The Marvel Cinematic Multiverse

[QualityChimp]

I always thought it was 2 parts - that's how the release schedule always looked, so it wasn't a last minute thing to be two parts, but the renaming was a bit later.

Anyway, the thing that confuses me with all the Marvel stuff is that people seem to expect that every film and every episode and every series needs to be the absolute pinnacle of that medium.

Not everyone's going to enjoy all of them, and some of them are necessary to build story. Yes, the action is great, but it'd mean nothing if it was just people fighting without context.

Every single comic, character, series, story arc aren't perfect, but add to their world with each one.

I've enjoyed all the Disney+ shows thus far, each with their own story to tell.
I really enjoyed Loki and seeing where it was leading us to next.

[Dogg Thang]

Anyway, the thing that confuses me with all the Marvel stuff is that people seem to expect that every film and every episode and every series needs to be the absolute pinnacle of that medium.

Yep. And I also see (through probably less often) many judging a Marvel movie or show only on whether it ties into what's next and, if it doesn't, it's without value. Which kind of gives the impression that the viewer finds each one a bit of a chore but must be watched if the next chore is to be fully understood.

I guess for me, if I enjoy them, I enjoy them and that's great. If I don't, or if it doesn't look like I will (WandaVision, for example), something leading into what's next will not make me sit through what I don't want to watch. And to be fair to them, I feel like Captain America Civil War and Endgame are probably the only ones that really require a lot of context from the previous movies. Almost every other movie can be watched and enjoyed in isolation if that's what you want to do.

[Neon Ignition]

I think it was the latter end of Loki where I kind of reminded myself to settle down with it more because we weren't supposed to get these series in isolation like we have. They were supposed to launch alongside a steady run of films but instead have had to effectively carry the fanbase on their own due to COVID delays so there's a desire to be wowed that they can't deliver on due to their nature.

It's the Mandalorian effect in a way only that show is worse at it despite not syncing in with a film

[Dogg Thang]

Well, we disagree on that show. I loved it and I especially loved it for being so watchable on its own. The parts that didn't quite land for me (like that one Jedi episode) were usually things that nodded to other SW media. Even the last bit of season 2 which everyone loved, I'd have rather it didn't lean so heavily on something not remotely part of the show.

I just like to enjoy stuff without them feeling like I'm committing to other things or needed to commit to other things.

[Neon Ignition]

Yep. And I also see (through probably less often) many judging a Marvel movie or show only on whether it ties into what's next and, if it doesn't, it's without value. Which kind of gives the impression that the viewer finds each one a bit of a chore but must be watched if the next chore is to be fully understood.

I guess for me, if I enjoy them, I enjoy them and that's great. If I don't, or if it doesn't look like I will (WandaVision, for example), something leading into what's next will not make me sit through what I don't want to watch. And to be fair to them, I feel like Captain America Civil War and Endgame are probably the only ones that really require a lot of context from the previous movies. Almost every other movie can be watched and enjoyed in isolation if that's what you want to do.

That's both the success and the cost of the MCU in one. Despite the fevered furore that surrounds the MCU it's largely built off that anticipation via serialisation and it's greatest success is probably the level of consistency across the board. That being said, taking the films solely in isolation I'd probably be wary of considering many to be that great or even... dare I say, very interesting. It's why I have a certain level of higher interest in DC's films, there's so much that's gone wrong but increasingly each project is at least something with its own voice or style whether it works or not so there's a bit more intrigue at what comes next from a filmmaking angle.

[Dogg Thang]

taking the films solely in isolation I'd probably be wary of considering many to be that great or even... dare I say, very interesting.

We disagree on this too and I find their hit rate very high but, if I didn't, if I felt the same as you, I'd have stopped watching them ages ago. Why continue watching films you generally find uninteresting?

