The Eternals (MCU)

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118479758#Comment_118479758

I'd get that argument until what were seeing about the world continuing despite millions of COVID deaths, some people refusing to even acknowledge it. Similarly we see how people pick their lives up so quickly after wars or natural disasters. Humans are pretty resilient.

It is something that Marvel have done a decent job with making nods to - what happens in movies impact the world and future movies. For example, the push back against the Avengers that led to the Sokovia accords, Peter Parker's class dealing with younger kids suddenly being in their class post blip, and the driver of the narrative for Falcon & Winter Soldier (though it could have been done better).

gmisk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118482098#Comment_118482098

Have you seen house of Gucci? Watch that.... and tell me he can act.

He was at best ok in Dallas buyers club imo.

Winning an Oscar isn't a guarantee someone can act....Roberto Benigni?

Agent Coulson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118482098#Comment_118482098

Winning an Oscar does not make you good actor plenty of terrible actors have Oscars.

The Oscars is not about acting, directing etc is about how much money producers pump into publicity and buying votes.

The White Wolf

I'm so so on Leto but questioning his performance in DBC I can't agree with. It was exceptional. One of the last great LGBT performances that wasn't effected by box ticking requirements.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118482571#Comment_118482571

And perhaps persuaded him that all parts in future required "disappearing" into the role, culminating in that overwrought method approach Mark Kermode snarked is like "overdosing on acting pills". The stories about his "pranks" while playing Joker are toe curling and was arguably the worst part of the Blade Runner sequel. He can't just show up on set and play a part. House of Gucci getting a lot of abuse for this indulgence, though to be fair Morbius looks positively sedate.

TheIrishGrover

There is a line between immersion and indulgence. But it can be hard to find I suppose: Did Daniel Day-Lewis' immersion help his performances in "My Left Foot" and Lincoln etc? Probably. Did Bale's weight-loss/prep work for The Machinest? Certainly. Did Leto really need to immerse himself into a poor-man's wanna-be post-Legder take on The Joker..... In Suicide Squad? No. Did it make good tabloid/click-bait headlines? Certainly.

As For Eternals. Finished it.... Yeah, not good. As I said before, it's boring. The ACTION sequences are the MOST boring. I have no problem with a sedate pace (Which I am not accusing this film of). I don't have a problem with the lingering location-shots. They were filmed well, looked pretty (Beautiful people surrounded by beautiful scenery all filmed at Golden Hour). They (almost successfully) conveyed a sense of their millennia-spanning time on Earth and their voyages throughout the world.

But then the action kicks in: whatshisname flies about shooting lasers., whatshername touches things, whosyerman points, The Flash runs, The other guy hold his hands in front of him and people stop, Angelina Jolie CGIs around the place. There was no impact or.... I don't know.... Gravity to the action sequences. You didn't care about ANY of the characters. As Deadpool exclaims derisively: "CGI Fight"

And then...

Spoiler Warning

... they bring in HARRY f*cking STILES!!!!! And he was ACTUALLY one of the best scenes in the movie!

I laughed at Kingol as I was supposed to (Well, when he explains his Bollywood dynasty and the stuff with his valet). And I laughed (Perhaps unintentionally) when Jon Snow said "I love you Cersie".

The typical "The Eternals will return" at the end? Perhaps. But big ask for a standalone.

It's not a BAD film.... It's just not a GOOD film. I don't think it's a Missed opportunity. In that I don't think this was a potentially killer idea executed poorly. They clearly wanted to bring in the next wave of hot young Avengers. But they should maybe have had their first movie set in Egypt or Babylon or somewhen (My autocorrect says that's a word). Then have the mid/post credit sequence of them doing their stuff during the Thanos Snap or after everyone is snapped back. Then they could go "OK. Time to intervene and talk to the Avengers. They know their stuff. Time to announce ourselves"

Wickan3080

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118475455#Comment_118475455

I was the the same just meh honestly turned it off as was getting late but down know if i have the energy to turn it on again.

