WandaVision - Disney+ (Spoilers)

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Oh yes, I hope and expect she will face something about it. And if she doesn't, it will be disappointing. Her actions deserving a bigger consequence does not make her a villain though. Tony Stark's arrogance in Age of Ultron caused deaths in Sokovia and led to Civil War, which had more deaths, and in a way caused the Blip itself (if the Avengers were united, they may have been able to defeat Thanos before he could snap his fingers). Yet, Stark is not a villain.

You'd think and hope that Doctor Strange would have some strong words for her, which I'm guessing the Hex is what's unleashed the greatest evil mentioned in the premise for In The Multiverse Of Madness. I'd also imagine Wanda will have a major part in that sequel/Spider-Man: No Way Home. All the pieces aren't on the board yet.

Tony though, I think he was justified in his fear driven actions (from his POV anyways after Avengers & Wanda showing him what he saw in Age Of Ultron) in trying to stave off something worse in Thanos, and it was Cap who was wrong in not signing the Accords in Civil War, and ultimately was proven right come Infinity War, when the Avengers were broken up and scattered.

Then again, it's easy to say Tony was right looking back after the fact.

FunLover18

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

It's not good storytelling when the hero behaves like a supervillain and refuses to take ownership for the sh*tty things they've done. How do you not get this? Banner actually feels bad for the stuff that he does - that's why he doesn't want to transform! Winter Soldier didn't ask Tony Stark for sympathy or to think of how much he had to sacrifice when he murdered his parents. I'm not saying 'shades of grey', and characters having a dark past are always wrong. I'm saying the way Marvel did it with Wanda's characters was the sh*ts. It was laughably bad, to the point where millions of people are trying to make sense of it.

Imagine you were a mother in the town. You've experienced what Wanda went through as regards her grief. But you've also had your infant child separated from you for weeks, if not months. You have been deprived of your own freedom of thought. Your child is terrified of what has happened and you're looking at years of therapy ahead. And when you are finally free of it, you see Wanda dress herself in new red threads, imprison her foe in a mental prison, and then make absolutely NO effort to apologize for what she put your family through and everyone else, nor to try and fix it. Do you feel this is someone worthy of your sympathy? Be honest.

If Marvel want to make this halfway realistic, Wanda should be running away from more lawsuits than Harvey Weinstein. And even he faced the music.

As has been pointed out numerous times she didn't behave this way intentionally. Wanda feels bad, she literally stops the hex, lets everyone go and let's we version of Vision and her children cease to exist because she realises how bad it is. That's why she's in exile at the end learning how to control her powers, so she presumably doesn't do it again. This is also not the end of her story, as Lithium points out there's still at least two films coming up that can address what she did and I hope they do because I do agree that I would have liked her to show more contrition but I don't agree that this automatically makes it a bad show.

And on another note, Wanda's (very real to her) kids will be back, down the line albeit aged up to their teens.

Lithium93_ wrote: »

You'd think and hope that Doctor Strange would have some strong words for her, which I'm guessing the Hex is what's unleashed the greatest evil mentioned in the premise for In The Multiverse Of Madness. I'd also imagine Wanda will have a major part in that sequel/Spider-Man: No Way Home. All the pieces aren't on the board yet.

My guess/hope for Dr Strange 2 is that (speculation for future films)

trapping and depowering Agatha releases the evil (when Agatha is defeated, she says "you don't know what you have done"). Dr Strange will see the evil that is unleashed, track it's release back to Wanda and then to Agatha, who they will have to free in Westview so they can find out how to beat it again. There will be a good opportunity then to have Wanda have to really see the effect of what she did in Westview and give the people there a chance to accost Wanda.

Lithium93_ wrote: »

Tony though, I think he was justified in his fear driven actions (from his POV anyways after Avengers & Wanda showing him what he saw in Age Of Ultron) in trying to stave off something worse in Thanos, and it was Cap who was wrong in not signing the Accords in Civil War, and ultimately was proven right come Infinity War, when the Avengers were broken up and scattered.

Then again, it's easy to say Tony was right looking back after the fact.

Age of Ultron was Tony allowing his emotions (his anxiety) do something completely unknown and dangerous twice, the first time messing up and the second time creating Vision.
Maybe a closer example to Wanda acting on grief is Tony wanting to kill Bucky at the end of Civil War, after hearing he killed his parents. Tony knows that when Bucky is activated, he has no control over his actions (Tony and Bucky had already fought earlier in the movie when Zemo activated him, and Tony still forgave him for that before the end). But Tony's grief at hearing how Bucky was the one to kill his mom, and how Captain America knew but didn't tell him, had him do something which, from an objective POV, was wrong (although, empathetically, you can understand why he reacted that way).

Lithium93_ wrote: »

Lads, some interesting points made, but have you ever thought that WandaVision is just only a small part of a larger story, and that she may yet face the consequences for her actions in WestView? I mean Wanda did acknowledge what Monica said when she explained that Hayward was trying to make her out to be the villain.