[Neon Ignition]

Well, we disagree on that show. I loved it and I especially loved it for being so watchable on its own. The parts that didn't quite land for me (like that one Jedi episode) were usually things that nodded to other SW media. Even the last bit of season 2 which everyone loved, I'd have rather it didn't lean so heavily on something not remotely part of the show.

I just like to enjoy stuff without them feeling like I'm committing to other things or needed to commit to other things.

It's not so much Mandalorian's connection to other SW content, more that I find it's story loop leans heavily to padding. It all too easily falls into:

Mandalorian arrives on a new planet following a tip off, new contact won't provide the info till he does a job for them, Child eats something disgusting, Mandalorian kills target, gets new tip off, Child eats something disgusting again, Mandalorian heads to new planet following tip off

I just find it to be a very thin show considering its short length. I'm hoping future seasons find a better plot to build off.

[Neon Ignition]

We disagree on this too and I find their hit rate very high but, if I didn't, if I felt the same as you, I'd have stopped watching them ages ago. Why continue watching films you generally find uninteresting?

They're mostly safe, enjoyable fodder. Black Widow kind of summarises it a lot because it's a solid film but there are many better spy agent films, it's elevated by its connection and teasing of MCU elements. I imagine it's like comic reading, you get major famous arcs but there's a ton of standard on the way. Or TV shows, like watching every episode of TNG even though you can count the great ones on your fingers.

[prinnysquad]

Neon, you keep using the phrase ‘interesting’ to describe these types of films. I’m never sure what it means. Attention-grabbing? Enthralling? Fascinating? I also have no idea what makes the DCEU ‘interesting’ in comparison. A lot of their films seem like attempts to replicate Marvel. From the ensemble stuff to the standalone entries that feature a Big Bad.

Now, this isn’t a fanboy thing. I didn’t give a toss about Marvel before I caught up before Ultron. I enjoyed the X Men films, but no more than the Batman and Superman films. In fact, the DC stuff always held the bigger draw. Since DC tried to replicate Marvel’s integrated universe, it’s been a mess. I honestly don’t see how they’re any more interesting or ambitious. All of the baddies have been pretty lousy. The thing in Man of Steel. The guy in Wonder Woman. Steppenwolf.

I just can’t see the unique and individual voices. I see a studio having to hand reboots and branch offs out due to their failure. Joker, Suicide Squad, etc, may be ‘interesting’ but they’re also symptomatic of a scattergun approach. There’s nothing wrong with this, but is it any different to what Fox did with Logan? Or Venom? Or Deadpool? I also don’t see how, artistically, what Marvel is trying to do isn’t interesting? As the series has developed, we have had an expansion of creative styles and tones. Take The Eternals. The trailer may not have impressed a lot of you, but it’s certainly a departure. The cinematic universe itself is a remarkable achievement, and the way it interlaces and intertwines is surely interesting? Even if only from a consistency/achievement standpoint.

[Neon Ignition]

It'll be different with each film. I think that's why it always stands out to me when people say Civil War is their fave Cap movie, to me it's the weakest because it barely qualifies and was a weaker trilogy closer. For others though the other characters etc make it stand out.

I don't find DC's films to be more ambitious but as much as the DCU still exists Warners has clearly been gravitating further away from it in terms of being MCU like. There's an issue with quality but it's allowed them to consider projects they wouldn't have previously which is how we now have Joker, an R-rated Suicide Squad, the upcoming Reeves Batman trilogy alongside Keaton's gothic return etc. Like Birds of Prey they will likely have duffers in the mix but it contrasts to the vague blandness of tone Marvel still often has. Really, it's a move back toward traditional models and away from the Cinematic Universe (though I expect an eventual Crisis storyline will change this). After nearly 25 fairly homogenised MCU movies I find the more varied styled projects just more interesting as prospects than Marvel's where very little of the upcoming slate stands out currently in that regard.

Fox certainly led the charge in that way with Logan and Deadpool, similarly out of desperate need to stand out.