TheIrishGrover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118475455#Comment_118475455

And it is hard to see who this was aimed at: It was too sedate for the younger audience (16 would be old enough to not be put off by a sedate pace if the film was good/earned the pace. But an 8 yearold who is looking for the next Marvel movie?). It didn't have the existing star-power/crossover appeal of any of the others. No Iron Man. No Thor or Spiderman. Guardians didn't either but it was full of action and humour. There was spaceships. And funny racoon thing. And various funny idiots. And when you heard that they were going to be in the next Avengers movie you thought "Oh that would be fun to see Starlord and Iron-man" or something.

This had a big crew but are you thinking "Oh, I can't wait until Druig meets Thor, Oh boy!!! That is be OFF THE CHAIN!!!"

I'm not saying they should exclusively cater for 8 yearolds (Iron-man 3, Captain America 2 were both almost detective movies with quieter moments and interesting tone. But they also had hundreds of Iron-man suits and flying fortresses). But they certainly AIM for as wide demographic as they can. Otherwise Black Widow would have had a bloody, explicit bodycount similar to Deadpool 1 :)

GSPfan

I’ve seen a few people refer to this movie as an Avengers type movie. But it’s not. These guys are a team. They are introduced as a team and work as a team almost the entire film (give or take a few characters).

Avengers and GotG are solo heroes who team up. Most of the fun in those movies is seeing solo heroes fight with each other and become a team. The Eternals was almost the reverse in that the team fell apart as the movie went on.

I think it suffered from having too many people to introduce all at once. I’m willing to stick around for the second movie but I’m hoping it takes place off Earth. I think I’d rather see them out in the galaxy somewhere and maybe bump into Captain Marvel or GotG as their first crossover with mcu characters.

Mr.Nice Guy

It's a poor movie. Most Marvel films follow a well-trodden path:

1) establish the motivations and personality of the protagonist/s

2) establish the motivations and personality of the antagonist/s

3) build up the big showdown for the final act

4) Pew, pew, bang, bang, CGI, explosions, etc.

And if we're lucky, some funny gags here and there.

This film does at least buck the trend, but it falls flat on its face. We start off with the shooty, shooty laserbeam CGI-fest, without having any connection to any of the heroes involved. We don't know what the antagonist wants until very late on. The showdown feels like a mess. There isn't a decent amount of humour in there to lighten the mood either, and I thought the CGI was pretty poor as well.

Some of the decisions made by the characters I found very frustrating. It felt like in the final act there wasn't sufficient consequences for very significant choices that had been taken. I could have done without that post-credits scene too. If I'd known that was coming, I might not have watched at all.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118497542#Comment_118497542

Doesn't your 1-4 path describe the majority of action movies?

MisterAnarchy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118481367#Comment_118481367

You are not on your own, its one of the better Marvel films with arguably the best soundtrack of the MCU.

Its dark and doesnt have the corny attempts at humour most Marvel films have.

Ed Nortons Hulk is way better than Ruffalos played for laughs portrayal.

Mr.Nice Guy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118497676#Comment_118497676

Pretty much, although Marvel seems to use the CGI to an excessive degree. Some of it is needed obviously but I'd much prefer to watch a well choreographed fight scene than feel like I'm looking at a game's cutscene.

This film was a monumental waste of screen talent and will scupper any deviation from rote formula.

What a letdown. I cared nothing for them at any stage

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118500547#Comment_118500547

I agree with you to an extent but we're talking about characters who have super powers and big budget movies. Similar to your 1-4 path, CGI is a tenant of the movie the genre, far beyond just MCU - it is like wishing there wasn't a gun fights or horses in a western.

pixelburp

It's like any other tool, CGI can be overused, or used "wrong". And that can be caused by a lack of time, money - or over-zealous/forceful producers.

To use a recent example in Black Widow; there was a scene when Natasha was running through a corridor aflame. Now, not saying the production should have forced ScarJo to run through a burning room ... but the CGI compositing was awful; the lighting was the problem because while the room was full of deep colour, shadows and contrast, the actor was flatly lit - so obviously shot on a green-screen. It was jarring because the film tried to be more MCU-Bourne in earlier acts, the sudden turn into Generic Hollywood FX a bit disappointing.