It's the first part of an assumed trilogy seeing as the show reaches into Doctor Strange 2 & Spider-Man: No Way Home as well.

As you and others have pointed out, the idea there will be no repercussions about what happened in Westview is ignoring everything the MCU has done over the last decade. Even if it doesn't have a direct impact on Wanda if she continues to hide out away from people, it'll likely impact other characters and movies - for example it wouldn't be a surprise if something like that was used in anti-mutant sentiment later when they are introduced (presuming the nod during WandaVision to her having powers as a kid were mutant related.

Has there been any confirmation of Wanda and No Way Home? People seem to be making huge jumps regarding her playing a part due to the former Peter Parker actors rumoured involvement. Original release dates pre-COVID were WandaVision to come out around when it did, for Dr Strange 2 to be released this May, and the 3rd Spider-Man for July. If the films were so interconnected I don't see how they could swap orders so smoothly

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

'The world isn't all good or bad' is quite a defence for a character using her own grief to take over the minds of an entire town, including separating children from their parents, traumatising them to a degree many will never get over.

This isn't Wolverine-esque shades of grey here. This was a different level entirely, akin to something a villain would do. Her 'sacrifice' was giving up a fantasy of her own warped making, and she didn't even have the class to apologize or look to make amends for what she did, as she hovered away like a selfish coward.

Awful writing for an awful character.

From this post and others since, you don't seem to get the story at all, so I'm not surprised you think it is awful writing.

One of the key questions hung throughout was whether Wanda was the villain or not - you can't do that without people being hurt in some way. They teased the audience on that - was it Wanda doing it purposefully, was it someone manipulating her (e.g., Agatha), was it Hayward framing her, was it Wanda doing subconsciously - they settled with the latter initially and when she realised the pain she put them through she released them.

As pointed out, it is not too different than the Hulk or the dozens of characters in the comics over the years who have harmed others accidentally with their powers caused by their emotions or trauma.

I also struggle with how you can hold the competing ideas that the Hex was so real that it was a trauma that the townsfolk would never get over but the elements that impact Wanda were just a 'fantasy'. To me her powers either created this world and things there were real to the people involved or they didn't.

Foxtrol wrote: »

As you and others have pointed out, the idea there will be no repercussions about what happened in Westview is ignoring everything the MCU has done over the last decade. Even if it doesn't have a direct impact on Wanda if she continues to hide out away from people, it'll likely impact other characters and movies - for example it wouldn't be a surprise if something like that was used in anti-mutant sentiment later when they are introduced (presuming the nod during WandaVision to her having powers as a kid were mutant related.

Has there been any confirmation of Wanda and No Way Home? People seem to be making huge jumps regarding her playing a part due to the former Peter Parker actors rumoured involvement. Original release dates pre-COVID were WandaVision to come out around when it did, for Dr Strange 2 to be released this May, and the 3rd Spider-Man for July. If the films were so interconnected I don't see how they could swap orders so smoothly

It's a long game Marvel are playing, and to be absolutely honest, I'm willing to wait and see how it all ties together in the end, their track record quiet frankly, well it speaks for itself. Feige and Co know what their doing.

As for Wanda's actions, I made a point earlier in the thread, how those actions COULD easily be the basis for Anti-Mutant hatred in the MCU whenever the X-Men do debut, there obviously will be ripples going forward, we just don't know what they are. That and the Sokovia Accords are still in play in universe aren't they? So Wanda will likely/probably face some form of censure in some shape.

IDK about Wanda's role in the next Spidey film, I'm just one of many making the wild leap putting 2+2 together, but as WandaVision showed, don't bother with making theories, you'll only end up wrong, just enjoy the ride :pac:

I'm sure someone's overseeing the continuity as to how the 3 link up, and not cause confusion like Spider-Man: Homecoming did :pac:

Potential-Monke

Some good arguments from both sides, but I think there's something missing here. A lot of the audience won't have kids, so may not be able to make the emotional connection between Wanda and her delusion-created-not-real-but-real-to-Wanda-and-those-under-the-Hex kids. I don't have/want/like kids, so that whole part was lost to me, and doesn't take away from the fact that she was, in effect, the villain of her own show. If you change it so that it was all Agatha's doing, there'd be no question. But because it's Wanda's doing, people want to find empathy with her. But she still committed an act that a villain would commit.

Yes, emotional distress, etc, but doesn't excuse it. Doesn't excuse the fact that she knew she was causing pain and distress to the residents but kept brushing it away, preferring to keep with her delusion. We see it multiple times, she changes reality to suit her when things are not going her way, from the bee-man scene to her 24 hour pregnancy to child birth, to the kids "growing up" instantly to suit the narrative. They were no more real than Vision, and we all know Vision was dead so he too was part of the delusion. She knew this, but still kept doing it, and only when she basically had no other option, she decided to end the delusion and break the hex.

