Board 8 > MCU General 10 - I Am Groot

(+) Yeah! (+)

I saw Thor: Love & Thunder finally and I... think I actually liked it more than Ragnarok? I liked it a lot! It had some weird pacing and tone issues - I feel like this movie actually needed to be 20 minutes longer which is not normally something I'd say but it's trying to juggle too much comedy and seriousness at the same time and barely takes a moment to breathe before moving onto the next thing - but everything in the second half of the movie is great and I felt like it had some emotional weight to it that I felt was missing in Ragnarok.

I'll take Ragnarok over it I think but I do very much agree with everything you're saying yeah. The problems of the first half are very clear but I really did enjoy the second, and as you said and I have used the same words before, I thought it had great emotional weight to it, in that regard absolutely better than Ragnarok.

I wasn't really expecting all of the Thor and Jane stuff to land, and then... it did? I thought it landed really well, actually? And Gorr the God Butcher was great, although unfortunately badly underutilized - we really, really needed to see some scenes of the guy actually doing some God Butchering because otherwise he's just not really built up as a very meaningful threat, like him being a serious threat is all happening off screen for some reason? I mean, definitely still a flawed movie, but I'm also the resident Ragnarok-hater and I thought that movie was flawed too. I think Ragnarok had a better sense of comedic timing to it but I think Love & Thunder had a better plot arc and it still had a bunch of gags that landed for me.

I think Ragnarok is better, but it's pretty clearly the second best Thor movie to me (and I think the original Thor is underrated). I appreciated that it knew what it wanted to be, and it stuck to that, flaws and all.

Ragnarok is pretty easily better executed by quite a bit. If you don't like the humor in Ragnarok though yeah I could see preferring Love and Thunder.

Like I agree on paper Love and Thunder has a better story in terms of how it develops from arc to arc, but it doesn't execute its concept very well while Ragnarok executes its concept pretty much perfectly.

But if you don't appreciate what Ragnarok's trying to do in the first place (basically just the closest thing to a pure comedy movie in the MCU with Hela just sorta there as an intimidating obstacle to overcome) then yeah.

colliding posted...

The most infuriating thing about your posts is that you make claims at the beginning that you never follow up on. How do Marvel Movies display ambition "in other ways?" Follow up on your thesis

I did follow up in that very post, mostly by pointing out that audiences won't just go to see any comic book movies no matter how crap they are like say Batman & Robin or Morbius, and how the previous closest attempts at making massive crossover events in the vein of The Avengers like The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and Van Helsing weren't anywhere near as big. I also specifically pointed out that there is artistry in realizing comic book characters like Batman, Iron Man, and Captain America on the big screen and properly characterizing them.

Half my concern is how are Marvel movies any less cinema than, say, Jurassic Park?

Leonhart4 posted...

By Peter being challenged, of course

(But he can't follow up on his thoughts because they aren't his thoughts)

I REALLY should have elaborated on this better, I was more just giving general thoughts. One example of that in the movie is Aunt May daring Peter to help the supervillains be better people and avoid their canon deaths and the consequences brought forth as a result.

martin scorsese is a brilliant filmmaker but his thoughts on MCU movies are dumb. i don't see why we constantly need to talk about his MCU opinions or why anyone should be "genuinely concerned" about them. it really isn't a big deal.

I want to study LMS's brain for science.

I think we could learn something important.

LinkMarioSamus posted...

I did follow up in that very post, mostly by pointing out that audiences won't just go to see any comic book movies no matter how crap they are like say Batman & Robin or Morbius, and how the previous closest attempts at making massive crossover events in the vein of The Avengers like The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and Van Helsing weren't anywhere near as big. I also specifically pointed out that there is artistry in realizing comic book characters like Batman, Iron Man, and Captain America on the big screen and properly characterizing them.

Half my concern is how are Marvel movies any less cinema than, say, Jurassic Park?

Back then people only showed up for the big iconic superheroes. No one gave/gives a fuck about League or Van Helsing or Morbius. Batman and Robin didnt do amazing at the box office but it was still top 10 for that year because its Batman.

