Cinematic Civil War:MCU vs DCCU - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 36

[Fincher]

Though it's the fake beard that makes me want to laugh.

They should have CG'd Cavill's moustache unto his face.

 

[StarLord]

Don't forget about the wax statue/Conan O'Brien look.

 

[Greens]

They released a new clip that's completely from the reshoots (you can tell because of the bright lighting), and Bruce looked fine in it.

 

[First Avenger]

They released a new clip that's completely from the reshoots (you can tell because of the bright lighting), and Bruce looked fine in it.

It's a pretty good scene too.

 

[Web-Head]

Homecoming is somewhere in my top 5 MCU, but Strange and Ant-Man are probably somewhere in the middle

 

[DrCosmic]

The more I think about it, the less I liked Thor: Ragnarok. Part of it is very personal, after seeing a film that affected me a great deal and watching a film about how first viewing-centric MCU films are, and how low the stakes are in Thor 3, I was primed to not like it. I did anyway, because it's a solid film, but nowhere near the top of Marvel's accomplishments.

Spoiler

1) The best bits, comedy-wise and dramatics-wise are references to other films. "That's how it feels" is nothing but double dipping on a great joke, and there's a lot of that here. "The sun's getting real low" and all of that. People say it's the best Thor film, and that's hard to argue with that, and that it embraces the ridiculous but the only reason the ridiculousness works is because of the seriousness of other MCU films, including the first Thor film.

2) But unlike Avengers, which stands on its own if need be, Thor 3 doesn't. At all. This is, imho, the first MCU film where not seeing the previous films robs you of even getting half of it. Can you imagine watching Hulk turn back to Banner without having seen Age of Ultron? Maybe that's a good thing, that it's the first "non-naive sequel" in the MCU, but I'm a bit divided on that in terms of quality.

3) This movie pulls a lot of punches, which is normal, but then the movie asks us to care about things it's been holding off on dealing with. We're supposed to feel something for Asgard being destroyed, or for Thor taking the throne, but the film can't be bothered to actually bring us to those emotional places. Odin fades away once Thor gets his power up, because even for him the throne is an afterthought. We already know Asgard is meaningless when two of the Warriors 3 are executed unceremoniously super early in the film and then again when a ship shows up to take everyone to safety before destroying Asgard even comes up, letting us know they're leaving it behind anyway. It makes the same assumptions as BvS does, that we will take the emotions from what these things are supposed to mean in other adaptations and apply them to this film, without any of the continuity baggage that generated that meaning in the first place.

Surprisingly, I haven't heard much about how "woke" the film is, which is odd, because it makes a very explicit point about slavery in prison, and the villain's whole motivation is taking a beacon of freedom back to it's true imperialist roots, which can only be resolved by destroying the kingdom. Also, the movie was a ton and a half of fun, and Taika did some stuff I didn't think was really possible. I really don't like not liking this movie, but the more I think about it... man.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Thor Ragnarok is so much fun ... and so very inconsequential.

This I can't agree with. Lots of consequential things happen in Ragnarok.

Spoiler

Asgard is destroyed. Mjolnir is destroyed. Odin and several other characters die. Hulk has taken over from Banner on a more or less permanent basis. Thor is now king and he lost an eye. Thanos arrives at Earth.

 

[Mjölnir]

The more I think about it, the less I liked Thor: Ragnarok. Part of it is very personal, after seeing a film that affected me a great deal and watching a film about how first viewing-centric MCU films are, and how low the stakes are in Thor 3, I was primed to not like it. I did anyway, because it's a solid film, but nowhere near the top of Marvel's accomplishments.

Spoiler

1) The best bits, comedy-wise and dramatics-wise are references to other films. "That's how it feels" is nothing but double dipping on a great joke, and there's a lot of that here. "The sun's getting real low" and all of that. People say it's the best Thor film, and that's hard to argue with that, and that it embraces the ridiculous but the only reason the ridiculousness works is because of the seriousness of other MCU films, including the first Thor film.

2) But unlike Avengers, which stands on its own if need be, Thor 3 doesn't. At all. This is, imho, the first MCU film where not seeing the previous films robs you of even getting half of it. Can you imagine watching Hulk turn back to Banner without having seen Age of Ultron? Maybe that's a good thing, that it's the first "non-naive sequel" in the MCU, but I'm a bit divided on that in terms of quality.

