. He does bad things. And his role in this game of destiny is to be Bad, so other can be good. Loki realizes that about himself, and he hates it. He doesn't really want to be Bad. And he certainly doesn't want to be a pawn in others stories. So meld the internal arc, the NEED to the WANT and Loki wants to destroy the TVA so that he can get away from his destiny to hurt people and see what else he's capable of.

(this entire arc was also done a lot better in Ragnarok. )

Okay so. We jump around. Loki tricks people, Loki gains information. He meets Sylvie. Their goals align. Sylvie wants to destroy the TVA. Very well and good.

Now thematically, this is where the want and the need should start switching at the midpoint. The midpoint of the series s of course episode 3, when Loki realizes the TVA isn't all it seems to be and everyone is a varient.

And here's where it falls apart. There's that fun scene with Sif where she criticizes Loki for being a worm or whatever. I thought that was going to go somewhere but it didn't. But after that Loki's plotline fizzles out. He no longer really wants to destroy the TVA, Sylvie does. The show now becomes about HER goal to do that. And Loki's need sort of...disappears. instead of growing or learning something about himself, his need seems to be Love Sylvie. And that doesn't add up.

So either this is EXTREMELY lazy writing.

(yes. Yes it is)

Or someone thought that the way to fulfuil all of Loki's emotional needs--whicj we've seen develop over, let me state this again SIX MOVIES-- were to give him a love interest. Not to mention they thought that was the culmination of his plot NEED. Loki WANTS To destroy the TVA but NEEDS to...fall in love?

There's an argument to be made for a very literal reading of he needs to accept himself, but not only is that not what's being set up here, it's fucking stupid because loving Sylvie who--while they're the same person technically--has had a completely different life, personality, choices, has nothing to do with accepting THIS Loki.

So then we do this main charecter switch. Loki now just follows along Sylvie's goal. He has no more need, and no more real want. Sylvie has a want, but no need either. And the one moment when Loki tries to talk her down, and says he can't risk the universe in exchange for power really falls flat because Loki is not seen to WANT To rule the universe through the tva. He's way past that.

So in an attempt to just tie up loose ends what he got, instead of self actualization, instead of charecter development, instead or ANYTHING, was a kiss.

Because in Hollywoodland, kisses solve everything. And that's where my aro ass jumps off the film school horse and onto the UGKGBVSJJBE keysmash horse. Because they really do believe that it is Good Writing to do that because Love Solves Everything .

And I'm pissy.

#hey remember wjen i went to film school'#loki spoilers

47 notes · View notes

filmadaydiary · 3 years

Text

1/18/21 to 1/21/21

Marvel Part 2

I was nervous about watching this set of films, because I know they are the least critically-acclaimed. I figured they would be a slog to get through, mostly filler between the big Avengers events. But I was surprised to find that these films were actually quite character-driven and plot-heavy, albeit relying on the previous events to make everything that much more satisfying. There’s definitely something to be said for knowing what’s going on when you watch a film, as opposed to passively being engaged in the spectacle (which I am often guilty of). I wouldn’t be so quick to write these movies off in the future.

1/18/21

Thor: The Dark World – Alan Taylor, 2013

Bookending The Avengers with the first two Thor films made for an interesting viewing experience. As mentioned earlier, watching things in chronological order made the overarching plot much easier to follow. I liked seeing what happened with Loki immediately after the events of New York, and that was a nice reminder that not much time has passed between the first Thor and this one. People hate on this movie a lot, and even Ragnarok makes fun of it, but it’s really not that bad. Yes, it’s incredibly dramatic, but it’s also pretty darn exciting! There’s magic, there’s aliens, Chris Hemsworth does that cute Thor smile that melts hearts everywhere. It’s a grand old time. Phase 2 of Marvel is typically regarded as the worst of the bunch, but in my opinion these movies are still pretty darn enjoyable.

Iron Man 3 – Shane Black, 2013

Speaking of movies that I thought I hated, there’s this. I only saw it one time and then let the popular opinions sway me into dissing this movie again and again. Turns out this is an introspective look at how being in a war zone will negatively affect even the most confident of civilians. Tony suffers from extreme anxiety after New York and has to confront who he is without his armor (literally and metaphorically). It’s so rare that we get to see superheroes get this stripped down, and it’s a nice reminder that Iron Man is really just a guy under all that bravado. My boyfriend thinks that the hatred of this film comes from the portrayal of the Mandarin and how that differs from the comic books, but I think the way they did it here is a really interesting take on a cookie-cutter villain. Don’t write this off so quickly.

1/19/21

Captain America: The Winter Soldier – Joe and Anthony Russo, 2013

Aka the film where everyone fell in love with Sebastian Stan. No? Just me? What can I say, there’s something about guyliner that really gets me going. Seeing Cap get gritty and real after the optimism in his first outing makes it clear why the Russos were handed the keys to the MCU kingdom. This is a very well-constructed movie, deftly introducing new characters and story elements that feed into the greater plot without compromising what we already know and love. It sets the foundation for Steve and Natasha’s friendship going forward and helps fill in the blanks for what’s happening on Earth while there are galactic happenings in the other films. Plus the fight scenes in this film are truly epic. Steve’s takedown of the Hydra agents in the elevator is for sure one of the highlights. The ending does drag a little, but the rest of the film sets the tone for many of the other MCU entries going forward.

