Is the over reliance on humour a problem in the MCU

[R_Hythlodeus]

err... I didn't know we were supposed to decide for ourselves what is or isn't the MCU.
now that I know that it's good to have Citizen Kane and The Big Lebowski as part of the Universe. beat that, Fox and WB!

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I was just bored, it was a real struggle for me to finish it. I thought they could have done the entire story in two episodes personally. I really like David Tennant aswell but I didn't like Kilgrave. I wanted to like it but I just didn't

I thought Daredevil fell into a similar trap in season two aswell, as soon as the Elektra story started it soon felt dragged out and I thought it went dull.

I'm looking forward to the Defenders mind and I can't wait for the Punisher series. Luke Cage I don't really care about but I'll watch it.

Surprised to hear that you didn't like Jessica Jones, I thought it was really very good and David Tennant as Kilgrave was all sorts of awesomeness in the first season. Not really sure where they'll go from here but season 1 was great. t:

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Surprised to hear that you didn't like Jessica Jones, I thought it was really very good and David Tennant as Kilgrave was all sorts of awesomeness in the first season. Not really sure where they'll go from here but season 1 was great. t:

Agreed, I wasn't familiar with JJ as a character beforehand, but once I can afford it I will be buying some comics.

 

[CaptainWagner]

"Superheroes who make jokes and dark and gritty heroes should coexist in the same universe!"

*I prove they do coexist in the same universe*

"That doesn't count!"

Like others, including myself have said, the connections between Marvel movies and TV are almost purely a one-way street. Marvel sticks their darker properties on Netflix because there they're safe to not fall under the Marvel movie brand of "fun for the whole family".

How does that not count?



How do you figure that?

I can't prove that, it's more wishful thinking of me hoping movie-goers aren't so dense as to no longer be able to appreciate the type of superhero films Marvel has conditioned them to expect.

In what way were the Russos Being slowly dragged into the fold of the formula in CW? CW didn't follow the tradinitional CBM trope of having heroes fight each other and then team up at the end to fight another big bad. They subverted expectations in that regard.

And why doesn't Netflic count? Last time I checked it is part of the MCU.

TWS ended with major repercussions that weren't even starting to be resolved (And then were trashed ad ignored by Whedon in AOU) In Civil War, while it still bares the Russos touch, there were some signs of the formula closing in: Rhodey's accident being lightened by some slapstick and Steve immediately offering reconciliation to Tony.

 

[Flint Marko]

Like others, including myself have said, the connections between Marvel movies and TV are almost purely a one-way street. Marvel sticks their darker properties on Netflix because there they're safe to not fall under the Marvel movie brand of "fun for the whole family".

And as I've already said, it doesn't matter. You said a "healthy cinematic universe" would have both tones, and the MCU does have both tones, regardless of your arbitrary caveats.

 

[TeeKay]

What Repercussions did Whedon ignore from TWS? He addressed the events of TWS in AoU but Whedon also has to tell his story. Stark is the benefactor of the Avengers because they're no longer under Shield and answer to no one. Fire showing up with the helicarrier was convenient but AoS covered that ( Not everyone watches the show but whatever).

I disagree about Rhodey. The moment is happened no one was making jokes. There was a moment of levity from the Stan Lee cameo but the conversation between Rhodes and Stark was very much a good exchange between the friends. Rhodes is the victim of the airport battle. That's a consequence within itself and a reminder to all the Avengers how things quickly got out of hand. It's all fun and games until somebody gets hurt. Steven letter to Tony doesn't really mean anything. He reached out because he hurt his friend. But that doesn't mean the relationship is repaired. The Russos came out and said the consequences will be dealt with in IW. It was a huge reveal. It's not being glossed over. I'll take their word.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

To me Guardians of the Galaxy is no more a comedy than A New Hope, The Force Awakens or Raiders of the Lost Ark. Here's a clip from the original Star Wars for you all to chew on:

[YT]KYAbFqkvzQA[/YT]

The aesthetic of Guardians was similar. I'd hardly call it a comedy

Rocket Raccoon, yes he's a talking raccoon, but did you not emotionally understand him? Was Rocket not a damaged character who is doing more than just doing stupid noises and jokes the whole time? No. He was a fully realized character that was more than just a wise-cracking goofy comic relief. He was a character in a world of fully realized aliens and oddities. Just as Groot was.

It's not that they made a talking raccoon, it's that they made a talking raccoon a three-dimensional character that people fall in love with.