Don't get me wrong, there are signs Marvel is moving to address that. WandaVision stood out on that front, Ragnarok to an extent that Love & Thunder supposedly goes heavier on, Eternals potentially too but it's still a long way from the levels of distinction elsewhere.

Like I said earlier, I get why, it's not to take away from the MCU's success or consistency as it's something way beyond its rivals. I think it's just part of their formula being such a known thing now. Eternals has a more distinct look albeit one that looks duller than what came before it bar Dark World, Shang-Chi I hope is good but the trailer hints a risk it's another Iron Man origin retread.

To be honest, post-Endgame a lot of it could just be part of how Phase 4 is something of a transitional period so you're not likely to get something too notable from it, the arc is effectively reset so we're getting a lot of early set up again. It's just, currently, I know MCU's films are broadly the better, safer bet but if you gave me a choice where in the next 3 years I could only watch Marvel's or DC's I'd gamble away from Marvel for that chance of something standing out.

[prinnysquad]

I guess I don’t see a blandness of tone, but horses for courses. Guardians was a huge departure. So much so that I hated it at first. Wandavision, like you say. Loki feels very different (and once again I’m stuttering). Ragnarok. The tone of Black Panther felt like a shift. The ensemble stuff was new. Many of the future projects look different. I really don’t think it’s fair to say that Marvel are homogenised and play it safe. They experiment with styles and directors within a framework of continuity. I see that as a strength, but I guess others want a more avant garde approach.

The issue I have with all of these one offs that DC are pumping out, is that there’s precious little time to get invested in any of the characters. And when you have characters as good as DC, that’s a shame.

[Neon Ignition]

Yep, back when Affleck was more deeply rooted in Batman there was supposed to be a sub-series within the DCU launching off a concept similar to Arkham Asylum which his Batman was perfectly in tone for. As soon as I saw Suicide Squad and how some of the characters like Killer Croc were portrayed I knew it wouldn't land, in the end it wasn't even made. It's strange because Warners has been doing well with their TV stuff for years so has a good indicator for what is and isn't well received and yet the films seem to ignore it. I do hope Keaton's return marks an acceptance within DC that embracing the unique styles and stories is in their interest rather than trying to 'real earth' them or water down what Marvel's already doing and waste the effort on rebooting things.

[Dogg Thang]

Yeah, I can't say I buy the accusation of blandness when we can compare the likes of Guardians with Winter Soldier or Ragnarok with Black Panther and so on. Whereas even the recent DC movies I've liked (Wonder Woman and Shazam), just didn't feel like they pushed hard enough. DC movies maybe could be seen to take risks because they've made some really bad ones? I don't know. Marvel movies are more consistent but I don't equate that with blandness. It honesty kind of sounds like you're just not into them, which is always entirely valid but it would seem best to just not put yourself through them. There is so much media now and life is short. Just embrace the things you love.

[Neon Ignition]

True, I mean the ones I'd say feel like they have their own vibe are probably ones like First Avenger, Guardians, Ragnarok, Winter Soldier. There's some others with... aspects of it. I get why Black Panther is important to many, as a pure viewing experience though I found it a very unremarkable Iron Man retread. Black Widow has moments where it dares to get it's own thing going but backs off too often. Doctor Strange retreads Iron Man too much too, Ant-Man doesn't go far enough in forming its own visual identity etc.

But likewise, I should probably mark out with DC I'm talking more about the road ahead than the one behind. I wouldn't want to suggest a strong defence of the Snyder style they've struggled to break free from.

Viewing them all is a default for me though, hell, I knowingly watched the most recent Fantastic Four... and Jimmy Neutron at the cinema!

[Dogg Thang]

I knowingly watched the most recent Fantastic Four... and Jimmy Neutron at the cinema!

You are a glutton for punishment!

Maybe there is something to be said for it though. I often find myself rewatching films I know I love rather than taking a chance on new films I might hate and that sounds like a sure sign of getting old.