1/20/21

Guardians of the Galaxy – James Gunn, 2014

And now, onto something completely different! This movie, much like Captain Marvel, does feel slightly out of place when watched in sequence with the others. But since it takes place in 2014, we have to watch it here. I can understand why this is the favorite of many Marvel fans. In many ways, it feels much more like a comic book than the others. It’s colorful, it’s chaotic, and being set against the backdrop of ‘80s pop music gives it a certain sense of nostalgia. You can’t help but dance along with Quill in the opening number, and it does wonders to endear him to the audience. The ragtag gang is always a fun dynamic to play with, even more so when they’re criminals. Oh, and Lee Pace is there, which means I will automatically like the movie more. The characters are edgy and unique, each with distinct personalities and quirks. Those do soften out a bit over the course of the movies, which is a shame as they all get lumped into one ensemble and become flatter for it. But there is no doubt that this is a very fun time.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 – James Gunn, 2017

This movie was slightly disappointing, thought it was much more enjoyable right on the heels of the first one (as opposed to three years later in theaters). I don’t love the Guardians sense of humor, it tends to be a little bit too goofy and rely on cringing or making fun of others as opposed to real jokes. So for me, I didn’t have the best time here. The only thing of value to the overarching storyline is the evolution of Nebula as a character, and builds connection between the characters. Although much of that connection is built off-camera, between the two movies. There aren’t even any Infinity Stones in this movie. It feels too unnecessary to have a whole movie just about getting the characters where they need to be when we won’t see them again until Infinity War. Space escapades are fun and all, and Baby Groot is always a bonus. Okay, and the soundtrack is also excellent, and there were a few moments that genuinely did make me laugh. My problem is it makes the jump back to Earth very jarring, and I wish there was a way to smooth that out somehow.

1/21/21

Avengers: Age of Ultron – Joss Whedon, 2015

Ah, Age of Ultron. Another movie that seems to be widely disliked by the fans. I saw this at a midnight premiere as well, and I had a great time. I had a great time watching it now as well. Ultron’s creation is truly haunting, and his cold, calculating logic in destroying the human race feels almost reasonable. If you’ve been paying attention, then Ultron no longer seems like an overreaction from Iron Man, but instead an extension of his anxiety and his drive to protect everyone now that he knows what’s out there. The movies in between the first Avengers and this one actually did a good job of setting up where everyone is emotionally and why it’s important for them all to be back for this major event. Plus, here we get some nice character-building for Hawkeye, my main man. This pushes the Avengers in a new way, with world-ending stakes, and I think it’s great. Not only are they fighting an endless army of robots, but this time they’re also racing against the clock because they’re on a city in the sky. It’s so cool! Not to mention loads of other things get set up in this film, from Vision to Thor’s epiphany about the Infinity Stones. It sets the stage for a whole new era of Avengers, one that I’m very excited to move on to.

#filmblr #filmcommunity #filmmaking #Film Review #film

26 notes · View notes

mcfiddlestan · 3 years

Note

I’m relatively new to marvel and I was wondering why you don’t like Hemsworth? I absolutely understand and agree with not liking Waititi (in terms of how he progressed the plot in Ragnarok and how he treated Loki and other characters)... but if there’s something either or both Hemsworth or Waititi did that made you/the fandom not like them, what is it?

Hi, Nonnie.

Ok, so strap in. Cuz this will probably get long.

First off, it’s not so much that I don’t like Hemsworth. It’s more I’m disappointed in his progression as an actor and celebrity in Hollywood. Frankly, when I first saw Thor no one in the cast really stuck with me except Kat Dennings bc I knew her already and loved her work. (Yeah I knew who Natalie Portman was but I’ve had issues with her since Star Wars — long story). It wasn’t until Avengers that I really caught on to the Hiddlesmania. In those days, 2012 and up through The Dark World, there was a very sweet, very genuine bromance going on between Hemzy and Hiddles. They really were “brothers from another mother.” They were adorable together. I remember in one press event with the entire cast Hemzy and Hiddles were making faces at each other across the table and when a reporter asked Hiddles who his fave Avenger was, before he could answer, Hemzy shouted, “Your brother!” There was a very beautiful connection between them. What happened to that? It’s anyone’s guess, but here’s what happened for me.

Leading up to the release of TDW, I might have found it weird that the, like, fourth-billed actor, and the previous film’s “villain,” was chosen to basically lead the global promotion. It was Hiddles, by his lonesome, in Mexico, Australia, China, etc. And he killed it. And it started pretty much with his appearance at Comic-Con that July. We ALL remember that. Why wasn’t Hemzy participating in any of this promo? Idk. I’m pretty sure he was filming Snow White & the Huntsman, or something. Still, it was interesting and telling that Marvel chose to utilize Hiddles’ very apparent popularity. Hell, they chose not to kill Loki because of his popularity.