But I do fully expect there to be some serious repercussions later on. They touched on it with other characters, but there's at least one villain coming from that town in the future. I also get the whole thing was because of grief and how she completely wrongly dealt with it, but it's hard to have empathy for her. It really is. Take away the kids and happy life delusion, and everything else was a negative for everyone else involved. If it were a real event, the vast majority would not feel sorry for her. They would rightly want to hold her to account, at the very least. I also don't understand how she could just walk away with all that external agencies involved and waiting for it to end. Maybe I wasn't paying attention enough at the end.

Also, do people really think she was just learning how to control her powers at the post credit scene? That came across way too evil to me. I don't think she's finished with this delusion. And someone mentioned above the kids will be back but as teens, so that's more or less a given if that's the case. At this stage, I think Marvel would be best to turn her into a recurring protagonist, a proper good villain. I just can't see how she can redeem herself to be a "good guy" again. Just like I think Bucky is not a good guy either, so no rush to see that series. I also just don't like him and think Winter Soldier is in the lower end of the MCU films, and I know that's not a popular opinion.

I'm not giving out about the writing, that doesn't usually bother me because I'm not learned enough to poke holes. But if they were going for an empathetic feel sorry for her approach, I didn't get that. I got the opposite.

Potential-Monke wrote: »

A lot of the audience won't have kids, so may not be able to make the emotional connection between Wanda and her delusion-created-not-real-but-real-to-Wanda-and-those-under-the-Hex kids. I don't have/want/like kids, so that whole part was lost to me, and doesn't take away from the fact that she was, in effect, the villain of her own show. If you change it so that it was all Agatha's doing, there'd be no question. But because it's Wanda's doing, people want to find empathy with her. But she still committed an act that a villain would commit.

Like how a villain might go a rampage just like the Hulk, and yet we are expected to sympathise with Banner when he does it?
It's not just the kids though, it's loosing Vision as well. That was the whole point of Monica Rambeau's character - someone who could sympathise with Wanda because they also lost someone important to them (specifically not children or a partner, but her mother) and understood the desire to do anything to get them back. Never lost anyone?

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Yes, emotional distress, etc, but doesn't excuse it. Doesn't excuse the fact that she knew she was causing pain and distress to the residents but kept brushing it away, preferring to keep with her delusion. We see it multiple times, she changes reality to suit her when things are not going her way, from the bee-man scene to her 24 hour pregnancy to child birth, to the kids "growing up" instantly to suit the narrative. They were no more real than Vision, and we all know Vision was dead so he too was part of the delusion. She knew this, but still kept doing it, and only when she basically had no other option, she decided to end the delusion and break the hex.

She didn't know she was causing pain and distress. We only saw Wanda reset the Hex when outside interferences threatened to break it, we never saw people randomly break free and scream at her for what she was doing. It was selfish of her to never consider that she might be hurting those people, but in much the same way that Hulk is selfish when he gets angry and rampages and yet we sympathise with him.
And when she removed the Hex, she actually had another option - she could have not removed it. She could have trapped everyone in it and no-one could have stopped her. But Rambeau got her to look at it objectively, to weigh her happiness against the towns and Wanda did what a good person would do - she accepted that the town had a greater need than her.

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Some good arguments from both sides, but I think there's something missing here. A lot of the audience won't have kids, so may not be able to make the emotional connection between Wanda and her delusion-created-not-real-but-real-to-Wanda-and-those-under-the-Hex kids. I don't have/want/like kids, so that whole part was lost to me, and doesn't take away from the fact that she was, in effect, the villain of her own show. If you change it so that it was all Agatha's doing, there'd be no question. But because it's Wanda's doing, people want to find empathy with her. But she still committed an act that a villain would commit.

Yes, emotional distress, etc, but doesn't excuse it. Doesn't excuse the fact that she knew she was causing pain and distress to the residents but kept brushing it away, preferring to keep with her delusion. We see it multiple times, she changes reality to suit her when things are not going her way, from the bee-man scene to her 24 hour pregnancy to child birth, to the kids "growing up" instantly to suit the narrative. They were no more real than Vision, and we all know Vision was dead so he too was part of the delusion. She knew this, but still kept doing it, and only when she basically had no other option, she decided to end the delusion and break the hex.

But I do fully expect there to be some serious repercussions later on. They touched on it with other characters, but there's at least one villain coming from that town in the future. I also get the whole thing was because of grief and how she completely wrongly dealt with it, but it's hard to have empathy for her. It really is. Take away the kids and happy life delusion, and everything else was a negative for everyone else involved. If it were a real event, the vast majority would not feel sorry for her. They would rightly want to hold her to account, at the very least. I also don't understand how she could just walk away with all that external agencies involved and waiting for it to end. Maybe I wasn't paying attention enough at the end.

Also, do people really think she was just learning how to control her powers at the post credit scene? That came across way too evil to me. I don't think she's finished with this delusion. And someone mentioned above the kids will be back but as teens, so that's more or less a given if that's the case. At this stage, I think Marvel would be best to turn her into a recurring protagonist, a proper good villain. I just can't see how she can redeem herself to be a "good guy" again. Just like I think Bucky is not a good guy either, so no rush to see that series. I also just don't like him and think Winter Soldier is in the lower end of the MCU films, and I know that's not a popular opinion.