It's one thing that I hope The Mandalorian fast-tracks, cos its use of those LED wraparound "virtual sets" has made locations and scenes feel much more convincing than a green-screen would have ever managed.

Foxtrol

I agreed with the OP to 'an extent' because of a few situations where MCU movies went down that route of descending into CGI fests that didn't need to - two in particular stand out Winter Soldier and Black Widow. Unsurprisingly they are the two least super powered characters and villians so it would make sense that they stay be more grounded.

Having said that I believe Marvel were stuck between a rock and hard place with Black Widow, if they didn't have a big money CGI heavy climatic set piece at the end there would be a chorus of folk who would claim they went cheap due to disrespecting the character and/or sexism.

This thread is however about the Eternals, an incredibly high powered group of Alien robots. Sure people are entitled to their opinion and to be disappointed that it involving a big CGI set piece but that is solely down to setting expectations that were never going to be matched. This movie was never going to end with a 'well choreographed fight scene' as it wouldn't even make sense based on the characters. It is like being disappointed there is gore in a Tarantino movie.

I understand why some want something different from the ending of Marvel movies but it simply doesn't make sense from any perspective aside from satisfying their desire for change, at times change for the sake of it.

TheIrishGrover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118494242#Comment_118494242

Update to my own post. While flicking through channels and stumbling upon Kerrang I came to the conclusion that the more successful Leto is as an actor the less likely he is to create terrible terrible Emo music/videos so, y'know, swings and roundabouts :)

Mr.Nice Guy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118501349#Comment_118501349

CGI is not as important as you are making out and the Tarantino analogy is a poor excuse for Marvel's lazy lights display. The Boys is about a powerful group of heroes but the action scenes have a gritty feel to them. The most gripping scene in Invincible, an animated show about superhuman beings, is the scene in which only punches are being thrown (if you know the scene, you know what I'm talking about). Was there even a punch thrown in the final fight in Eternals? Not sure why you think this 'wouldn't even make sense' when we literally see them fighting a Deviant in the opening minutes. They can slap around a giant beast but not each other? The Shang-Chi movie was an even more egregious let down because you could have had some really compelling fight sequences but instead we got another cutscene.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118503773#Comment_118503773

The Boys, Invincible, Daredevil (which is also regularly cited with people with the same view as you regarding 'grittiness') are all rated MA. It is easy to be 'gritty' when you can do whatever you want, it is far more challenging when you're a blockbuster movie catering for everyone that is PG-13. The MCU use those 'grittier' fighting moments sparingly so they add weight to them - three that come to mind are Iron Man vs Capt America fight at the end of Civil War, Thanos and Hulk in Infinity War, and Tom Holland's Spider-Man vs Green Goblin at the end of No Way Home.

You're remembering the opening very differently than the scene that I just went back and watched (wanted to confirm that I wasn't misremembering). The Deviants (who themselves were 100% CGI which makes your point interesting to begin with) were beaten up by the Eternals who each used their own CGI powers - be it speed, power blasts, swords, eye beams while flying - the only one punching was dead by the finale and even then his punch was CGI powered up in the opening scene. Super powered characters will use their powers most of the time, them not doing it would be like two guys in a boxing fight not using their fists - in most situations it wouldn't make any sense at all.

BruteStock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118512871#Comment_118512871

Synder is or used to be visionary. Zhao who had plenty of help making The Eternals isn't comparable as a director.

https://www.insider.com/marvel-plans-movies-action-scenes-years-before-filming-previs-visualization-2021-1

~Rebel~

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118515200#Comment_118515200

300 was reasonably fun, Dawn of the Dead was reasonably fun... everything else he's made is middling to poor. Zhao is much earlier in her career, but the performances she's already getting from actors and non-actors alike are fairly incredible. They're on opposite ends of the spectrum, Zhao really understands humanity and puts it first and foremost right at the heart of her stories, while Zack just wants to make shït he thinks is cool. Both valid approaches, and we need both, but I'd value her more. This was the wrong project for her though, far too much heavy lifting origin stuff had to be done for her to also properly tell a smaller, more personal story - which would be her wheelhouse.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118515200#Comment_118515200

What does previs have to do with anything? Any quick google shows that Snyder has used it extensively for his movies and even previs of Justice League was used to push for #Snydercut.