So it would be about three years before Hemzy and Hiddles came back together again to film Ragnarok. And between that time, Hemzy filmed six movies and Hiddles filmed eight. During that time, also, Hiddles pulled a 180° on everybody and participated in what was the most ridiculous, career-destroying antic he could ever participate in. If you don’t know what I mean, just Google Tom and the Summer of 2016. It’s my opinion that that whole event had a damaging affect on not only Tom’s image in the industry, but I think it made his colleagues and friends question how well they really knew him. And I think it hindered his bankability for filmmakers. Basically it wasn’t a good move for him. The moment I first noticed a change in Hemzy’s behavior with Hiddles was at a Wizard World convention in the middle of the PR nightmare and the beginning of filming Ragnarok in 2016.

During their panel onstage, Hemzy seemed oddly quiet and tense even. He didn’t seem all that interested in being there or answering questions. And Hiddles was like an anxious puppy, overcompensating for Hemzy’s lackluster demeanor. I’m not the only one who’s noticed it, but no one can really pinpoint why. Was Hemzy upset that Tom was “dating” that chick? Was he upset at how obviously out of character it was? I’m guessing there was more to it because the filming of Ragnarok, and it’s result, speak volumes about what Hemzy was apparently feeling.

There are clips and interviews from the set of Raganarok and during promo with Waitidiot and Hemzy where they are very vocal about making sure Hemzy was the star of the movie “because it’s called Thor.” Waitidiot even referred to Loki as a goth orphan or something. Overall they were very critical of and condescending toward Tom and Loki. In the few interviews Hemzy and Hiddles did together, that old spark between them wasn’t there. There’s a lot about Ragnarok I don’t like. Hela was underused, Valkyrie was underused, Skurge deserved better. But, of course, what I hate most about it is the awful way they treat Loki through the whole thing. The way Thor became a bigger bully than he already was. The way he just wanted to wash his hands of Loki — which continued with the fucking Russo brothers who couldn’t put their stupid heads together long enough to realize Loki deserved to have his revenge on Thanos just like Nebula and even Wanda did. Loki deserved to be on that field fighting next to his brother, dammit.

Anyway….since Ragnarok promo i was kind of side-eyeing Hemzy. He literally behaved like a spoiled brat who found a friend who believed his bullshit (feeling overshadowed by Loki; which I think extended to feeling inferior in some way to Tom, a very gifted, educated actor compared to Hemzy who kind of fell into acting. There’s nothing wrong with where Hemzy started; but his choices in the last few years speak for themselves. 🤷🏽‍♀️) and they teamed up to bully the brainy guy. So then Infinity War promo came around and Hiddles was paired with Sebastian Stan and Letitia Wright and Paul Bettany, I think. I loved him with Sebastian (I ship WinterFrost), but it was weird that he wouldn’t be paired up at some point with Hemzy. But then Hemzy wasn’t doing any promo — wait what?? Yeah. Hemzy skipped out on Shanghai I believe. Then he said he couldn’t be at another place bc he got in an accident and injured his elbow ??? Then the next day he posted an IG live where he’s driving?? And his elbow is loosely wrapped in an ACE bandage??? That actually falls off during the video?? And then he was supposed to be somewhere for another promo, said he couldn’t make it, and was spotted camping off the coast of Australia with Matt Damon’s family??? It was all very suspish.

Speaking of Damon, don’t get me started on the bullshit scene in the last Jay & Silent Bob movie where he literally trashed Tom and his portrayal of Loki. Fuck off, Damon. Go suck Ben Affleck’s dick already.

Anyway. All the Ragnarok stuff and his behavior during IW promo and his seeming dismissal of Hiddles completely has just rubbed me the wrong way. Added to that, it just feels like Hemzy isn’t really in the business to hone his craft. It feels like he’s in it for the money. And yeah that’s a great benefit of acting in Hollywood. But he doesn’t seem to choose quality roles anymore. I liked him in Blackhat. I liked Rush. He was really good in Bad Times at the Royale, but it feels like all he wants to do now are formula action movies with no depth, no growth, where he just has to flex his muscles and give a charming smile. Which is fine but that gets tired after awhile (just ask Dolph Lundgren and Jean-Claude VanDamme). So right now, I want nothing to do with Love and Thunder — which is one of the stupidest movie names I’ve heard in awhile. And frankly I just don’t want to watch Hemzy not try to be his best. If I want mindless action with no real plot, I’ve got the Fast and Furious franchise. 🤷🏽‍♀️

Hope this answers your question, Nonnie. Thanks for asking. Let me know, if I can clarify anything for you.

xoxo, La

#la answers #asked and answered #anonymous #Hemzy #Hiddles #Waitidiot

8 notes · View notes

wonderfulworldofmichaelford · 3 years

Text

Psycho Analysis: Loki

(WARNING! This analysis contains SPOILERS!)

In the early years of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, great villains were… well, they were less hard to come by than some would lead you to believe, but most of them were only good based on their actors and the performances they gave. Red Skull and Obadiah Stane are awesome villains, but they’re also rather simple ones, ones which have really simple goals and personalities that leave enough wiggle room for the actors to give a fun interpretation. We didn’t have complex, rich, and thematic villains like Ego or Killmonger or Thanos.

At least, that is, until Thor. Then we got Loki.