Outside of maybe The Force Awakens, IMHO Guardians of the Galaxy was the closest a new movie came to recreating the aesthetic of the original Star Wars movie in years that so many attempt but constantly fail at. It was that type of movie for me.

Great post. Marvel so good they even make talking raccoon emotional real character.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

What Repercussions did Whedon ignore from TWS? He addressed the events of TWS in AoU but Whedon also has to tell his story. Stark is the benefactor of the Avengers because they're no longer under Shield and answer to no one. Fire showing up with the helicarrier was convenient but AoS covered that ( Not everyone watches the show but whatever).

I disagree about Rhodey. The moment is happened no one was making jokes. There was a moment of levity from the Stan Lee cameo but the conversation between Rhodes and Stark was very much a good exchange between the friends. Rhodes is the victim of the airport battle. That's a consequence within itself and a reminder to all the Avengers how things quickly got out of hand. It's all fun and games until somebody gets hurt. Steven letter to Tony doesn't really mean anything. He reached out because he hurt his friend. But that doesn't mean the relationship is repaired. The Russos came out and said the consequences will be dealt with in IW. It was a huge reveal. It's not being glossed over. I'll take their word.

That makes me feel a lot better about the ending of CW, the way it ended bothered me and felt like a bit of a cop out. But if they address it as well as they did the ending of AOU in CW, that makes me feel a whole lot better.

 

[First Avenger]

What Repercussions did Whedon ignore from TWS? He addressed the events of TWS in AoU but Whedon also has to tell his story. Stark is the benefactor of the Avengers because they're no longer under Shield and answer to no one. Fire showing up with the helicarrier was convenient but AoS covered that ( Not everyone watches the show but whatever).

I disagree about Rhodey. The moment is happened no one was making jokes. There was a moment of levity from the Stan Lee cameo but the conversation between Rhodes and Stark was very much a good exchange between the friends. Rhodes is the victim of the airport battle. That's a consequence within itself and a reminder to all the Avengers how things quickly got out of hand. It's all fun and games until somebody gets hurt. Steven letter to Tony doesn't really mean anything. He reached out because he hurt his friend. But that doesn't mean the relationship is repaired. The Russos came out and said the consequences will be dealt with in IW. It was a huge reveal. It's not being glossed over. I'll take their word.

AoU addresses pretty much everything that's happened after Avengers even right from its in medias res start . From the fall of Shield-Hydra,to Tony telling Cho he wants to get rid of his suits,to the Convergence,to Fury being undercover,to the whole Infinity Stone overarching story,even the Orb was showed. It's all there while telling its own story. Steve's letter to Tony is totally in character but it doesn't mean reconciliation,Russos already said everything will be dealt in Infinity War.

 

[metaphysician]

Also, the question is not "Is there a reciprocal two-way relationship of equals between the TV, movie, and Netflix stuff". The question is "Do they take place in the same world, the MCU". Which they most definitely do.

( Well, the Netflix stuff does, I'm a little iffy about AoS, as the writers there have largely stopped caring about making their stuff fit. )

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Also, the question is not "Is there a reciprocal two-way relationship of equals between the TV, movie, and Netflix stuff". The question is "Do they take place in the same world, the MCU". Which they most definitely do.

( Well, the Netflix stuff does, I'm a little iffy about AoS, as the writers there have largely stopped caring about making their stuff fit. )

Even the most recent season of AoS had stuff like Gideon Malick appearing after he was already in The Avengers and Werner von Strucker's storyline which tied in directly to Age of Ultron.

 

[Arachnerd]

I'd say that sometimes, the humor can really be a detractor if it's not handled well. Two good examples for me are Iron Man 3 and Thor: The Dark World. Both have humor that cuts away any tension a scene may be developing, or by just having mediocre comedy in general.

I do like these movies though (Iron Man 3 more than TDW), and so far I think the Russos have been the best MCU directors to balance humor with drama.

 

[CaptainWagner]

And as I've already said, it doesn't matter. You said a "healthy cinematic universe" would have both tones, and the MCU does have both tones, regardless of your arbitrary caveats.

I don't get how you can say it's "arbitrary". The average viewer is not going to immediately connect the Netflix series to the MCU brand, therefore allowing Marvel Films to maintain their perfect "fun for the whole family" image.

What Repercussions did Whedon ignore from TWS? He addressed the events of TWS in AoU but Whedon also has to tell his story. Stark is the benefactor of the Avengers because they're no longer under Shield and answer to no one. Fire showing up with the helicarrier was convenient but AoS covered that ( Not everyone watches the show but whatever).

