GloatingSwine wrote:Strange is supposed to be obnoxious. Star Lord's dad isn't the only ego the size of a planet in the MCU....
That was textually obvious in the film, but it doesn't change the issue. A character who's meant to be obnoxious still has to overcome the same handicap with the audience that an unintentionally obnoxious character does.
Tony Stark, in the movies at least, is also deliberately supposed to be a jerky egotist, but the audience enjoys him instead of finding him insufferable. Strange reads like a less fluid attempt to capture that lightning a second time. Characters like this are hard to engineer, and tend to hinge on a "lightning in a bottle" intersection of just the right writing and just the right performance.
Strange's obnoxiousness could still serve a good character purpose, as IMO the way he's written and performed, he actually seems like he'd work really well with an arc that had him shed his snark in favor of knuckled-down seriousness as he learns. But I think that's unlikely to happen, because the Marvel formula is to keep things light and jokey, so they're probably going to keep trying to make Strange into another "witty jerkass with a heart of gold".
cilantro wrote: GotG Vol 1 was actually good and it's one of my favorite MCU films but GotG Vol 2, I didn't like for various reasons. Like I didn't like how they changed Peter's father from J'ason of Sparta to Ego (both are aliens but one is actually not a planet) and also making Ego a Celestial. Personally, I would've enjoyed it if they left out the Celestial part and just left Ego's origins in the dark.
I can't speak to differences in from the comics, as I haven't read them, but I liked Ego in general on account of him being one of the more developed Marvel villains to date. He's not as dramatically good as Loki, but he's way more developed than the likes of Ronan, Zemo, Kassardis, Whatsisface the Dark Elf, Red Skull, etc.
That said, I like GOTG 1 better than 2 in general as well. Plot and pacing was tighter. 2 feels like it's meandering a bit more, and once the heros arrive on Ego the pacing starts to drag.
And if you wanna get petty: Ben Browder was just doing his "Fake Peacekeeper" accent again, only this time it's supposed to be the character's real accent, not the character doing a hilariously bad fake accent, so it just sounds bad. And for some reason the makeup guys left a ring of normal human flesh tone around Gamorra's eyes, which just looked weird and called attention to the the green being makeup instead of "real". Maybe Zoe Saldana's eyes were having a reaction to the paint? Could still fix that pretty easy in post though, so it seems deliberate for some unfathomable reason.
cilantro wrote:Asgards are literally gods from another dimension and the 9 Realms are actually 9 different dimensions with Asgard being a pocket dimension in the comics. By making them aliens and the 9 Realms into 9 different planets it just doesn't feel right nor does it explain anything but leaves more questions that they are clearly not bothering to answer anytime soon.
I thought that's what it was in the movies as well? I've only seen the movies, not read the comics, but my impression from T:TDW (haven't seen Ragnarok yet) was exactly what you say: nine "realms" that are different universes (or dimensional lobes of the universe, or whatever), and Asgard is a pocket dimension. The films used specific planets as shorthand, because they've gotta have some place to walk around on, and Earth represents Midguard because the filmmakers have to keep the immediate stakes at least partly Earth-centric for their audience (and maybe Asgard's past involvement in Earth makes it special in some way), but the "realm" of Midgard is our entire universe/dimension, including Xandar and all those other planets.
cilantro wrote: GotG Vol 1 was actually good and it's one of my favorite MCU films but GotG Vol 2, I didn't like for various reasons. Like I didn't like how they changed Peter's father from J'ason of Sparta to Ego (both are aliens but one is actually not a planet) and also making Ego a Celestial. Personally, I would've enjoyed it if they left out the Celestial part and just left Ego's origins in the dark.
I can't speak to differences in from the comics, as I haven't read them, but I liked Ego in general on account of him being one of the more developed Marvel villains to date. He's not as dramatically good as Loki, but he's way more developed than the likes of Ronan, Zemo, Kassardis, Whatsisface the Dark Elf, Red Skull, etc.
I mean I feel like I am cherry picking here but I just didn't like the Celestial part. I can stomach the father part but that is pretty much it. I believe that the Celestial part just kind of confusing who and what are the Celestial (fyi, for the most part in GotG vol 1 they look pretty much like their comic book counterparts) and Knowwhere is pretty much also from the comics as well (or at least I think they are).
