The Eternals (MCU)

Mickeroo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118544994#Comment_118544994

My wife is a geologist and had serious issues with the celestial birthing 😂

flazio

I wonder if the Haiti eruption had happened shortly before the movie was due to come out if that might have delayed it.

The White Wolf

Dane Whitman, Makkari, Druig, Sersi, Ikaris.... I think they did enough to make the audience want to see these characters again. That in itself is a success. The clever thing to do though might be to scatter them in other films as opposed to a direct sequel.

kerplun k

Caught this tonight and have to say I was very pleasantly surprised. It looked gorgeous, even on my TV at home. It’s probably MCUs best looking film, and was a nice deviation from the standard filter they use over the other films. I also enjoyed how disconnected this was from the MCU, sure they had a few lines connecting it, but it really could exist outside the MCU. I found the story asked some intriguing questions, and I really could see the conflicting perspectives from each of the Eternals.

I had the usual Marvel gripes with the lazy deviants CGI fight scenes, and the team was a little of over stuffed, but overall, I enjoyed this much more than I expected. Definitely my favourite of the post endgame films. I’d like to see Marvel make more films like this one. It had unique print on it, an interesting story, and very nice visuals.

Useless Lump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118661464#Comment_118661464

What was the “unique print” you saw?

I was just reading an interview with Zhao and the writer called the film “a mix of indie filmmaking and Marvel blockbuster”.

it isn’t the first comment like that and I honestly don’t get this or the “divisiveness” or how it was “Marvel’s risky left turn”.

It was an enjoyable Marvel movie - it didn’t look any different to any other superhero film or other MCU movie. I didn’t really take to the characters and the ones I did like were sidelined. I don’t care whether character are are straight or gay, etc. and I get that makes releasing the film in some countries a problem but if you know in advance the film wound get released in Saudi Arabia then it isn’t a risk. I don’t see how there being a gay superhero is divisive among fans.

kerplun k

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118799838#Comment_118799838

By unique print, I meant that I felt this was an outlier of the MCU. It was the least generic, from the the story, to the colour palette, the characters, it was just nice to sit down and watch an MCU film that looked like the director had some influence on.

plastic glass

I have to say I really liked this. It was definitely interesting and has its problems Gemma Chan is woeful in this, Nanjiani’s character is utterly pointless (both plot and power) and just randomly trots off near the end, the deviants are uninteresting but to be fair are not the main enemies really.

however they do a good job exploring the lore and mythology, I like the flashback scenes and though I’m not a fan of jolie I really enjoyed her performance and the character. Plus druig was pretty cool also

do I want a sequel? Meh, I wouldn’t be adverse to one. But I also think it really worked as an interesting stand alone film that totally works in the current MCU without impacting on any of the already complex storylines (the multiverse is gonna get very convoluted very quickly)

Useless Lump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118800642#Comment_118800642

I didn’t see it as detached from the MCU but it did feel like it out of place in the MCU. Just suddenly a race of super beings are here the whole time. I can’t quite get it in words but it just doesn’t fit.

I don’t know about generic but the story was not very interesting and was completely predictable (with the exception of Nanjina’s decision to leave). It was obvious Madden was the “villain” and that Chan was going to be passed the torch of leadership, that the Deviants were going to turn out to not be the big bad, that the creator was the real big bad, etc.

The characters are paper thin. Hardly surprising since so many are stuffed into a film not long enough to develop them.

The film is certainly less colourful than other MCU movies - however I didn’t see that as either good or bad.

The action scenes and fights are great. Especially Makari (actress and character criminally underused) battering Ikarus.

I can’t see any signs here of how a director having more control than any other Marvel movie.

It was not a bad movie but I was expecting something different, even usual, because of Zhao and all the various chatter how this film was a turning point. However, it was surprisingly lacklustre.

kerplun k

I disagree, I thought idea of a necessary genocide in order to continue, create and grow new life was an interesting concept and the idea that the Celestials were gods and weren’t capable of understanding the ethics of the process and to them this was just the circle of life. The Enterals essentially being supervisors in this process was an interesting story.

it’s only natural that after spending so much time on earth that you might grow an attachment, much like an undercover cop would with a gang they’ve infiltrated. To me there was no villains here, just different perspectives. Not only did this film look and feel different to other MCU films, but it was very nuanced as well and you have to credit Zhao with this.

johnny_ultimate

It’s simultaneously the most visually accomplished Marvel movie by a country mile (I’d go as far as saying it’s the only one that’s remotely visually interesting or appealing in any way) and the most turgid, sluggish mess from the studio yet.