I disagree about Rhodey. The moment is happened no one was making jokes. There was a moment of levity from the Stan Lee cameo but the conversation between Rhodes and Stark was very much a good exchange between the friends. Rhodes is the victim of the airport battle. That's a consequence within itself and a reminder to all the Avengers how things quickly got out of hand. It's all fun and games until somebody gets hurt. Steven letter to Tony doesn't really mean anything. He reached out because he hurt his friend. But that doesn't mean the relationship is repaired. The Russos came out and said the consequences will be dealt with in IW. It was a huge reveal. It's not being glossed over. I'll take their word.

Whedon brushed over the end to IM3, tossing Tony right back into a suit, no questions asked. He ignored TDW my trashing the concept of Thor leaving Asgard for Jane. He then completely overruled the whole point of TWS by having Fury magically show up with a Helicarrier to save the day in the end.

I'm referencing Falcon getting shot immediately after the accident, which at least in my theater came off a slapstick and ruined the gravity of the moment.

 

[First Avenger]

I don't get how you can say it's "arbitrary". The average viewer is not going to immediately connect the Netflix series to the MCU brand, therefore allowing Marvel Films to maintain their perfect "fun for the whole family" image.

Whedon brushed over the end to IM3, tossing Tony right back into a suit, no questions asked. He ignored TDW my trashing the concept of Thor leaving Asgard for Jane. He then completely overruled the whole point of TWS by having Fury magically show up with a Helicarrier to save the day in the end.

I'm referencing Falcon getting shot immediately after the accident, which at least in my theater came off a slapstick and ruined the gravity of the moment.

The movie Begins in medias res,a well-known narrative tecnique where you don't have to explain everything.You may not like it but there's no objective flaw in it,it's just a story choice.

Tony never retired from being Iron Man. IM3 ends with the 'I am Iron Man' line and his goal during the movie is still to get rid of suits of armor through the Ultron program.

Jane and the Convergence are mentioned by Thor during the party scene.

Fury first appeared as a fugitive at Barton's farm and the fact that he appears with the Helicarrier gets set-up there ('I hope to do something dramatic') and does not mean Shield still exists.

Tony angrily shooting Sam was slapstick? Really?

 

[Lantern Venom]

I didn't like the amount of silliness in Ant-Man, and I was hoping that it didn't signal a larger shift where MS would increase the adequate amount of humor in their offerings. CA:CW alleviated my fears. It was a serious story and MS only sprinkled in the humor. As long as there is an appropriate variance among their characters, I don't think there is a problem....yet.

I definitely think Coulson being alive again should have been addressed by now as well.

I agree that it's long overdue.

 

[Flint Marko]

I don't get how you can say it's "arbitrary". The average viewer is not going to immediately connect the Netflix series to the MCU brand, therefore allowing Marvel Films to maintain their perfect "fun for the whole family" image.

I don't think that's the case, but even so why does it matter? Again, you said both tones should coexist in the same universe, and they do. Your whole argument is essentially "they don't co-exist in the exact manner I like, therefore it doesn't count".

 

[MbJ]

Whedon brushed over the end to IM3, tossing Tony right back into a suit, no questions asked. He ignored TDW my trashing the concept of Thor leaving Asgard for Jane.

I could maybe give you Iron Man 3 since yeah, Civil War even felt it had to throw in a line to explain why Tony was back in the suit during AOU after what happened in IM3, but there are explicit references to The Dark World. Just because Jane didn't show up, that doesn't mean the movie was ignored. Thor flat out mentions the Convergence and says Jane's research on it made her famous, we see a shot of the Aether, and Thor references it when he says that several of the Infinity Stones have shown themselves in the last few years.

I'm more lenient on Whedon possibly walking back on IM3 because, remember, that movie was made back when it wasn't known whether or not RDJ would be staying with the MCU. He was at the end of his contract and was publicly talking about how he might not be coming back for Avengers 2 because he felt he was getting too old to be playing an action hero. It was a huge deal when he subsequently signed on to do Avengers 2 and Civil War.

So it seems like Iron Man 3 was deliberately structured so that it could be an ending for the character in case Robert decided not to come back.

 

[harryoscop]

I don't get how you can say it's "arbitrary". The average viewer is not going to immediately connect the Netflix series to the MCU brand, therefore allowing Marvel Films to maintain their perfect "fun for the whole family" image..

 

[MbJ]

It is arbitrary. If the argument is that a "healthy" cinematic universe would have the TV characters in the movies, then it falls apart almost immediately. The franchise is consistently one of the highest grossing in all of Hollywood.