A picture of a Celestial from GotG Vol 1:
Knowwhere (which is a dead Celestial):
and finally Ego :
That said, I like GOTG 1 better than 2 in general as well. Plot and pacing was tighter. 2 feels like it's meandering a bit more, and once the heroes arrive on Ego the pacing starts to drag.
YMMV, but I enjoyed the first film over the second film. For me personally, it wasn't the story that I hated but the jokes. I found them to be not funny and I am a person that can laugh away at Family Guy's poop jokes for decades.
And if you wanna get petty: Ben Browder was just doing his "Fake Peacekeeper" accent again, only this time it's supposed to be the character's real accent, not the character doing a hilariously bad fake accent, so it just sounds bad. And for some reason the makeup guys left a ring of normal human flesh tone around Gamorra's eyes, which just looked weird and called attention to the the green being makeup instead of "real". Maybe Zoe Saldana's eyes were having a reaction to the paint? Could still fix that pretty easy in post though, so it seems deliberate for some unfathomable reason.
When I first saw Ben Browder I smiled and was happy that he got a movie gig but his performance wasn't the best, IMO. There are other problems that all MCU movies tend to share (like spotty CGI), poor villains, etc... But I felt like they were trying to get a decent villain out of Ego and in the comics, his mindset is pretty much same (except the part where he wants to go out and spawn his own race of children) and he does end up dead as well.
cilantro wrote: Asgards are literally gods from another dimension and the 9 Realms are actually 9 different dimensions with Asgard being a pocket dimension in the comics. By making them aliens and the 9 Realms into 9 different planets it just doesn't feel right nor does it explain anything but leaves more questions that they are clearly not bothering to answer anytime soon.
I thought that's what it was in the movies as well? I've only seen the movies, not read the comics, but my impression from T:TDW (haven't seen Ragnarok yet) was exactly what you say: nine "realms" that are different universes (or dimensional lobes of the universe, or whatever), and Asgard is a pocket dimension. The films used specific planets as shorthand, because they've gotta have some place to walk around on, and Earth represents Midguard because the filmmakers have to keep the immediate stakes at least partly Earth-centric for their audience (and maybe Asgard's past involvement in Earth makes it special in some way), but the "realm" of Midgard is our entire universe/dimension, including Xandar and all those other planets.
[/quote]
Nope, they pretty much have established them as aliens and that the 9 Realms (including Asgard) are planets. They have though, been beating around the bush about things like magic, supernatural stuff, and weither or not Asgardians are actually gods but overall they are pretty much aliens from an alien planet (a flat one as well) and that you can get to Asgard via spaceship as well. Which, IMO, is sad to see but it was something that the first film kind of established in a roundabout way:
*sarcasm* Yes, this movie needs my approval to become a success *sarcasm*. Really, I don't feel like reviewing this movie at all because everyone who is going to have seen it has probably done so already. It's a movie which has surpassed Titanic and the Avengers or will soon enough. It's certainly changed the dynamic of a lot of people's perceptions regarding black-led superhero films (which I respond to with: wait, did just forget Blade existed?). Still, I feel like I'd be denying my fanbase if I didn't do a review of the film. So, what did I think?
It was okay. Not great. Better than Doctor Strange. Not as entertaining as Thor: Ragnarok. It's kind of a bizarre situation as Black Panther is now a cultural icon with ludicrous things like the movie being attacked by Forbes magazine for taking away viewers from white-driven movies. Yet, really, I think my biggest objection to the movie comes from the fact I'm a Black Panther fan.
Yes, of the comic book character.
I was a big fan of the interpretation by Reginald Hudlin and Christopher Priest. That version of the Black Panther heavily influenced this version but this is just different enough to be not quite as interesting as me. Again, nobody in the world is going to care what my blog has to say on the subject and I'm glad everyone else in the world mostly seems to like this story. It's a phenomenon and, like Avatar, if you like it then you like it. Still, I'm not afraid of critiquing something that's popular and if you're interested in hearing my thoughts then read on.
The premise of the movie is T'Challa is ascending to the throne of Wakanda in the aftermath of his father's death in Captain America: Civil War. He manages to deal with early challenges well but things go completely off the rails when his unknown cousin, Eric Stephens a.k.a Killmonger, comes to Wakanda in order to claim the throne via Necromonger-esque challenge. T'Challa survives, barely, and must make a Rocky-style comeback to reclaim his throne before Killmonger unleashes Wakandan technology on the world in an attempt to create a global revolution.