Loki was the big breakout star of the early MCU, and it’s not hard to see why. Pretty much every later villain that became beloved by fans has at least some sort of genesis in how Loki is portrayed here. The familial drama of Ego and Hela, the noble qualities of Vulture, the inherent tragedy of the backstory of Thanos… everything later villains were praised for got their start in everyone’s favorite trickster Asgardian. Praised by critics, loved by audiences, and so good he almost manages to make Thor: The Dark World watchable for about half an hour, Loki is one of the most fantastic characters in the entire MCU.

Too bad I’m not here to talk about how good he is as a character. I’m here to talk about him as a villain, and in that regard… Loki kinda sucks.

Motivation/Goals: Loki is, in short, an attention whore. But I say that with affection; Loki probably should have gotten some more appreciation from his dad Odin, but Odin blew him off a lot in favor of Thor. His drive to get some respect is what leads to his schemes in the first film, and his scheming carries through into the second and third Thor movies.

The real issue is with The Avengers where Loki, after falling through a wormhole, becomes essentially a generic doomsday villain. Or, he would be if he didn’t have so much pre-existing character development. He honestly suffers the same fate as Endgame!Thanos in this regard, where a complex and interesting villain gets watered down to be more blockbuster-friendly despite having tons of interesting characterization.

Performance: One thing that’s true for all of the films: Tom Hiddleston kills it. His Loki is exactly as he should be – cunning, slippery, underhanded, snarky, and just an absolute blast. He really sells Loki as an engaging and complex character. Even in the weaker films he features in, he tends to steal the show and make even dreadful slogs like The Dark World slightly watchable for short times.

Final Fate: In Infinity War, Loki sacrifices himself to save Thor from Thanos, which only somewhat works. He’s getting his own Disney+ spinoff so either he survived or the show’s about the continuing adventures of the Loki who escaped captivity in Endgame. Whatever the case may be, we thankfully haven’t seen the last of Loki.

Best Scene: Despite The Avengers aging rather poorly, I think most can agree that the “Puny god” scene is still one of the funniest and most awesome villain takedowns in the MCU. It also gets some hilarious callbacks in Ragnarok, which also features a legendary little moment that implies Loki bottomed for The Grandmaster. Oh, and there’s the three seconds in The Dark World where he turns into Cap, which is maybe the only good part of the film.

Best Quote: As always, the best bits of Loki come from Ragnarok, including his best line:

Worst Quote: As always, the worst bits of Loki come from The Avengers. Remember when he called Black Widow a whiny cunt?

Final Thoughts & Score: Time to be controversial! As a villain, I find Loki to be exceptionally underwhelming.

Now, don’t get me wrong: Tom Hiddleston’s performance is amazing across the board, even in the god-awful Thor: The Dark World, where he actually made the film slightly fun and watchable. And Loki is a fantastic character with an incredibly consistent arc across several movies which culminates in a heroic sacrifice that also utilizes his trademark craftiness and backstabbing. Loki is amazing in those regards, and there’s no denying the impact he had on the franchise as a whole, so if I was rating him as a character he’d easily be a 10/10.

But here on Psycho Analysis beeing a good character is an entirely different thing from being a good villain. Similar to the case with Kronk, Loki isn’t really all that evil outside of The Avengers. He’s a dick, sure, but this series isn’t called Dick Analysis. I’m trying to determine how effective, cool, and influential a character is as a villain, and Loki just… isn’t. Sure, he has good quips and a funny defeat, but that doesn’t make his showing in The Avengers any less of a waste of his skills, which are put to much better use in anti-heroic roles like in the latter two Thor films, where he is constantly swapping sides and backstabbing his brother and everyone else. In fact, in terms of everything Loki is about, Ragnarok is easily his best outing, showcasing his anti-heroic side to the extreme.

If it was only his outing in Thor that we were talking about, I’d easily give him an 8, but his showing in The Avengers is so bad and basic that I’m subtracting a whole number grade and giving Loki as a villain a 7/10. This is a different situation than the one with Thanos, were his Endgame counterpart is so radically different but is also from another timeline and doesn’t detract from the original Thanos, this is the same Loki across all these movies, and funny moments aside his portrayal in the original Marvel crossover event was really lackluster. I can’t stress enough that Loki is a fantastic character, but his best strengths are when he’s stabbing everyone in the back or when he’s actually getting along with Thor to some degree.

As a villain, everything Loki did was done way better by many other villains. Is he going to be a villain in the Loki show on Disney+? Who can say. But whatever the case may be, it’s pretty doubtful Loki could ever hope to catch up to the rich villains we’ve gotten as of late. Loki plays much better as a tricky, sneaky anti-hero/villain than as an outright villain, and those are the strengths they need to play to, because Loki as a straight bad guy just does not work at all.

#Psycho Analysis #Loki #Tom Hiddleston #Thor #MCU #The Avengers

20 notes · View notes

eldritchamy · 3 years

Text

Having now watched them back to back I have to say Wonder Woman 84 is hands down better than the first movie. There are two major issues I have with it (not discussed in this post for spoiler reasons), but everything else about it was unequivocally better.