I'm not giving out about the writing, that doesn't usually bother me because I'm not learned enough to poke holes. But if they were going for an empathetic feel sorry for her approach, I didn't get that. I got the opposite.

I think what is missing is the bold. No one is asking for the audience to 'excuse it', they didn't make a mistake by making her actions appear villainous - they went out of their way for them to be terrible. People who want to see her as either good or bad are struggling because she doesn't fit neatly into either box. Those who believe they went out of their way to excuse her actions seem to base it nearly all on that Monica line, which as clunky as it is doesn't excuse her actions - it just acknowledges that freeing the townspeople didn't come at a cost for Wanda.

It is questionable whether she has ever truly been a pure 'good guy', before WandaVision she clearly at times tried to be, while still making some very questionable decisions, but this show has made her even more of a grey character - right up until the last scene. We see her isolating herself potentially to avoid hurting others again, while at the same time studying the Darkhold on the astral plane - we don't know whether that is for good or evil (the Darkhold tends to bring out the evil side).

Anyone who tries to force her in a good or evil box is going to be frustrated because it is impossible, her actions simply don't fit into tidily into either box - that isn't a mistake, it is creating a character with some depth.

Just on the point I made, about Billy and Tommy coming back, albeit aged to their teens. If anyone's looked at what Marvel have planned, it looks like they're setting up the Young Avengers for a Disney+ series.

Finally watched through to the end of this; and my opinion didn't really sway in any strong direction ultimately. Certainly, there's an argument this was one of the more character-focused and emotionally meaningful MCU stories - but for one character really, and by the end, it completely reverted to type; failing to resist the desire to ultimately act as yet another bridge to future stories, and a launchpad for new characters. It just makes it all feel less like a story, and more like a product. It even broke out a Sky Beam during the crash-bang-wallop last acts. It's so, so very lazy as iconography goes, and I'm way past having an appetite for those kind of climaxes. It was admittedly brief, but still. Enough with the Sky Beams.

Those first three episodes truly were a chore to get through, and in the end, didn't really represent any interesting or strange direction the show's promotions had hinted. Were I really harsh I'd almost say this was as cookie-cutter as Ant-Man or any of the other shoulder-shrug, low effort MCU films, just with a clumsy metaphorical veneer. While moments like the Modern Family cutaways, or the contrived traffic stalling felt like the worst kind of padding: certainly, it fueled the feeling this was a feature film script elongated into a 9 episode series. Well, 6 episodes, given those first three were nothing. That perhaps was initially pitched as a MCU cinema-bound film, but with the advent of Disney+ got retrofitted into a series as a headline item for the service. I'd like to see if an enterprising editor could take the 9 episodes and condense this into a 2.5 hour film - without losing the important story or emotional beats.

I can't muster the enthusiasm for the Falcon/Winter Soldier show, being as it is yet another set of characters I care nothing for. Loki's where I'm pinning my hopes now; though he was always best used in small doses, so we'll see. I'm hoping Marvel at least use the apparent alternate universe it's set in, rather than stick riggedly to the MCU format.

silverharp

WandaVision at least has some adult appeal, no offense to anyone who watches shows like the Falcon one but they must be centered on kids and teenagers wanting to watch it?. Films are different, Ill bring my kids to an MCU film that I would have no interest watching as a television show and probably wouldnt go to see independently in a cinema either, and going by my kids and their friends viewing habits pretty similar.

pixelburp wrote: »

Finally watched through to the end of this; and my opinion didn't really sway in any strong direction ultimately. Certainly, there's an argument this was one of the more character-focused and emotionally meaningful MCU stories - but for one character really, and by the end, it completely reverted to type; failing to resist the desire to ultimately act as yet another bridge to future stories, and a launchpad for new characters. It just makes it all feel less like a story, and more like a product. It even broke out a Sky Beam during the crash-bang-wallop last acts. It's so, so very lazy as iconography goes, and I'm way past having an appetite for those kind of climaxes. It was admittedly brief, but still. Enough with the Sky Beams.

Those first three episodes truly were a chore to get through, and in the end, didn't really represent any interesting or strange direction the show's promotions had hinted. Were I really harsh I'd almost say this was as cookie-cutter as Ant-Man or any of the other shoulder-shrug, low effort MCU films, just with a clumsy metaphorical veneer. While moments like the Modern Family cutaways, or the contrived traffic stalling felt like the worst kind of padding: certainly, it fueled the feeling this was a feature film script elongated into a 9 episode series. Well, 6 episodes, given those first three were nothing. That perhaps was initially pitched as a MCU cinema-bound film, but with the advent of Disney+ got retrofitted into a series as a headline item for the service. I'd like to see if an enterprising editor could take the 9 episodes and condense this into a 2.5 hour film - without losing the important story or emotional beats.