3) This movie pulls a lot of punches, which is normal, but then the movie asks us to care about things it's been holding off on dealing with. We're supposed to feel something for Asgard being destroyed, or for Thor taking the throne, but the film can't be bothered to actually bring us to those emotional places. Odin fades away once Thor gets his power up, because even for him the throne is an afterthought. We already know Asgard is meaningless when two of the Warriors 3 are executed unceremoniously super early in the film and then again when a ship shows up to take everyone to safety before destroying Asgard even comes up, letting us know they're leaving it behind anyway. It makes the same assumptions as BvS does, that we will take the emotions from what these things are supposed to mean in other adaptations and apply them to this film, without any of the continuity baggage that generated that meaning in the first place.

Surprisingly, I haven't heard much about how "woke" the film is, which is odd, because it makes a very explicit point about slavery in prison, and the villain's whole motivation is taking a beacon of freedom back to it's true imperialist roots, which can only be resolved by destroying the kingdom. Also, the movie was a ton and a half of fun, and Taika did some stuff I didn't think was really possible. I really don't like not liking this movie, but the more I think about it... man.

I have the exact opposite opinion on that Ragnarok is first viewing-centric as I liked it more on the second go, and I think the definition of stakes that I've read is different from yours.

 

[First Avenger]

This I can't agree with. Lots of consequential things happen in Ragnarok.

Spoiler

Asgard is destroyed. Mjolnir is destroyed. Odin and several other characters die. Hulk has taken over from Banner on a more or less permanent basis. Thor is now king and he lost an eye. Thanos arrives at Earth.

Yeah I don't get this inconsequential stuff. It's as much of a change as the one happened in Winter Soldier.

 

[DrCosmic]

^[blackout]TWS is a great example of an actual consequence. The dissolution of SHIELD had a huge effect on everyone's story because SHIELD has such a huge impact on the Avengers. We had to sit with Steve and Natasha while they questioned their identities. It affected them, the kinds of people they were and their decisions going forward, as well as every film thereafter set on Earth. The destruction of Asgard has no affect on anyone, except the extras, as far as we've seen. [/blackout]

This I can't agree with. Lots of consequential things happen in Ragnarok.

Spoiler

Asgard is destroyed. Mjolnir is destroyed. Odin and several other characters die. Hulk has taken over from Banner on a more or less permanent basis. Thor is now king and he lost an eye. Thanos arrives at Earth.

Spoiler

What's really funny about the 'consequences' of Thor, even though these sound like huge status quo changes, they are not important in this film to the characters we see. Like T:R gets its strength from other films, it perhaps, maybe even will likely show it's consequences to be important in other films... but maybe not. Maybe Thor will go off with the GotG and his responsibility to his people will be the same as its always been, distant and royal. Maybe he'll have a cooler new weapon and all his same powers, or even moreso. Maybe Hulk will run into the thing that we learned in this film can change him back instantly: Black Widow. We can go through each of the 'big deals' of this film like this. The consequences, like the loss of Thor's eye, turn out to be cool and epic-sounding but ultimately cosmetic.

 

[Abudefduf]

After seeing how Ragnarok handled the [BLACKOUT]destruction of the ancient, totally important realm of Asgard[/BLACKOUT], I'm starting to sympathize with the "no stakes in the MCU" crowd a bit more. Just a bit.

...

What is this.

 

[DrCosmic]

^It's that Polar Express technology. That Scorpion King.

EDIT: Also, yes. [blackout]"The end of all things" turning out to be the destruction of some buildings, with a gag - a GREAT gag, btw - kinda underwhelms, but doesn't really surprise.[/blackout]

I have the exact opposite opinion on that Ragnarok is first viewing-centric as I liked it more on the second go, and I think the definition of stakes that I've read is different from yours.

The second viewing isn't that far off from the first viewing. It's usually right after. I'm not talking about a film that falls apart as soon as you see it a second time, I'm talking about a film that only works under excitement, but bears no deeper reflection. I enjoy TWS just as much 3 years later as I did that day. I can't say the same for the airport fight from Civil War just a year and a half later. I can go through Thor 1's formulaic journey again and it still means something. Can we really say we'll have as much fun with Thor 3 six years from now? Essentially, there are actual films which leave the impressions that DCFU fans claim BvS does.

Case in point: Thor losing his hammer sounds huge, but the point of the storyline is that the hammer doesn't matter, that Thor hasn't lost anything, and the movie underlines this by having him use his new powers before he even knows there's a lesson to learn.

EDIT: Now, I freely admit that 'meaningfulness' and 'consequence' may not be the point of Thor 3, or most MCU films, however, if folks are putting it near the top of that pile, I want to point out that there are other films from this studio that are simply better because they do have that as a priority. Of course... those films, while necessary foundations for what we have, made less money, so maybe the MCU is going in an unavoidable direction anyway... -shrug-

 

[OutOfBoose]

Don't forget about the wax statue/Conan O'Brien look.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought he looks like Conan O'Brian.