Its really only with (or maybe within) the MCU that the non-A list heroes have found success. And a lot of that has to do with the good will and great narrative interweaving of the Infinity War saga. We shall see how long Marvel is able to continue that forward.

it helps that MCU movies are generally pretty good compared to something like The League of extraordinary Gentlemen which was like universally negatively reviewed

maybe people would have shown up more for the lower tier characters if the movies werent garbage

Its also a bit of a chicken and egg thing. Low tier character means lower budget means worse effects means bad reviews, especially when people think superhero = amazing CGI.

Seanchan posted...

Its also a bit of a chicken and egg thing. Low tier character means lower budget means worse effects means bad reviews, especially when people think superhero = amazing CGI.

Spiderman 3 and every A24 movie says hi

Seanchan posted...

Back then people only showed up for the big iconic superheroes. No one gave/gives a fuck about League or Van Helsing or Morbius. Batman and Robin didnt do amazing at the box office but it was still top 10 for that year because its Batman.

Its really only with (or maybe within) the MCU that the non-A list heroes have found success. And a lot of that has to do with the good will and great narrative interweaving of the Infinity War saga. We shall see how long Marvel is able to continue that forward.

Yes, Aquaman was a huge flop I know.

Aquaman is not a minor hero in the DC universe. It's not like Shang-Chi.

LinkMarioSamus posted...

I did follow up in that very post, mostly by pointing out that audiences won't just go to see any comic book movies no matter how crap they are like say Batman & Robin or Morbius, and how the previous closest attempts at making massive crossover events in the vein of The Avengers like The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and Van Helsing weren't anywhere near as big. I also specifically pointed out that there is artistry in realizing comic book characters like Batman, Iron Man, and Captain America on the big screen and properly characterizing them.

Half my concern is how are Marvel movies any less cinema than, say, Jurassic Park?

so what specifically here has to do with Marvel's "non-story related ambition?" are you just talking about the crossover aspect as being ambitious? Cause that's story my friend

UltimaterializerX posted...

Shang Chi isnt minor unless your standard is like, anyone below the top tier of popularity doesnt matter. Hes considered the best in the universe at hand to hand combat and was based entirely on Bruce Lee.

Shang Chi is ABSOLUTELY a minor character in comparison to the characters that have had movies up until that point. He's certainly C-List. He can't sustain a comic book series at all. His role in comics and his powers mean dick. Total dick. If that mattered, then the most popular character would be the One Above All. Shang Chi himself was a cash in on the kung fu movement of the '70s, and a lot of his popularity was absorbed by Iron Fist - which was pretty minimal.

Marvel did something amazing by turning Shang Chi into a box office success.

UltimaterializerX posted...

Shang Chi isnt minor unless your standard is like, anyone below the top tier of popularity doesnt matter. Hes considered the best in the universe at hand to hand combat and was based entirely on Bruce Lee.

Okay? I had zero familiarity with the character before the movie, and I would say I have at least a decent general knowledge of who comic book characters are. He hadn't been prominently featured in non-comic media before then either.

In terms of execution maybe, in terms of premise no way.

Iron Fist was always the master martial artist, if it wasn't for that failure of a show we probably would have gotten him instead of Shang-Chi. I had never even heard of the latter before the movie and there doesn't seem to be any must read comics for him.

Iron Fist on the other hand has at least one masterpiece by Fraction and Aja.

I just think it's important to really note that the Eternals and Shang Chi are building solely off of the Marvel brand and its goodwill - at the moment. The question is if Disney+'s less than stellar shows will start to cause any waning interest in these tentpole movies. It's probably a good thing that we're going into familiar franchises again for a little while.

I'm actually super-curious if the Marvels can break 300 mil in the US.

I don't know that Iron Fist can be as much of a success given the social climate how it is (white savior appropriating Asian culture etc etc etc, we saw the reactions when his TV show came out and I think that's amplified). I think his only shot is if they do Heroes for Hire now.

But Shang-Chi has always been a complete whatever of a character. Utterly uninteresting for the most part. Honestly, I'm still not terribly interested in the character after the movie. It felt like everything and everyone around him was interesting while he just sort of... existed in the middle of it.

Marvels will be fine, I think. I think it's a mistake not to call it Captain Marvel: <Subtitle>, because I think the Captain Marvel name still has a lot of power to it. I'm not sure how strong having Ms. Marvel share billing for it will end up because of how poorly that series was received and how little people watched it.

I'm not sure I'd put Shang Chi's mainstream tier below Ant Man's. Like I feel like most people who knew one before the MCU touched them would know the other. And people who don't know one wouldn't know the other.