The first movie is pretty slow to start up and even though Diana’s backstory strongly supports and explains all of the things she doesn’t understand about the world, she is very much a Born Sexy Yesterday character for almost the entire movie, and while the TWIST about who Ares was was DEFINITELY well done, Ares himself as an antagonist was incredibly lackluster and forgettable. The first movie did some things really well, like setting it in World War ONE where there was really no obvious morally superior side, it was just an absolute clusterfuck of human tragedy and moral ambiguity on all sides and that fit the narrative perfectly. But in retrospect? It missed the mark in some ways too. Diana’s innocence was really overplayed, and her sheltered childhood with an overly protective mother on an island isolated from the rest of the world accounts for SOME of that, but the framing of the character overall suffers from a lot of the film’s shortcomings.

I still like the first movie for what it is. But what it is is a female power fantasy. It was refreshing because it was a story of a woman being told she couldn’t do things and succeeding anyway. We DO deserve more stories like that. I’ll take it over yet another male power fantasy movie any day. But god the bar was so goddamn low, and 84 REALLY shows how much higher that bar could be. I truly, truly hope that’s the new bar that movies like this try to aim for.

The sequel reverses the Steve and Diana dynamic in a way that’s believable for the characters and genuinely CHARMING. I was completely shocked that Steve being in the second movie A) WASN’T horribly convoluted shoehorned bullshit as an excuse to shove her 5 day love interest (I literally mapped out the timeline, it is 5 days from the plane crash to the end of the movie) into the sequel, and B) Steve being there not only fit perfectly into Diana’s character arc for the movie but was actually ENJOYABLE. I enjoyed Steve as a character ten times more in the sequel and was actually glad he was there, and felt the emotional impact of all the story beats involving him, which was CRITICAL to selling Diana’s arc, which was absolutely the highlight of the film.

And on that point, the smaller core cast and better overall writing REALLY did wonders for fleshing out the character arcs. The plot structure was constructed beautifully and played into the development of each character’s story in a way the first movie didn’t. Every character’s arc felt complete and satisfying, with the possible exception of one of them not getting as much resolution as they deserved. But overall, compared to the first movie, Diana feels WAY more like a fleshed out complete character and she is absolutely the heart and soul of the movie. And the antagonists in particular were handled SO MUCH BETTER in terms of their own stories and motivations. It did way more show don’t tell. The first movie gives you a lengthy backstory about the gods and amazons and Ares in particular and then throws him into the story at the end as this overhyped flat villain. WW84 shows you where the antagonists are coming from and they have their own stories alongside Diana’s which makes the plot better, the movie more fleshed out, and motivations deeper, the conflicts and stakes far more real. It is flat superior in every regard.

Gal Gadot’s acting is a little bit inconsistent and some of her line deliveries are a little bit off, but the sequel ALSO has, bar none, the best acting moments I’ve seen from her, nearly back to back in the two most powerful scenes of the movie (imho). The emotional impact of the pivotal plot moments is outstanding. The visual framing of two particular shots without question sold the entire movie. The characters’ choices had SO MUCH INFLUENCE on the plot. The movie was driven by consequences for CHARACTER ACTIONS, not just “this big mystical thing happened thousands of years ago”. You get to see and feel all of the story beats. And the story beats, critically, are GOOD.

The ending was a little bit overextended. It tried to reach a little too far and it kind of flopped imo. It felt a little flat after how POWERFUL the late-middle character moments were. And it was a LOT less of a visual spectacle and badass moment compared to the lightning blast in the first movie (which, in some ways, is a good thing). But the overall character arcs, especially Diana’s, more than make up for that. It was just a better movie, without question. The writing was better, the acting was (mostly) better, the stakes felt FAR more significant without there being ANY power creep from trying to follow up the god of war, the character arcs were more fleshed out and actually SHOWN in a complete way, the emotion was deeper, the character DYNAMICS were better, etc etc etc.

Wonder Woman was not a bad movie. It was INCREDIBLY refreshing from the superhero genre compared to everything else that had come out by that point, and it still holds up as better than anything Marvel has done other than Thor Ragnarok, Black Panther, and Captain Marvel. But now that the sequel is out, it’s become really clear how much higher the bar should be.

We really deserve better from the media we consume. And while WW84 isn’t perfect, it’s a hell of a step forward.

I know everyone loves the No Man’s Land sequence, but honestly there’s a sequence in 84 that I felt was WAY more powerful as both a story beat and as part of Diana’s character development. No Man’s Land, by comparison, feels like a power fantasy with no further depth, it’s JUST “I am no man” as an 8 minute action sequence. The pivotal character sequence in 84 felt so much better because of how perfectly it tied into the emotion of its story beat and the consequence of choice.

Despite the two major flaws I feel it has, WW84 is a much better movie.

I don’t want to come off as overly critical of the first movie, because I loved it and I still think it’s good in a lot of ways, and is certainly fun to watch. And I would LOVE more female power fantasy movies. But it’s really not much more than that, in retrospect. I just ALSO really, really, REALLY want more like the sequel, because god damn did it raise the bar.

#eldritchreviews

4 notes · View notes

pass-the-bechdel · 4 years

Text

Marvel Cinematic Universe: Avengers: Infinity War (2018)

Does it pass the Bechdel Test?

Yes, once.

How many female characters (with names and lines) are there?

Nine (25.71% of cast).

How many male characters (with names and lines) are there?

Twenty-six.

Positive Content Rating:

Three.