I can't muster the enthusiasm for the Falcon/Winter Soldier show, being as it is yet another set of characters I care nothing for. Loki's where I'm pinning my hopes now; though he was always best used in small doses, so we'll see. I'm hoping Marvel at least use the apparent alternate universe it's set in, rather than stick riggedly to the MCU format.

Can't the bold be said for practically every sub 6 hour mini-series, even for much longer mini-series? I'd argue out of any mini-series I've seen recently, this would be the toughest to edit into a coherent movie due to the shifting of the decades in look, comedy style etc. It would become a complete mess.

You're obviously entitled to your opinion but a lot of that reads like someone that is completely jaded from the MCU and is now complaining about things that have always been core to it. Complaining about there being a 'crash bang wallop' scene in a comic book movie is like coming out of a western movie and complaining about there being a gun fight. Similarly, complaining that WandaVision sets up other stories is like complaining that a given season of a TV show doesn't set up things for the following one, that the season wasn't 100% self contained with no nods to the future.

You're setting yourself up to be let down if your expectation is that the Loki series wont have at least one big set piece scene and won't set things up for the wider MCU shows/movies. You might as well spend your time elsewhere and quit watching the MCU.

Foxtrol wrote: »

You're obviously entitled to your opinion but a lot of that reads like someone that is completely jaded from the MCU and is now complaining about things that have always been core to it. Complaining about there being a 'crash bang wallop' scene in a comic book movie is like coming out of a western movie and complaining about there being a gun fight. Similarly, complaining that WandaVision sets up other stories is like complaining that a given season of a TV show doesn't set up things for the following one, that the season wasn't 100% self contained with no nods to the future.

You're setting yourself up to be let down if your expectation is that the Loki series wont have at least one big set piece scene and won't set things up for the wider MCU shows/movies. You might as well spend your time elsewhere and quit watching the MCU.

That's not a fair representation of my overall opinion, and more than a little reductionist

What disappointed about the finale was that having set up something visually interesting in its very premise, albeit overcooked in those first 3 episodes, the final fight was basically two sets of CGI people firing coloured lasers at each other with no invention or interesting switches made.

It back-loaded the internal logic with its 11th hour surprise and exposition, which yeah, did land for me although I had suspected it simply by Katherine Hahn's winking performance. And what almost seemed like a neat marriage of action through character with the trip across Wanda's memories, descended into a laser fight that felt like a less arresting version of similar seen with the Harry Potter capper. and yeah, to your point. I don't accept that needs to be the default culminstion of EVERY MCU film. "Lazy action finales" isn't an especially big boast to make of a formula

It's not crazy or outrageous to suggest that after 25 films, there's some variation to the visual menu without being told to leave the restaurant if you don't always happily swallow the flavour of sky beam served. You can love a thing yet want it to be more, it's not a binary situation. I don't believe action is the MCU strongest arm, and frequently robs good films from being great (to whit: Black Panther, or the Guardians films). It comes from hiring directors without great action chops (and divesting those scenes to the FX department) And having gone out of its way to make Wandavision so strong in its character motivations, a generic finale interchangeable with any other "film" was a disappointment.

pixelburp wrote: »

It's not crazy or outrageous to suggest that after 25 films, there's some variation to the visual menu without being told to leave the restaurant if you don't always happily swallow the flavour of sky beam served.

I don't actually disagree with Wanda and Agatha's action in the end being disappointingly generic. The idea that Wanda was actually writing the runes with her magic during the fight was good, but the execution was very boring.
But I have to ask, how many of the 25 or so MCU movies actually have a sky beam (and were was the sky beam in Wandavision)?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I don't actually disagree with Wanda and Agatha's action in the end being disappointingly generic. The idea that Wanda was actually writing the runes with her magic during the fight was good, but the execution was very boring.
But I have to ask, how many of the 25 or so MCU movies actually have a sky beam (and were was the sky beam in Wandavision)?

Honestly, I've never counted though IIRC Avengers, Thor et al used 'em; and it's not just the MCU either, they're everywhere in DC (Man of Steel, Suicide Squad, Justice League etc), as well as blockbuster SciFi in general. It's curiously overused iconography in the genre; the de-factor visual language for "alien or foreign malevolence threatening the city/world)

To be fair, in the case of Wandavision it was brief, but still part of the overall laser show during the finale. As I said, I've heard the MCU films push the action set-pieces away from the directors into the 2nd unit / FX department which might explain thye're often so cookie-cutter and bland.

pixelburp wrote: »

Honestly, I've never counted though IIRC Avengers, Thor et al used 'em; and it's not just the MCU either, they're everywhere in DC (Man of Steel, Suicide Squad, Justice League etc), as well as blockbuster SciFi in general. It's curiously overused iconography in the genre; the de-factor visual language for "alien or foreign malevolence threatening the city/world)

To be fair, in the case of Wandavision it was brief, but still part of the overall laser show during the finale. As I said, I've heard the MCU films push the action set-pieces away from the directors into the 2nd unit / FX department which might explain thye're often so cookie-cutter and bland.