At this stage any director that isn't leveraging previs teams for blockbuster movies like these are simply out of touch or being contrarian for the sake of it. The whole thing is just a more advanced storyboarding. Choosing not to do use previs is like continuing to use a typewriter or manual film editing rather than digitally, though in this case you're not only wasting time but also limiting what your movie could be.

mrcheez

woah boy.. I hated this movie. I normally tolerate anything, but the uncharismatic cast members, the obvious forced "diversity" thing in the casting, the dull action sequences.

It actually took me 3 days to watch as I was getting bored.

Also I had an insatiable urge to punch Barry Keoghan in the face whenever I saw him.

Ick... need to wash out my eyes.

xper

Have watched this on Disney+. Im not a huge MCU fan but there have been some enjoyable romps with what were the core characters. Now a lot of them have been killed off in what seemed a natural narrative climax, I was pretty uninvested as to where Marvel were heading next (**** off with the multiverse shite). So, unexpectedly, my overall feeling after seeing this is that they had come across a possibly feasible way of re-igniting a new multi-film story arc and... they've completely fumbled it.

The revelation to the Eternals of their origin and their true purpose (essentially farming humans) and the different rections of the indivduals to this could/should have been a big "I am your father" moment in a later film but here its revealed too early to a bunch of characters that the audience hasn't gotten to know yet. And the revelation is perfunctory - Arishem tells Ajak (why?), she tells Ikaris (why?), Arishem tells Sersei (why?) and audience. She tells the rest of the gang, cue flipant conclusions. In PTSD Thena, they even had an intersting root source for the team to explore and figure out who they really were and question why they were there. But no, they just get told in expostion. Pity, I do actually like the idea up-thread of a Eternals story starting with just their exploits through history (a la The First Avenger only more so) with the modern day crisis then being staged later with well established characters.

But no, we got we're getting the band (you dont know) back together followed by the formualic everyone hover in the air and throw CGI at each other. Meh.

Also, there were a couple of wtf moments in the film's own internal logic. Was that Amazon sequence shot in South America ... because it looked a lot like an English woodland with a bunch of garden sheds from B&Q thrown up. And what is a herd of alpacas doing in a rain forest? Plus, newsflash, they didn't stop the Emergence - an object that large moving out from the planet's centre and rising through an ocean as far as it did would cause civilsation-ending earthquakes and tsunamis, they should have been wiped out on the island nearly instantly for a start. Lastly, God effectively appeared in sky over a whole hemisphere, might be social consequences for that one!

Actually, possibly the most amusing thing in the film is that it manages to openly stick two fingers to both the creationist/religious (in the opening text scroll) and scientific (Arishem makes a star) explanation of the origins of the universe.

mrcheez

I know they were trying to be all woke for their new superheroes (gotta have the gay black guy. Check. Gotta have the Asian. Check. Gotta have a little person. Check...albeit in the credits). But why exactly was an Eternal made deaf?

Is her character deaf in the comics?

They were missing a blind person incidentally...they should be sued.

FunLover18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118528032#Comment_118528032

Because a blind superhero would be completely ridiculous

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118528032#Comment_118528032

I know some will find any excuse to cry 'woke' about everything but the characters being different in this case took away some of the difficulty in keeping track of who was who. If it was 'the good old days' of basically every character being a white guy there would be even more complaints about trying to follow

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118528870#Comment_118528870

Exactly. If nothing else it just makes practical sense, that with an ensemble that large, to make them all as diverse and distinct as possible. It's not an especially new or socially conscious concept; it's just good narrative structure.

mrcheez

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118528171#Comment_118528171

Hence casting decisions ... why not a deaf Superman next time because the actor is deaf?