General Film Quality:

For a movie which is pretty much wall-to-wall fight scenes...I love it. I always start out going ‘maybe I overrate this movie, maybe it’s not as good as I remember’, but by the end, I’m right back in there.

MORE INFO (and potential spoilers) UNDER THE CUT:

Passing the Bechdel:

Wanda apologises to Natasha for lying. It’s a close call.

Female characters:

Pepper Potts.

F.R.I.D.A.Y

Gamora.

Mantis.

Wanda Maximoff.

Natasha Romanoff.

Okoye.

Nebula.

Shuri.

Male characters:

Ebony Maw.

Thanos.

Thor.

Loki.

Heimdall.

Bruce Banner.

Stephen Strange.

Wong.

Tony Stark.

Peter Parker.

Ned.

Peter Quill.

Rocket.

Drax.

Groot.

Vision.

Steve Rogers.

Sam Wilson.

The Collector.

Thaddeus Ross.

James Rhodes.

T’Challa.

Bucky Barnes.

Eitri.

Red Skull.

M’Baku.

OTHER NOTES:

Heimdall had proven himself too much of an MVP in previous films to be allowed to live in this one. Bastards.

Heimdall and Loki, both dead before the opening titles. That’s how you know this movie means business, it’s not faking at high stakes.

I also am from space and have come here to steal a necklace from a wizard.

“Mr Stark, it smells like a new car in here!”

“All words are made up.”

Not gonna lie, when I saw this at the cinema and I realised that Captain America had arrived? My heart LEAPT. It was intense.

Depressed Thor is a great touch - after all previous films with Thor had him so bland, and then Ragnarok made him funny but essentially glossed over any of the difficult emotions it was dredging up, I’m glad to finally get something real and meaty from the character. If characters go through all manner of Hell and don’t show any signs of labouring under that weight, you’re doing character development wrong.

Nice callback with Red Skull.

The sacrifice of Gamora on Vormir is a really well-balanced piece; it was asking a lot, to make the emotion of it land despite how little of Thanos we’ve seen before, and without genuine emotion at it’s core it’s just the killing off of a female character for shock value. I feel like they got the pitch just right (most thanks to the music).

As much as I enjoy Thor and Rocket’s bantering, the side-quest for Stormbreaker feels like an unnecessary and over-the-top distraction in an already stuffed-full film. Easily the weakest part of the plot.

The fact that Quill fucks everything up with defeating Thanos on Titan because he can’t keep himself under control for two seconds certainly does not endear him to me in the slightest. Like ok, you’re upset, but if you can’t stop yourself from getting violent that’s on you, that makes you a dangerous person with serious issues, that’s not normal and it’s not ok. Also, literally half of all life in the universe was at stake. So there’s that.

Listen, I’m very susceptible to heroism (and that’s why superhero movies work for me), so every time someone comes to someone else’s rescue, I have feelings.

I had convinced myself that somehow, Thanos wouldn’t succeed with his whole plan in this movie, that he would get all the stones but that he would like, go to a special place or something before enacting his plan, so that the good guys would have a chance to regroup and race to stop him before it was too late, all that jazz. So (even though Thanos had already snapped at that point), when Bucky Barnes disintegrated before our very eyes, I was SHOCKED. That got me like a smack in the face.

Considering I’ve never really been a fan of Tom Holland’s Spider-man, it’s a credit to his work that Peter’s death scene is so effective. That’s acting.

So, what makes this movie work despite being so heavy with bombastic action? The short answer is: it’s because the good guys lose. I’ve made no secret of being a fan of the ‘hour darkest before the dawn’ in storytelling, so this is playing to the sweet spot for me there, but it’s not as simple as just making everything miserable and hopeless. In this case, specifically, the lead-up to that ultimate failure is key; it’s gotta still feel like a superhero extravaganza, even as it takes an increasingly dark turn. The action works because it’s part of what we signed up for (the best camouflage for subversions of the traditional model), and it works because it’s all carrying the story forward - the Infinity War is comprised of multiple battles, and because of the way the pieces of the narrative are separated, the characters don’t know how any of the other battles are turning out; everyone is just trying to fight what’s in front of them and defend the stone in their midst, they don’t have the option to sit around doom-and-glooming and restrategising as news of each defeat comes in. Rather than dragging us wholesale from Point A to B to C in ever-escalating stakes and complications, the writers have had the good sense to spread things out and let things fall apart for our heroes (and the universe) in multiple smaller pieces until they reach a cumulative critical mass. Consequently, instead of feeling as though we’re sitting there watching things go from bad to worse, the audience forms this false sense of security in the action; it’s a superhero movie, after all. We expect them to work it all out in the end, to build toward a moment of apparent hopelessness (a darkest hour before the dawn), and then to rally triumphantly for the big win. As such, we perceive small victories (i.e. the defeat of Thanos’ various ‘children’, the creation of Stormbreaker, the way things draw out in the battle on Titan) as if they are more significant, as if they are signs leading us to that big win; without those small, expected victories, the ultimate failure would not hit as hard, because after two and a half hours of watching the good guys get wrecked without a chance, what surprise would there be in the snap?