I don't think the MCU have had sky beams be an integral part of the end (i.e. the thing the good guys are trying to stop, as oppose to a beam of energy that happens to shoot up in the sky while shooting in every other direction) since Avengers 1. The DCEU is really bad for it though.

It would be better if they put a little more effort into some fight scenes, but I generally have more of a problem with the editing of their hand to hand fights rather than their CGI fights.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I don't think the MCU have had sky beams be an integral part of the end (i.e. the thing the good guys are trying to stop, as oppose to a beam of energy that happens to shoot up in the sky while shooting in every other direction) since Avengers 1. The DCEU is really bad for it though.

It would be better if they put a little more effort into some fight scenes, but I generally have more of a problem with the editing of their hand to hand fights rather than their CGI fights.

While the MCU makes a mountain of cash equivalent to the one the Joker jumps down in The Dark Knight, I can't imagine Marvel will make any serious changes to their aesthetic of course; but given the toybox they play with, the relative lack of both imagination and crunchiness in the MCU fights has dulled my enjoyment. Rubber CGI floating about while the camera spins madly. It's ... yeah. Dull. The journey is nearly always more enjoyable than the destination with the MCU (not that the DC movies are any less prone to that mind you, but their animated range nearly always shows more heft and smarts with their fight scenes)

It's probably a smart, cost-effective move really: Ryan Coogler nailed the character arcs and personalities of Black Panther to a tee; but as a young, enthusiastic indie director I could absolutely see why Marvel would lean on him not to worry about the fights, something outside his wheelhouse and that another group altogether would deal with that. Action scenes are logistically tricky - and a frequent cause of budget or time overruns.

I'd love to see someone like Christopher McQuarrie get to make a MCU film, his way. Maybe when he's done with the Mission Impossible series? But then you look at the MCU directors stable and were I a cynic, the number of relative unknowns from the indie world - catapulted to a blockbuster after 1 or 2 small films - suggested Marvel don't want auteurs or those with strong visions of their own. James Gunn probably the only holdout at this stage, by dint of the sheer success of Guardians

pixelburp wrote: »

I'd love to see someone like Christopher McQuarrie get to make a MCU film, his way. Maybe when he's done with the Mission Impossible series? But then you look at the MCU directors stable and were I a cynic, the number of relative unknowns from the indie world - catapulted to a blockbuster after 1 or 2 small films - suggested Marvel don't want auteurs or those with strong visions of their own. James Gunn probably the only holdout at this stage, by dint of the sheer success of Guardians

I don't think that lack of auteurs is really a problem, at least not since Civil War when Ike Perlmutter got the boot (along with his TV budget sensibilities and his anti-female, anti-non-white character biases).

For better or worse, the MCU has always been about interconnecting movies making an overall story. Someone coming in to do a movie in the middle of the 20-odd movie series and expecting to do whatever they like with whatever characters they like, with no regard to future plans, is kind of a moron. Maybe individual movies would be a little better, but the series as a whole would not be. There are plenty of movies, like Guardians 2, Thor Ragnarok, Black Panther, and not to mention Infinity War and Endgame, which have all had distinctive looks and feels and great stories. These show that distinctive directors can make their own distinctive view while working it into the series as a whole.

There are of course things that could be improved a lot, like action as you said. I would agree that McQuarrie could do a really good action based movie. And I'm half dreading the Shang Chi movie because of what you said, it has an indie director with no action background, so the action (likely non-super-powered martial arts) will probably be left to their 2nd unit (and possible cut to ribbons in editing). What would be great would be if the pulled a Harley Quinn/Birds of Prey and got in the action directors of John Wicks movies to do the action (or, even better, get the guys who did The Raid to do it).

They could also try to avoid recycling plots a bit. Too many of the heroes end up fighting evil versions of themselves and I rewatched the series recently and realised that Ant-man 1 and 2 basically recycle the villain plots of Iron Man 1 and 2.

pixelburp wrote: »

That's not a fair representation of my overall opinion, and more than a little reductionist What disappointed about the finale was that having set up something visually interesting in its very premise, albeit overcooked in those first 3 episodes, the final fight was basically two sets of CGI people firing coloured lasers at each other with no invention or interesting switches made.

It back-loaded the internal logic with its 11th hour surprise and exposition, which yeah, did land for me although I had suspected it simply by Katherine Hahn's winking performance. And what almost seemed like a neat marriage of action through character with the trip across Wanda's memories, descended into a laser fight that felt like a less arresting version of similar seen with the Harry Potter capper. and yeah, to your point. I don't accept that needs to be the default culminstion of EVERY MCU film. "Lazy action finales" isn't an especially big boast to make of a formula

It's not crazy or outrageous to suggest that after 25 films, there's some variation to the visual menu without being told to leave the restaurant if you don't always happily swallow the flavour of sky beam served. You can love a thing yet want it to be more, it's not a binary situation. I don't believe action is the MCU strongest arm, and frequently robs good films from being great (to whit: Black Panther, or the Guardians films). It comes from hiring directors without great action chops (and divesting those scenes to the FX department) And having gone out of its way to make Wandavision so strong in its character motivations, a generic finale interchangeable with any other "film" was a disappointment.