I know Scarlet is gonna split hairs and correct me but I'm not sure a comic book nut is going to be your best person to see the forest for the trees and gauge whether a character is known by people in general. Like the 170th most popular comic book series isn't going to have a ton more readers than the 870th.

In the comic book landscape sure, Ant-Man has a lot more notoriety than Shang Chi, but Ant-Man was definitely the "can the MCU brand alone make people watch" test. Shang-Chi wasn't really trying anything particularly risky, we already knew it worked by then.

As someone slightly above a comic book casual, I'd heard of Ant-Man before the movie. Shang-Chi was just totally unknown to me.

Here's how you differentiate Ant-Man's popularity from Shang Chi's: Ant-Man was in media before Shang Chi. The most recent appearance before the movies was just a few years prior to his in the fairly popular Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes TV series (which is wonderful and I highly recommend it). He's also appeared in things before that. Shang Chi hasn't appeared in shit.

Before the MCU, you may have heard of a silly ant hero who has been an Avengers regular, but there is no possible way that even if you putzed around surface level in comic books falling down a rabbit hole that you would ever know Shang-Chi. He's actually that obscure.

Maybe I just have a weird sample but what few people I knew that knew of Ant-Man knew Shang Chi.

That's not to say Shang Chi isn't obscure or anything but I still think that bridge was crossed in phase 3.

I like how you think me having knowledge of comics somehow makes me unaware of the general cultural milieu.

Leonhart4 posted...

As someone slightly above a comic book casual, I'd heard of Ant-Man before the movie. Shang-Chi was just totally unknown to me.

Yeah, I think this is the general narrative, especially given that Shang Chi spent decades with almost no appearances at all given he was just riding a fading wave of kung fu movies with a niche popularity in the US.

I think you exaggerate significance of a multitude of things in comic books in an attempt to give your passion more weight in discussions here when for something like an MCU topic it doesn't really mean a lot.

Trying to arbitrarily stick more tiers in terms of mainstream notoriety strikes me as exactly the kind of thing you'd do to inflate your sense of self worth

I think the biggest gambles that the MCU has now are probably with the Echo and Ironheart series. Echo just because I don't think anyone really fell in love with the character during Hawkeye, and then Ironheart because man does that character suck. Maybe they'll salvage something out of her. Being in Black Panther should help too.

I think trying to argue nuances after admitting you don't know the topic while also being a dick for no reason says a lot more about your sense of self worth.

my comic knowledge ends in like 2007 or something, but I definitely was very much less familiar with Shang-Chi at that point than with Ant-Man. Hank Pym is a pretty major figure in the comics , Shang-Chi was... not

I'm saying "nuance" doesn't matter 1/10th as much as someone like Scarlet is going to claim matters here and I don't need a comprehensive knowledge of the last 50 years of comics to know that. Casual comic knowledge and casual integration with the comic book culture and people outside of it is plenty

as someone who doesn't read i had as much knowledge of Ant Man as I did for Shang-Chi which is none

I do always enjoy looking up about them before & after the movies tho

Lopen posted...

I think you exaggerate significance of a multitude of things in comic books in an attempt to give your passion more weight in discussions here when for something like an MCU topic it doesn't really mean a lot.

Trying to arbitrarily stick more tiers in terms of mainstream notoriety strikes me as exactly the kind of thing you'd do to inflate your sense of self worth

I actually hardly ever fucking discuss stuff in these topics, so I think you're an absolute liar. When I DO discuss this stuff, I stick to games, shows, and older comics. Comic books sell shit in today's marketplace. Older decades sold far better and on a more consistent basis, aside from minor aberrations here and there like the issue #1s for Rocket Raccoon and Squirrel Girl which were all built on heavy social media campaigns from creators. They are absolutely not useful in telling the value of sales of a character from a media perspective.

Older comics are, especially as those are most often used a template for the cartoons, shows, etc. Shang Chi has almost no outside cultural significance from comics because, unlike Ant-Man he had no cartoons, no games, nothing. Ant-Man, as a founding member of the Avengers in comics, had such an obviously leg up - first of all, he so many more copies of comics in a time when that was significant. Comic shops didn't exist - the market at the time allowed more permeability into the mainstream. Then you have shows, you have games, you have all of the ways for Ant-Man to be presented as a founding member of the Avengers. He even makes it into the Ultimates, which had some reach outside of the normal comics marketplace.