Of course, plenty of viewers knew about the snap already or expected an ultimate failure of some sort based on the fact that we pretty much all knew that this was the first half of our grand Avengers finale (my mother, who is not a superhero movie fan, did not know what she was getting into and was...very shocked), so it’s important that the film still works to engage us on a character level so that the good guys losing in the end can hit like a ton of bricks even if you knew it was coming (and even though you no doubt expected to get the big win eventually, once Endgame came out). After all the fighting and the bantering, all the usual stuff we expect to see our heroes go through in the course of an average adventure, having them then watch their beloved friends/allies/whatever literally disintegrate before their eyes in a quiet, drawn out scene of devastation is a magnificent piece of cinema, communicating the shock not only of the event itself, but of the complete disruption to the superhero status quo. It’s not just that good guys don’t lose like this, it’s that they don’t lose with a whimper instead of a a bang. It’s not only that the cost of failure has never been this high; it’s also that they have never been forced to watch it play out with such inevitability; they have never before been rendered so powerless. If the entire film had the tone of the last ten minutes, it wouldn’t work so well, it’d just be a drudge and the audience would be desensitised by the end. By the same token, if the rest of the film had not planted the seeds of the finale so thoroughly in all its smaller losses and smokescreen victories, the ending would not be so horrifically fitting.

Neither, of course, would the ending be so affecting, if we were not as attached to the characters as we are. We have many, many films worth of history with most of them, or at least one solid encounter in which to become attached, and even in a movie chock-full of more characters than any other before, everyone gets a chance to show their personality and remind us why we care if they live or die. I’m not going to argue for this being an incredible character piece (nor is it pretending to be one), but it plays its very large hand very well, putting emphasis where it needs to be without overloading or unbalancing the story. As I noted above, I was particularly impressed with the way Thanos was handled, considering our exposure to him previously was very minimal and it was left up the this film to build his ethos as well as his relationships with his ‘children’ almost from scratch, creating complexity and simplicity without falling into the trap of trying to make the villain sympathetic; Thanos isn’t necessarily relatable (nor does he need to be), but he is understandable in that we’ve all probably encountered at least one person who holds the same limited worldview and is somehow convinced that they could ‘fix’ everything, given the power. Thanos isn’t actually aiming for universal domination in the traditional sense, and it makes him more disturbing and more realistic as a villain, because his evil is not nebulous or purely self-serving; he is a true believer, and his delusions have an all-too-familiar ring about them, so as we watch him lumber and pontificate around the story, we get a clearly-drawn image of someone possessed of such basic and humble flaws that he is - again, without being treated as sympathetic - quite significantly humanised, despite all of the non-human elements that make up both his character, and his situation. Even as it planet-hops and draws upon cosmic magic, the narrative is grounded by a centrepiece of plain, ungodly fallibility.

Now, I recognise that in all of this praise for the way this film was executed, there isn't really anything to be said for it regarding the purpose of this blog; on the female representation front, it's not really doing anything (the fact that it juuust manages to pass the Bechdel and juuust over a quarter of its cast is female does not win it brownie points; its better than not having either of those things, but that's not a genuine achievement). The two female characters who were more prominently positioned in this movie are Gamora and Wanda; Gamora largely in context of her relationship with Thanos, and Wanda as Vision’s significant other and the means of his destruction. Notably, both women’s arcs are accessories to the arcs of male characters, which is not what we’re aiming for in good representation, though it does not exclude the possibility of quality content; Gamora’s role may have a lot to do with Thanos (not least, after he kills her), but it is still distinctly her own story, rich with emotion and coming to a surprising and depressing end which I felt struck the right chords to be compelling rather than an enraging disposal of one of the few female characters around (more on this after Endgame). Wanda’s presence leaves less of an impression, in terms of screen time, plot complication, and audience engagement, but all things considered I don’t think that was a terrible choice; Wanda and Vision’s relationship had been a somewhat sparse subplot in previous films and the chemistry was not strong, so I don’t think it would have been to the film’s benefit to try and expand on that relationship further than they did. As it was, there was enough there to sell the emotion, and nothing extraneous, and as much as I enjoy this movie, I wish I could say better things for its female representation than that. It is stuffed-full, and definitely not perfect, and space could have been made to pump up some of the other female characters’ roles more (the Earthbound characters get the least attention in the movie, and since basically all my faves are there it is a testament to how well this movie works for me that I enjoy it so much anyway, but a little more attention there would not have gone astray, especially since that’s where most of the female cast is). That said...I still really enjoy it, man. As far as popcorn action goes, this is top shelf.

#Marvel Cinematic Universe #Avengers: Infinity War #female representation #Bechdel Test #MCU

4 notes · View notes

littleoddwriter · 3 years

Note

Happyhoganon: If the Marvel Cinematic Universe and DC Extended Universe never existed, with both Marvel Studios and DC Films just sticking with making solo films during the 2000's and 2010's until 2020, how different could the movie landscape be without the MCU or the DCEU?

Hi!

Okay, so I’ve been thinking about how to answer this, mostly because I have some thoughts on this for sure, and also because I’m anxious that I might have misunderstood you. Either way, I’ll just go for it and if it’s not what you expected, or wanted to hear, I apologise!

I take it that when you talk about “the movie landscape” you’re talking about the MCU and DCEU’s impact on the entire film industry, marketing, etc. because that’s what I took it for, and what my response will be about for the most part.