Like the comic (and Avatar for that matter), Black Panther is fundamentally an anti-colonialist movie but actually stars real people. Killmonger has the plan of creating black liberation throughout the world by arming oppressed peoples with advanced Wakandan technology. He believes it will create a Wakandan empire, which basically is a very intelligent and well-thought out jab at American foreign policy where plenty of groups were given weapons by the USA that turned out to not want to be our friends.
However, I had a lot of issues with the story because Killmonger's plans are so poorly thought out and driven by his rage that it contrasted against a lot of points which the movie is trying to bring up. The film chastises Wakanda for being a nation that remained in isolation for centuries when the slave trade as well as other criseses were occurring but portrays it as a utopian nation otherwise. There's a lot of really good moments, like the fact Wakandans don't see other Africans as their problem, but these are hurt by the fact the movie is forced to gloss over the larger issues in order to get to the next action scene.
Still, I have to give Michael B. Jordan credit for creating a character where the shortsightedness and lack of planning for a supposed genius is entirely justified. Killmonger came to Wakanda in hopes of finding a home and a sympathetic ear for his pan-African crusade as well as wars of liberation. Instead, like many revolutionaries throughout history, his one-dimensional black and white view of history as well as politics meets deaf ears. Rather than try to see the perspective of his opponents, he simply dismisses them as evil.
Much of the comic Black Panther's story is driven by the dramatic irony of the fact T'Challa is a reformer and man with slightly more respect for the outside world than your average Wakandan (which is to say any at all). While the story touches on the idea T'Challa is going to bring Wakanda into the greater global community, this occurs at the end of a longer character arc that I think would have been a better focus of a movie than the existing story where he finds out his country is not as picturesque as he thought.
I also admit I wasn't a big fan of the changes to existing Black Panther supporting characters. The transformation of Everett Ross from a somewhat bumbling bureaucrat who is, fundamentally, a good man to a very competant CIA agent somewhat warps the narrative around him. Sort of like turning Jimmy Olsen into a CIA agent in Batman vs. Superman. I also am probably the only person who prefers the Dora Milaje plot as unwanted fiances of Black Panther to maintain a peace. The movie versions are certainly badass and awesome but I'm a sucker for stories about unrequited love. What did I think about Shuri? I had no complaints about her and actually prefer her to the comic version--T'Challa should totally give the kingdom to her.
The movie is beautiful from start to finish and does an excellent job of making a fantastical place real. Wakanda is not so much believable (when it starts with a cloaking field to keep it hidden--you've already left the realm of that description) but it is authentic. The choice of attire, architecture, and statements give a sense of how this nation might have been created. My view being that it was once a much more cosmopolitan culture with influences from all of Africa but which turned inward centuries ago.
In a real way, I think my biggest issue with the movie is T'Challa is the straight man for more interesting characters to bounce off of. I say that with all respect to Chadwick's Boseman, who does an immensely good job in every scene he's in. Still, I can't help but think Black Panther is a character who works better as an older more proactive character than one who is just starting his career as here. Still, T'Challa is on an arc throughout the story and completes it in a way which is both interesting and not at all superficial.
Sill, the action in the movie is tremendous and visually stunning from beginning to end. Black Panther easily sells that he might be the single greatest fighter in the MCU and that's before Killmonger manages to one-up him. I just prefer genius chessmaster T'Challa to the one in the movie.
I'm going to come out and say it. I think Wakanda is a stupid name for a country.
"I know what you’re thinking now. You’re thinking 'Oh my god, that’s treating other people with respect gone mad!'" When I am writing in this font, I am writing in my moderator voice.
Spam-desu
"I know what you’re thinking now. You’re thinking 'Oh my god, that’s treating other people with respect gone mad!'" When I am writing in this font, I am writing in my moderator voice.
Spam-desu
excalibur wrote:
From a small nitpick, I did find Killmonger using an ancient tribal mask for his tactical entry to be both kinda cool, but also kinda stupid since that mask was not designed to hold up to modern warfare and kinda gives away his origins to anyone who has half a brain. Now you saying he's wearing his ring so that T'challa can see it and he wanted it to be known anyway was the point then...what's the point of covering up his face?
Cause it looks cool.
My Blog: http://rocketboy1313.blogspot.com/
My Twitter: https://twitter.com/Rocketboy1313
My Tumblr: https://www.tumblr.com/blog/rocketboy1313
My Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/13rocketboy13