People are casted to match the character they play, so it seems odd to cast someone where a whole story had to be created around her being deaf, but it doesn't seem to have any relevance on the source material?

mrcheez

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118528870#Comment_118528870

Avengers didn't seem to have any issue there.. due to good characters and actors, race didn't come into it.

It's a sign of bad character-development if you need the physical appearance of an actor as the only way of differentiating them from another.

mrcheez

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118528289#Comment_118528289

Daredevil would like a word...

pixelburp

Avengers had 5 feature-length films to establish and bed-in its character; Eternals didn't have the convenience of approx. 10 hours of cinema to establish its cast. So the comparison doesn't really track.

There's nothing wrong with usual visual identifiers to make a large ensemble cast distinct; race, hair colour and so on is a fairly standard approach.

If it dovetails with a little inclusivity, then so what? These are films primarily for kids, and if it normalises the fact that being deaf doesn't preclude you from being a superhero - what's to hate here? TBH if anything we should applaud something like that. Anecdotally, the feedback generally seems to be exactly that; kids really stoked about seeing superheroes that are like them.

FunLover18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118529351#Comment_118529351

Her deafness didn't have any impact on the story or the character though, she was just deaf. I'm not sure why you're bothered about relevance to the comics when you had to ask if the character was deaf in them. It's like you're looking for something to cry "woke" about.

mrcheez

Found this review summed up my feelings on the movie pretty much as if I'd written it myself :)

https://reason.com/2021/11/04/diversity-cant-save-eternals-its-a-cosmic-disaster/

mrcheez

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118529672#Comment_118529672

It just doesn't make sense, why would Arashem create an Eternal who is deaf? And yes of course the movie needs to be tied to the source material.

iColdFusion

You can always rely on Pitch Meeting to sum up a very Meh movie 😄

https://youtu.be/DIdzUpAswe0

circadian

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118529714#Comment_118529714

I thought it was pretty cack, with Arishem the only character I was interested in seeing before seeing the movie.

However, you don't need to post a review from a Libertarian publication and complain about wokeness. As others have said, the diversity makes it easier to follow the characters on screen. It's the execution that's poor, not some perceived PC wokeness.

FunLover18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118529714#Comment_118529714

I just don't see the relevance of bringing up the diversity. If people find the movie boring, fine. I liked the film but I'd agree with the review that one of the most boring characters is the white guy, I'd add the other most boring character is the other white guy (Kit Harrington). They end by saying that Shang-Chi is diverse but it's also a good film and it sounds like they're saying Shang-Chi is good in spite of its diversity whereas this film is boring and it's diverse like being boring wasn't bad enough.

Doctor DooM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118529761#Comment_118529761

It's so she doesn't deafen herself with her own sonic booms.

Eternals is as tied to the source material as any other MCU project. Every MCU story adapts while trying to keep the spirit of the original, which Eternals does try by being a huge story of the ages. Tony Stark got hurt in Korea in the comics, Wanda's powers have nothing to do with the infinity Gems in the comics (and they're not stones but gems in the comics), Hawkeye was raised by Swordsman in the comics, so on, so forth.

The reality is people suddenly pretend they know everything about the source material and feign furiousness only when the differences are "woke".

FunLover18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118529761#Comment_118529761

Yes but you don't know the source material so why does it matter. You're trying to find excuses for your upset after the fact. The character she plays isn't even being a Marvel c-lister.

pixelburp

And to extend upon my own point: here's the actor in question, talking about the importance of having something as "woke" as a deaf superhero appear on screen (although the impact may be lessened by perhaps one of Marvel's less kid friendly MCU films)

https://www.cinemablend.com/superheroes/eternals-lauren-ridloff-reveals-why-having-a-deaf-superhero-in-the-marvel-cinematic-universe-is-so-important

Almost immediately after Eternals was released, the impact of Lauren Ridloff’s character could be felt throughout the deaf community and beyond, as there was a huge spike in interest for American Sign Language. This is something Ridloff had hoped would happen during the film’s production, as she explained in the behind-the-scenes featurette “Walks of Life” that accompanies the Eternals home release:

Honestly, I'm just excited to think about having deaf kids wearing Halloween costumes that are going to be Makkari-inspired. I think that's the most important thing about having a deaf superhero on the big screen. It shows that there's so much more to every individual regardless of their ability.