There is no way for me to know if that is a misrepresentation of your 'overall opinion', however my post is in line with the opinion you've expressed on this thread (and unless I am confusing you with another poster, opinions you've repeated after other MCU movies). I'm not sure exactly how I am being reductionist, as the elements of your opinion I responded to aren't at all complex.

The part that you doubled down on in your response here, specifically the number of 'sky beams', seems to be at least partially imagined, as has been pointed out by other posters. You're entitled to not enjoy the big CGI scenes but to extend your restaurant analogy, the argument you're making is not complaining about the flavour, instead you're going to your 25th steak house in a row and complaining that there is once again too much steak on the menu. Big CGI scenes are an inherent part of the MCU, and practically every big budget comic book movie/show for that matter. In this case you're not being told to leave the restaurant but I'm asking if you're going to complain about the steak every time you go maybe a different type of restaurant might be better for you.

The same is even more true about the other element you complained about in the OP I responded to - your annoyance that the MCU spends time building out other characters and situations where the ultimate pay-off isn't immediately in that movie/show. This is fundamental to everything they have done with the MCU and what has made it the success it has been. Over the weekend I went back and watched Civil War for the first time since before Infinity War came out and it is incredible the amount of things they put in motion in it while creating a great comic book movie. I really don't understand the argument against it, aside of what I see as the quite elitist view of what cinema 'should be'.

Foxtrol wrote: »

There is no way for me to know if that is a misrepresentation of your 'overall opinion', however my post is in line with the opinion you've expressed on this thread (and unless I am confusing you with another poster, opinions you've repeated after other MCU movies). I'm not sure exactly how I am being reductionist, as the elements of your opinion I responded to aren't at all complex.

[...] aside of what I see as the quite elitist view of what cinema 'should be'.

Well I can't read your mind nor am going to try and defend whatever my record on the MCU within Boards is to your eyes. There are ones I love, and ones I hate. It'd be weird after 25 movies if people didn't. Wandavision was somewhere in the middle on balance, it had flaws. (Nearly) every film I watch I try to articulate my thoughts as best as possible, and happily publicise them here and on letterboxd. I stand by them, for whatever they're worth or value people get from those thoughts but don't see the MCU as a net negative. Far from it TBH. Not that you think so, you seem to have drawn a big judgemental conclusion

This is real "agree to disagree" territory at this stage but do somewhat resent the reading that my opinion is affecting towards "elitist" based on having a preference of what I'd LIKE the MCU to be - as opposed to framing it as what I demand it SHOULD be, like some kind of Marvel fundamentalist. The MCU isn't perfect, and spitballing on perceived flaws, or how it could be more, shouldn't be construed as elitist posturing, and is a legitimate topic of discussion. Pretty insulting TBH, be it accidental or otherwise and only stifles debate. Formulas have strengths, they get stale, etc.

Like I said, agree to disagree at this point, but don't intend stifling my thoughts on a series I generally love in a different way to you. That's ok you know, people are allowed love things in different ways :rolleyes:

I'll be in my corner, enjoying it like so, you'll be in yours. I suspect the world won't end

pixelburp wrote: »

Well I can't read your mind nor am going to try and defend whatever my record on the MCU within Boards is to your eyes. There are ones I love, and ones I hate. It'd be weird after 25 movies if people didn't. Wandavision was somewhere in the middle on balance, it had flaws. (Nearly) every film I watch I try to articulate my thoughts as best as possible, and happily publicise them here and on letterboxd. I stand by them, for whatever they're worth or value people get from those thoughts but don't see the MCU as a net negative. Far from it TBH. Not that you think so, you seem to have drawn a big judgemental conclusion

This is real "agree to disagree" territory at this stage but do somewhat resent the reading that my opinion might be somehow "elitist" for having a preference of what I'd LIKE the MCU to be - as opposed to framing it as what I demand it SHOULD be, like some kind of Marvel fundamentalist. The MCU isn't perfect, and spitballing on perceived flaws, or how it could be more, shouldn't be construed as elitist posturing, and is a legitimate topic of discussion. Pretty insulting TBH, be it accidental or otherwise and only stifles debate. Formulas have strengths, they get stale, etc.

Like I said, agree to disagree at this point, but don't intend stifling my thoughts on a series I generally love in a different way to you. That's ok you know, people are allowed love things in different ways :rolleyes: I'll be in my corner, enjoying it like so, you'll be in yours. I suspect the world won't end

I never claimed the MCU was perfect and throughout the thread I've given my own opinions on areas where this show could have been improved and have discussed them with many posters.

I also, never said your opinion was 'elitist', I said I haven't heard of a reason why MCU using shows/movies to build their wider world is a negative that didn't revolve around an 'elitist' mindset of what cinema should be. I twice left it open to you to expand on your opinion on this but you have twice declined. Sounds like you don't want to engage any further but I'll leave the window open a third time for you to have that legitimate discussion you claim to want.