First off, I think it’s safe to say that weighing impact alone, the MCU is what I’ll have to talk about the most because the DCEU doesn’t have that impact on the industry and people because it still isn’t mainstream or widely loved and popular, like the MCU is.

Why is that? Well, MCU films, especially the Avengers ones, are crowd pleasing and you don’t have to be a fan to enjoy or understand them (talking from experience here, I’ve seen only a few solo MCU films, and I’ve seen the first Avengers when it came out, and then Infinity War and Endgame, too. I was told I wouldn’t get the last two if I hadn’t seen all the solo films. Guess what; I understood them anyway. They are crowd pleasing action flicks anyone can enjoy and understand; it’s definitely just a lot more fun for die-hard fans of the MCU/Marvel, but they don’t need you to know the characters and constellations inside out).

DCEU films on the other hand are not crowd pleasing, darker and grittier (like the comics, obviously) and so far, none of their movies are on the critical standards that the MCU is on (speaking of: The amount of people, who like and watch those films; Justice League, I’ve mostly heard bad things about, Birds of Prey - as the most recent example - has been bashed before it was even released, etc.); MCU films don’t get that treatment and are better received for the most part. Not because they’re objectively or subjectively “better”, but because they speak to an entirely different audience.

What I’m trying to say with this point: The MCU has opened up Comic Book Movies to a wider audience. It has managed to make Marvel, at least, more mainstream and popular. Almost everyone I know either loves Marvel, or has at least seen the “bigger” movies (the Avengers films). Basically the exact opposite is the case for the DCEU; People around me neither like, nor watch them, for the most part. Which is okay, but those are the same people, who prefer Marvel, and again: That is okay! Everyone has their own opinion, and so on, and once more, the MCU does speak to a lot more people, than the DCEU.

Therefore, CBM is one of the hottest and most popular movie genres since the Avengers films have come out. The demand for solo movies for certain characters has also risen (taking Black Widow as the most immediate example, such as the solo TV shows for Loki, Falcon and the Winter Soldier, etc.). That wouldn’t have happened if the Avengers films weren’t so popular and mainstream. (I really hope I’m being coherent here, lol, I’m trying).

It’s also important to note that Marvel Studios is owned by D*sney, and they only care about money, etc. So, seeing how popular all of this is, they of course take their chance to make as much spin-offs and solo shows and movies as they can to get that cash in.

In conclusion, I believe that those studios have had a huge impact, one more than the other, on the entire industry and CBM themselves. CBM are more popular and mainstream, more actors are widely popular and loved, and the industry knows how to use that to their advantage. Is that bad? No, if one of those actors is in an indie film, it’s actually really great because it is bound to get much more recognition.

Onto my next point, which is how the shift from solo films (Tobey Maguire Spiderman, Christian Bale Batman films, etc.) to the bigger, teaming-up ones (Avengers, Justice League, Suicide Squad, etc.), has also influenced the entire film industry and the marketing.

The thing about this is that it could very well just be my view of things and not be true at all, but I do believe that my thoughts have a place and aren’t entirely incorrect.

Either way, the Avengers films especially have highly popularised the actors appearing in them. Which goes to say is great for them and the film industry because the industry has realised the shift from “I will watch this movie because the trailer made me want to”, to “I will watch it only because this one actor is in it”. It’s not just a fandom thing, like with myself and how I watch every film my favourite actors are in, but it’s become a general thing. Most trailers for films are very different to how they used to be, if you ask me. Films where the studios suspect that they won’t get their cash back in and make profit, will have, and be advertised with, currenty popular, widely loved and known actors in them. Note, how those actors are mostly from the MCU, and always the same, too.

Take for example Knives Out and MIB: International; Knives Out is packed with popular and well loved actors (Chris Evans - MCU, Jamie Lee Curtis, Daniel Craig, etc.). Pretty much every actor in this film was someone you’d know, and love at least one of them. And the trailer showed me that they knew that. I’ve seen the trailer a few times, and none of those times, I was interested to see what the murder mystery would bring because to me, it came very short. What stuck with me, was who was in it. And it’s safe to say that most people went and watched it for the actors first, the film itself second.

MIB: International took Chris Hemsworth and Tessa Thompson and advertised the film with their characters’ dynamic, which was very much like what we saw and loved in Thor: Ragnarok between Thor and Valkyrie. So, yes, of course people went to see it for those two first, the film itself second.

I believe that with films like that, they know they wouldn’t get too many people into the cinemas if it hadn’t at least one actor, or a well loved and received duo, attached to it one way or another.

In my opinion, that is probably the biggest impact MCU had on the entire industry, because their actors appear in so many films (which is good for them, yes!) and the advertisement has definitely made a huge shift from the film itself to the actors in it. (I hope this made sense).

Anyway, this is what I think about this. I tried to compromise it a little. Hopefully, I made sense and it was coherent enough to get behind what I’m trying to say. I, by no means, intend to put anything or anyone down here. It’s really just my opinion and how I see the impact of these studios, especially Marvel. I also hope it was kind of what you were asking for. If not, I sincerely apologise!

Have a great day/night, cheers!

#Asks #marvel #the mcu #dceu #film industry #spiderman #batman #the avengers #birds of prey #knives out #mib international

1 note · View note