What do you think of Marvel post-Endgame?

He was in 2014's X-Men: Days of Future Past that was pretty popular, but your point is taken.
That was 8 years ago, and was a 12 cert. So, someone who saw it legitimately is now 20.

This is a big problem for Marvel now. There interconnectedness breaks down when a substantial part of the audience are simply too young to understand what the connections are.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Hex08

Hero
That was 8 years ago, and was a 12 cert. So, someone who saw it legitimately is now 20.

This is a big problem for Marvel now. There interconnectedness breaks down when a substantial part of the audience are simply too young to understand what the connections are.
I read a review of Multiverse of Madness on some comic site (Bleeding Cool?) where the writer saw it right when it first came out and when leaving the theater he overheard people being confused by Wanda having kids. The kids never appeared in the movies and the movie goers, apparently, didn't see the TV show so they were confused by the whole thing. I agree that the interconnectedness that was initially a strength of the franchise is going to start being a problem.
 


Stalker0

Legend
Giving Nat superhuman durability seems like a serious bit of nitpicking, in both the comics and movies heroes, super or not, frequently take beatings that would kill or hospitalize the rest of us.
The reason I call it out in this movie is because it is so hyped up. The scene when she is falling is VISCERAL, if you listen to the sound effects, I mean there's bone crunching sound in the background, its BRUTAL. They intentionally augment just how nasty the fall sounds.....and then she gets up with barely a scatch.


Its all a matter of degrees and what our collective culture allows. For example, the idea that a human can go through a wall in a martial arts movie and still get up has entered our "cultural delusion". In real life that person has more broken bones than you want to think about, but over enough movies we have just kind of accepted that its okay for a "crazy tough person" to do.

Therefore, if Nat had fallen like a story, maybe bonked her body once....ok that is still crazy from a IRL persepctive, but its still within the realm of plausibility for "heroic action". But that's not we got, it would be like the equivalent of Hawkeye getting punched and knocked through 3 brick walls but landing on a pillow and being "completely fine", the amount of punishment Nat takes in that one scene blows away any cinematic believability. And that's only one scene, there are several others that also completely blow past any measure of heroic toughness straight into the realm of supernatural durability.... its just that the first fall scene is the most egregious.
 

Eric V

Hero
The reason I call it out in this movie is because it is so hyped up. The scene when she is falling is VISCERAL, if you listen to the sound effects, I mean there's bone crunching sound in the background, its BRUTAL. They intentionally augment just how nasty the fall sounds.....and then she gets up with barely a scatch.
Yeah...I don't understand the writing decision to make the fall that egregious only for it to have no real effect on her. If it isn't going to do anything, why not just write that Nat used her acrobatics to save herself?
 

Eric V

Hero
Oh hey don’t get me wrong. I liked Multiverse of Madness. It was fun.

It’s just that for me it’s very soon reaching the point where it’s getting to be more about cameos and Easter eggs than storytelling.
It's already there for us in our house...to the point that you-know-who showed up in the mid-credits scene and (despite liking the character) we just didn't care.

The Illuminati showing up only to leave just as quickly was also underwhelming. It's like the writers believed that the cameo itself is the point.
 

Stalker0

Legend
Yeah...I don't understand the writing decision to make the fall that egregious only for it to have no real effect on her. If it isn't going to do anything, why not just write that Nat used her acrobatics to save herself?
Exactly. If nat had been somersaulting all the way down or doing some crazy parkour....ok fine, whether that's realistic or not is no longer debated because again our cimematic shared delusion tells us that crazy acrobatics can help you survive falls way higher than would be normal. Nat has already been established as being exceptionally graceful and acrobatic, so such a scene would seem very natural with her skills, as opposed to completely out of left field.
 

Gradine

The Elephant in the Room (she/her)
The first time I watched Black Widow I was watching it for the MCU-ness of it all, and it came up wanting (great acting, but otherwise meh). Natasha's already dead, none of this stuff is setting up anything particularly interesting, etc.

The second time I stopped caring about the interconnectedness and Marvel plot arc nonsense and took it for what it was: an exploration of who Natasha was and what family meant to her (an absolutely critical aspect of her character arc, especially in Endgame) and in that it absolutely excelled.

Say what you will about Cap and his earnest goodness, but absolutely the heart and soul of The Avengers was Natasha, it was always Natasha, and this really drove it home. Ultimately, Steve never threw his body on the grenade after all. Nat did.
 

DrunkonDuty

he/him
@Stalker0 I reckon I can say now we aren't going to agree and that's fine. These things are subjective. But you did ask me a direct question so here's my answer.

What makes Black Widow good for me? Well @Hex08 and @Gradine have both said most of what I think is good about the movie. Basically it shows some real heart. Let's us get an insight into the character. Good cast.

As for the criticisms commonly levelled at it... yeah nah.

She fell a few stories, hitting multiple things on the way down and walked away? So what. She's a super hero. Plenty of other characters have done the same in other movies without the excuse of being "super." John Maclean and Batman for two examples. No-ones complaining about them doing it. So why does Widow cop it? Also, that particular fall, she hits like a million things on the way down. Each one is slowing her fall. Good enough for me in a superhero universe. Yes, I get that the falling shot feels very visceral. Yes, I agree that there's a disconnect between the feeling it evokes and her walking away. I don't know how many sound designers you've met, but allow me to assure you they LOVE them some overdone audio. Me? I'd have insisted the sound designer re-do their work. Does this one scene ruin the movie? No.

Boring villain? Sure. 90% of Marvel villains are boring as hell.* I include Thanos on that list. But, as has been said on these forums in the past, the movies are about the heroes not the the villains. The story and thus the screen time focus on the heroes. We barely see the villains. Most of them get no time to develop. In Black Widow we get to see the villain's evil plot and, given that evil plot's intensely personal nature to both our Widows, it works pretty well. We know why the characters are invested in taking it down. Is Dreykov a second rate Bond villain? Yes. But then so are most Bond villains. Just as we watch Bond movies for Bond, we watch MCU movies for the heroes.

Interconnectedness? I'm a Marvel comics nerd. I love me some Easter eggs. But they aren't necessary for making a good movie. Also, re. interconnectedness to the wider MCU... there's Natasha. You know, that character who's in like a squillion MCU movies? Plus Florence Pugh is going to be the new Widow going forward. That's plenty of interconnectedness.

Someone in the thread above said something like Natasha doesn't even get a good send off. Ummmmmm. It's a prequel. She gets her send off in Endgame. Oops, soz, spoilers.

Phew. Well, that was longer than I planned to go on.

*This puts the MCU ahead of the DCU where 90% of everyone is boring as hell.
 


Remove ads

Top