Having said that, I'm not sure how you could blame someone who reads lines like the below and then potentially made a leap to an elitist opinion - deciding what is story and what is a product...

pixelburp wrote: »

failing to resist the desire to ultimately act as yet another bridge to future stories, and a launchpad for new characters. It just makes it all feel less like a story, and more like a product.

I just did a quick search and it turns out had a discussion on your same complaints some 6 years and 12 movies ago - CGI battles and the interconnectedness of the MCU after Age of Ultron. What you were complaining about as being 'pointless' in that thread led to Sokovia accords, everything in Civil War that caused the break up of the Avengers, set up IW and Endgame, and was still being felt in WandaVision.

You mention 'love' but this seems much more like a toxic relationship - you constantly complain about the same things and yet keep going back with the expectation 'next time will be different' and the cycle begins again. Per your earlier post, next time for you is Loki and if you go in without accepting that these fundamental elements of the MCU will definitely be there you'll be in for another disappointment. As I said in 2015, if you don't like it you better find a different girl.

Flash from the past:

eviltimeban wrote: »

I'd have preferred that to "let's destroy another city".

Foxtrol wrote: »

This keeps coming up and I don’t really get it. What do you really expect/want to see from the end of an Avengers movie?

pixelburp wrote: »

It's deadening, and only serves to emphasise how little is at stake for the characters. And yes, no matter how super the heroes are, they're still meant to be characters. That it's the Avengers doesn't mean the finale has to be reduced to only spectacle. At least the original film, while being itself an orgy of urban destruction, made narrative sense because it was a demonstration of the Avengers overcoming their differences and personality clashes to work together. Clichéd as hell but it gelled together.

Avengers 2 did the classic thing that sequels often do by assuming the next film has to out-do the previous in terms of scale or showiness. What was at stake? Ok yes a city, lots of civilians but they were just background details. It was a nice touch to show heroes being actually heroic, but ultimately was hard to be in any way invested in something when the scale and spectacle was so vast, with resonance with the characters' journeys. The first half of the film openly played with the notion of Tony Stark / Banner going too far and splitting the team, but it came to nothing by the films end - nope, we gotta have thousands of CGI extras exploding again.

Oddly, Civil War looks like the third act Avengers 2 could have been, which just made Avengers 2 feel even more hollow.

Foxtrol wrote: »

You could say that about most of the Marvel movies, nearly all setup/lead into the next. AOU clearly had a third act which closed off the Ultron storyline. The obvious flow from one movie to the next is just becoming more apparent now for the characters that have been around since phase 1 and I can only see it ramping up further in the lead up to Infinity Wars. I can say you’ll likely feel the exact same about the end of Civil War too so get yourself prepared.

pixelburp wrote: »

Well I wouldn't presume to know what I feel about a movie that hasn't come out yet; it's all well and good to talk about Marvel's grand plan for this super-narrative they got going on, but frankly it's frustrating that a film addresses some decent character beats only to jettison them because it's time to wreck a city (Oh, we did that in the first film? Hmmm, but what if it was flying!) And to introduce a new character, only to then immediately kill them off is about as thrilling as Redshirt Death #435. It's a massive cheat & sidestep from putting characters in any kind of peril.

It's ok to not be in love with every film Marvel comes out with, and to be disappointed that the good work they did in Avengers 1 got abandoned, or at least put on the back-burner, for the sequel. The first half hour of Avengers 2? I enjoyed it, the first battle was completely OTT but the scale was just right and did a good job establishing the new status quo. The Banner / Stark drama had lots of potential. The back half though was just dull and pointless, and there gets a point where just saying 'oh well it'll all come together in the future films' becomes tedious, because there's a point where being a constant cocktease ain't charming anymore. All build-up, no pay-off.

And while on balance the movies are now all tied into each other, the earlier films definitely had stronger character-based hearts, with each of the Avengers having distinct emotional journeys. Throw in Cap America 2 as well, before, yet again, it was union-mandated that a city be wrecked.

Foxtrol wrote: »

The character beats aren’t jettisoned though; they’re still there and will come to the fore down the road.

If you don’t like the cocktease then you better find a different girl as this is what Marvel do. They’re in totally uncharted waters as far as filmmaking/media go and some who want payoffs and closure just wont like crossover movies. I’m happy to see things build until the Infinity War and at that point if there isn’t some kind of closure to the story arc then I’ll join you in complaining, until then I’m going to sit back and enjoy.

Toxic relationship. For goodness sake foxtrol, just leave it be. I'm not obligated to defend my tastes, be they loves, loathings or complicated cognitive dissonances between, and whatever bee in your bonnet refuses to just let others have ... ... Oh my. "Mixed feelings". Over a MCU TV show.

Digging out old posts is OTT and to be blunt, you've been weirdly dogged with others on this thread TBH. At the risk of a run of last-words, agree to disagree. I've offered the hand; Save the virtual pop psychology and your data plan. Nobody else here likely gives a F. Move on. I am. And yes, I'm looking forward to Loki cos it looks half decent. How awful.

*exits stage left*