 

[DA_Champion]

If we can discuss storytelling for a minute, let's remember that an original reason for the plot of JL, was that Snyder believed that the league needs to be assembled by Batman. It's why Superman was killed off, because otherwise he would be involved in assembling the league.

I've never seen it done this way in any adaptation, so I'm curious how it will come off on screen. We'll have Batman collecting superheroes the way Cecil and company used to collect crystals in final fantasy games.

I'll also bring up a contradiction that I had not yet realized. Batman wants to assemble the league to fight an incoming alien threat. By the time BvS happens, he has youtube videos on Flash, Cyborg, Aquaman, and files on Wonder Woman. Yet ... he's also spending time hunting small-time criminals, and he wants to kill Superman.

 

[Timebomb]

I don't know I think the cast and VFX did it for me. I loved how they used time as the main theme of the movie,and the climax imo was one of the cleverest in the genre.

High five. Agree.

 

[DA_Champion]

I don't know I think the cast and VFX did it for me. I loved how they used time as the main theme of the movie,and the climax imo was one of the cleverest in the genre.

High five. Agree.

Thirded, I loved Doctor Strange. The climax was original and creative, but I really liked the entire movie, it was very mature and played with some dark themes, I liked that and appreciated the change of pace from the Marvel house style.

 

[Timebomb]

Joss used the same DP for the reshoots right? I mean i know first hand how circumstances can get u different looks but i would think he'd use the same lens and techniques just to keep continuity in a scene.

Though it's the fake beard that makes me want to laugh.

If we are going to be noticing the difference for the entire movie it's going to be pretty annoying. I just hope it's not jarring enough to keep taking me out of the movie.

 

[Timebomb]

Thirded, I loved Doctor Strange. The climax was original and creative, but I really liked the entire movie, it was very mature and played with some dark themes, I liked that and appreciated the change of pace from the Marvel house style.

To quote Aquaman. "My man!"

You've got to picture it in his BRO voice or else it sounds creepy.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

[blackout]What's really funny about the 'consequences' of Thor, even though these sound like huge status quo changes, they are not important in this film to the characters we see. Like T:R gets its strength from other films, it perhaps, maybe even will likely show it's consequences to be important in other films... but maybe not. Maybe Thor will go off with the GotG and his responsibility to his people will be the same as its always been, distant and royal. Maybe he'll have a cooler new weapon and all his same powers, or even moreso. Maybe Hulk will run into the thing that we learned in this film can change him back instantly: Black Widow. We can go through each of the 'big deals' of this film like this. The consequences, like the loss of Thor's eye, turn out to be cool and epic-sounding but ultimately cosmetic.[/blackout]

Spoiler

Odin dying and Asgard being destroyed are definitely important. Asgard's destruction is the biggest change to the status quo since the dismantling of Shield in TWS. And the characters certainly do treat them as important. At least those personally affected by it, namely Thor himself.

As for the rest of that, that's all speculation for the future. It is also the same with any of these superhero franchise films. Look at Logan for example. It seems big and consequential, but we can pretty much figure out Logan is going to be back at some point. He's too big of a character not to be. We KNOW Xavier is going to be back on screen next year. It wasn't even the first time he was killed in an X-Men film. You shouldn't judge a film based on what future films MIGHT do.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Count me as one of the people who doesn’t think Dr. Strange is amazing. It’s passable to me, and compared to the likes of GOTG2 and Ragnorak, definitely not in every of my top MCU movies.

 

[Tony Stark]

I find it hard to believe that anyone could walk away from TR thinking there were no real consequences. There was nothing but consequences. [Blackout]the destruction of Asgard [/blackout] in my mind is bigger than dissolving SHIELD.

 

[The Joker]

Don't forget about the wax statue/Conan O'Brien look.

He actually looks ill or something there.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

He actually looks ill or something there.

It’s freaky and scary

 

[The Endless]

I like to pretend that this Ragnarok was like a crazy Monty Python/Adventure Time cycle lol.

What happened in this movie will have consequences later on. Some pretty dark stuff happened really. It's just that this particular story had a LSD blur over it.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Count me as one of the people who doesn’t think Dr. Strange is amazing. It’s passable to me, and compared to the likes of GOTG2 and Ragnorak, definitely not in every of my top MCU movies.

I think the visuals were amazing and inventive. Easily one of the best looking CBMs. That elevates it in my view somewhat.

But no, it is far from my favorite MCU film either.