Then you get into the weird, often unquantified market of graphic collections which sell pretty well in the 2000s and early 2010s at places like Barnes & Noble, and there are just no collections for Shang-Chi. You'd have to be a reader like me, willing to dig in back issue bins to find the guy until he finally gets a string of Secret Avengers appearances that resuscitate him - and only a little. What matters here is that for an outside market, Ant-Man was an easier sell. He had a small amount of fame, but fame nonetheless. You can't discount the half million-selling comics from days gone by. You CAN discount comics in the barely 100k moving market of the last decade.

As for your narrative about me, I think I'm pretty clearly a person on the board who deals with significant self-worth issues, and this bizarre presentation of me is not only uncalled for, hurtful and rude, but it's just fucking wrong.

GuessMyUserName posted...

as someone who doesn't read i had as much knowledge of Ant Man as I did for Shang-Chi which is none

This is probably 95%+ of people for the record.

Ant-Man is 100% more recognizable than Shang-Chi, even outside of the comic book landscape. Ant-Man was on SNL! And that was only 6 years after Shang-Chi debuted and even then he was more obscure, and the gulf has only widened since then.

Scarlet is correct, Marvel turning him into a box office success is wild.

I also believe Scarlet is correct

scarletspeed7 posted...

He had a small amount of fame

Hehe

I always appreciate your insight in these topics, scarlet. You're a delight and everything you've said here is correct.

I feel the need to stress the importance of a popular kid's show coming out years prior to his movie, while the Avengers boom was happening, where he was a main character is extremely helpful for his notoriety as well. If you're a kid who watched it or an adult with a kid or just an adult flipping through channels and catching it, you'll know Ant-Man existed and was a thing by that alone.

If you're someone who saw Avengers and then went "Let me Google that" then you see Ant-Man popping up as a founding Avenger.

Shang-Chi was buried, absolutely smothered, in comics with barely any room to breathe and hasn't had a single mainstream sighting. Ant-Man has had multiple ones, and most relevant just years before his movie came out. Yeah, he wasn't tremendously popular, but it's still crazy to act like Shang-Chi was on the same level on mainstream appeal when Ant-Man at least had SOME mainstream crossover while Shang-Chi hasn't and you would never hear about him even if you did try looking up a bunch of comic book stuff for whatever reason.

There's not even nuance about it - Ant-Man is like 1000x more recognizable than Shang-Chi, before the movie came out. That's not even exaggeration - Shang-Chi is SUCH a nobody.

Wow this is a lot of people with an inflated sense of self worth.

Or maybe Lopen was just wrong...

Scarlet is absolutely in the right here.

And I will echo biscuit as well about Earths Mightiest Heroes. Great show, highly recommended, and Ant-Man is indeed a main character. He was definitely known about before his entrance into the MCU, whereas Shang-Chi was not. He has never shown up in any outside media before and his presence in comics is practically nonexistent.

for many comic fans during the 90's boom, I would wager their only real contact with Shang-Chi was a brief guest-starring arc in X-Men

If Ant-Man was B-list, Shang Chi was practically D-list.

Like, you can maybe try to make the argument that Scott Lang is as much of a nobody as Shang-Chi, but Hank Pym is in the top 40 of Marvel characters in terms of amount of publications, in spite of him not being an X character.

Lopen unsuccessful in doing an Ulti impression in mafia somehow doing an even worse one in real life

Ant Man even if not immediately recognizable has a very obvious super power. Everyone knows about "That superhero that shrinks down"

Shang-Chi is both entirely unrecognizable and doesn't have a super power that fits him into an obvious recognizable niche

my prexisting Marvel knowledge mainly comes from like, X-Men 90s stuff (arcade & cartoon), old Spider-Man cartoon, X-Men Legends games, Ultimate Alliance, and MvC

although now that i'm a MCU junkie I'm all into youtube explain videos

I feel like martial arts stuff was generally pretty niche if it still isn't.

Like, Big Trouble in Little China was a huge box-office failure back in the day but people still talk about it. I think that movie has even been cited as an influence on Guardians of the Galaxy and Thor: Ragnarok. Probably a reason Kurt Russell was cast as Star-Lord's father.

For the record I have seen Big Trouble in Little China. I think it's a fun romp but I'm not a HUGE fan or anything.