I like Chloe Zhao and her style. It did not work at all here - her humanist style of storytelling clashing violently with the extraordinarily uninteresting lore and action. Felt like it was ten hours long, without any of the momentum or artistic intent that has seen me through actual ten hour long films.

fitz

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118801430#Comment_118801430

Some parts looked gorgeous, no doubt, but it was worse than early JJ Abrams lens-flare overuse for constantly doing character close-ups with the sun backlighting their head. Yeah, we get it, the light poking out looks cool. Took me out of the movie every time as it went on, and seemed amateurish tbh.

Useless Lump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118801399#Comment_118801399

I found the story very predictable.

I agree that after so much time on Earth there would be attachment but it didn’t happen in this film.

Five of them removed themselves from contact with human beings (I included Druig because although he took humans with him they were forced to and had their minds altered as were their descendants). Those that remained did nothing with their abilities to help people.

The Celestial destroys people by the billions - Ikarus murdered the mother figure and was willing to murder all of them and the entire human race. That makes them villains.

That they a different perspectives doesn’t make them not villains - Zemo, Red Skull, Ultron, Emperor Palpatine, etc - they all had perspectives too.

Can you explain how the film looked looked and felt different to other MCU films? And how it was nuanced? I really don’t see the influence of an indie film maker on it.

I really do want you to explain it because I am interested to know what you see that I don’t.

It is the same for The Batman. There are people on that thread that dislike the movie for various reasons and one or two who have the opposite opinion of me but I can’t understand how and would have like to hear why so that I can’t understand it.

I can normally understand why people like/dislike a film whether I I agree with them or not but in the case of Eternals and the new Batman I just can’t - and no one seems to be able to explain why they think Eternals is different, that the film has Zhao’s influence more that directors on other MCU movies.

Sugarlumps

I watched 20 or so minutes, really camp. How the fudge people call these films entertaining I'll never understand.

poppysee

I felt like critics were too harsh on the Eternals. It definitely wasn't the best or even among the top few MCU films but I didn't think it was that bad. There's definitely a lot of potential and the main issue was that there were just too many characters squeezed into such a short film.

Slutmonkey57b

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118533958#Comment_118533958

Thanks for being the only person who actually addressed the question rather than go on a rant (on either side).

This makes a sort of sense, but I think it's one of the telling failures of the film that it didn't mention this at all. Superhero films don't have to make "real sense" but they do have to have a consistent *internal logic*. A godlike being obsessed with perfection creating a deaf robot warrior, as someone pointed out previously, didn't make internal logical sense, and totally threw me out. A viewer shouldn't have to read up on the printed promo material in order to follow the character setup - that's evidence of a filmmaking failure of the highest order. Even at that, lots of other parts of the film bang on about the Eternals being immortal, godlike, unkillable, non-human etc etc. Sprite's character arc is totally focused on the fact that they're living lives which "can't relate" to a human one...

And yet there's this one Eternal who has a specific, human-grade weakness, that wasn't offset by her robotic design parameters, by the perfection-obsessed deity that created it? By that logic, shouldn't Thena get burned by the cosmic energy lances she was using? What with, you know, the human imperfection they're at risk of, and all? It smacks of "we want to do a deaf character... where do we put one? Oh, shove one in over there, that's shooting right now! Ah, just make up some stuff in the print background to explain why so it doesn't look forced." But it does look forced. There's acres of space for a deaf superhero in the MCU where it could have just fitted in naturally, but this wasn't it I don't think.

Overall I thought the film was beautiful but poor overall, and that was mostly down to the characters. Nanjani's character could have been an excellent comedic foil but he had literally nothing to bounce off, it was like projecting into a void. Maybe the other actors were told to be as robotic and expressionless as possible, I don't know. The talent was there but I don't get how it was used. Kit Harrington's character was the most rounded and interesting one there.