Something something woke. Heaven forfends some forced diversity has a positive, tangible effect on a community often forgotten by those with no physical issues of their own. Deafness is a reality, and many kids have hearing problems of their own, from limitations to full disability. A deaf superhero shows them they're not freaks, or problems, or burdens.

I think it's bloody marvellous, and more of that please.

Fandymo

Saw this the other night. Waste of two hours and a half hours. Generally like the Marvel movies, but not a fanboy, wouldn't be interested in the back story etc. Is Barry Keoghan some social experiment to see how far a lad with little to no acting talent can get in Hollywood if praised by the right people with influence. I've never seen him actually "act" in anything.

flazio

Well I for one think Lauren Ridloff was the best actress in the film. Easily out performed Angelina Jolie. 😁

It's telling how you had to turn to DC characters to make a point about not messing with a source story. If anything Marvel has always been more open to new interpretations of its characters across various mediums. Now I'm not overly familiar with "source material" myself but I understand that at least two of the Eternals have been gender swapped on film. This is nothing unusual at this stage as we've had a female Ancient One, Doc Ock, Jerry Hogarth, Tinkerer across various recent Marvel projects. Don't think Peter Parker ever had any black girlfriends in the comics but he's had two so far here.

New interpretations are what keep Marvel fresh.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118530793#Comment_118530793

We're also talking about characters who are older than WW2 in some cases: and even those characters themselves have been invented across that time. Superman arguably being the most overt, given at the very start he was just some burly strong dude, a power fantasy for a couple of kids in Ohio. He couldn't fly, shoot lasers from his eyes - and wasn't an alien.

While most of the characters in the genre were born as intentionally disposable, low-brow entertainment for kids: that they're still culturally relevant at all is IMO because the characters were reinvented into something beyond bad art from the Funny Pages. Not despite of it. Batman again being a good example, once those boomers grew up and found themselves writing for DC in the 70s+. Frank Miller might be a racist, right-wing nutjob but - for better or worse - he was part of that reinvention from silly costumed hero to the dark, brooding character Hollywood's finest are courted to play.

And with the invention of Elseworlds and other alternate universe mechanisms, the genre openly invites other interpretations. I daresay the most inert and irrelevant characters are the ones who didn't reinvent themselves.

mrcheez

The movie was a forgettable dull mish mash of ideas created in the marketing department as a quick cash-grab.

It might have worked as a TV series where they could flesh out the ideas in full.

Definitely the lowest point in the MCU.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118531639#Comment_118531639

Trying to pivot away from your cries about the 'woke' boogeyman?

Even then this movie comes across as anything but a 'marketing department quick cash-grab'. A cash-grab is doing something quick and easy, whereas this was a very challenging movie to get right and they took the tough route by veering somewhat off the path of the normal MCU playbook.

I agree it would have been better as a series but Marvel has dozens of better ways to do a cash grab if they wanted to.

flazio

They already tried it as a TV series and it crashed spectacularly. Look up Inhumans on Disney+.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118531775#Comment_118531775

Inhumans crashed because it was just dire in practically every aspect. I went to see the first two episodes in IMAX and I was shocked at how poor it was and it actually got worse as the season went on.

It wasn't even made by Marvel Studios, like the Disney+ shows are now, it was by Marvel TV. Eternals would have been completely different level of quality if it was turned into a show but I don't think they would have been able to get Zhao to direct (Zhao pitched the idea of Eternals movie to Feige) or some of the actors

pjohnson

Marvel themselves were also trying to make the Inhumans a thing in general to replace the X-Men but after the repeated flops the Inhumans were put back into obscurity.