Clearly Quake and Daredevil not showing up in Civil War was not as big a deal to most people as some of the fans seem to have thought it would be.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I don't get how you can say it's "arbitrary". The average viewer is not going to immediately connect the Netflix series to the MCU brand, therefore allowing Marvel Films to maintain their perfect "fun for the whole family" image.

I agree that it's long overdue.

If anything I think Coulsen himself would have told them by now.

 

[TeeKay]

I don't get how you can say it's "arbitrary". The average viewer is not going to immediately connect the Netflix series to the MCU brand, therefore allowing Marvel Films to maintain their perfect "fun for the whole family" image.

Whether you like it or not it exits in the MCU. To be honest I don't really get what your point is here.

Whedon brushed over the end to IM3, tossing Tony right back into a suit, no questions asked. He ignored TDW my trashing the concept of Thor leaving Asgard for Jane. He then completely overruled the whole point of TWS by having Fury magically show up with a Helicarrier to save the day in the end.

Tony never quit being IM. It should have been written better sure but it's a common misconception that he quit. His whole arc was based around the fact whether he could be IM with or without the suit. Does the man make the suit or does the suit make the man. He ends the film saying I AM IRON MAN. At the start of AoU, after infiltrating as Struckers castle, Tony immediately exists his suit once. This is his character development from IM3. The suit Has now become a tool instead of a crutch and he is comfortable in his own skin and his ability to be away from the armour, something he could not do it IM3. Show don't tell. Tony officially called it quits at the end of AoU.

Whedon did not ignore TDW. He addresses it. Thor ended that film on earth and he started AoU on earth with the Avengers. Thor talks about the events of TDW.

Shield is not back in AoU. Like I said I even felt that it was a bit of a deus machina that Fury showed up with that Helicarrier. (I hadn't caught up with AoS then) but I don't think he over rules anything. Fury was still in hiding in AoU and he gathers up the remnants of shield agents to help the Avengers at the end. That could have been integrated better though.

I'm referencing Falcon getting shot immediately after the accident, which at least in my theater came off a slapstick and ruined the gravity of the moment.

What? Tony angrily shooting Falcon was slapstick? I sure as well wasn't laughing.

 

[CaptainWagner]

The movie Begins in medias res,a well-known narrative tecnique where you don't have to explain everything.You may not like it but there's no objective flaw in it,it's just a story choice.

Tony never retired from being Iron Man. IM3 ends with the 'I am Iron Man' line and his goal during the movie is still to get rid of suits of armor through the Ultron program.

Jane and the Convergence are mentioned by Thor during the party scene.

Fury first appeared as a fugitive at Barton's farm and the fact that he appears with the Helicarrier gets set-up there ('I hope to do something dramatic') and does not mean Shield still exists.

Tony angrily shooting Sam was slapstick? Really?

If Whedon chooses to rub over good plot points from other directors to tell his own story, that is a flaw in my opinion. Tony having to put the suit back on to face Ultron would have been a better arc than what we got, and highlight the flaw in his reliance on A.I. The mentioning of Jane and Thor's casual return to Asgard eliminates any ramifications from the already forgettable TDW. And bringing back Fury and whatever you want to call his organization through a kink into the setup for Civil War and had to be ignored by the Russos for their story to work, besides being an awful deus ex machina.

And maybe it was just my personal expirience, but the whole theater laughed at Tony shooting Falcon in my viewing.

I don't think that's the case, but even so why does it matter? Again, you said both tones should coexist in the same universe, and they do. Your whole argument is essentially "they don't co-exist in the exact manner I like, therefore it doesn't count".

My point is that Marvel's MOVIES should have different tones because the MOVIES are still the prime focus of the universe. Instead we have one expected tone for the movies and another for the Netflix shows.

I could maybe give you Iron Man 3 since yeah, Civil War even felt it had to throw in a line to explain why Tony was back in the suit during AOU after what happened in IM3, but there are explicit references to The Dark World. Just because Jane didn't show up, that doesn't mean the movie was ignored. Thor flat out mentions the Convergence and says Jane's research on it made her famous, we see a shot of the Aether, and Thor references it when he says that several of the Infinity Stones have shown themselves in the last few years.

I'm more lenient on Whedon possibly walking back on IM3 because, remember, that movie was made back when it wasn't known whether or not RDJ would be staying with the MCU. He was at the end of his contract and was publicly talking about how he might not be coming back for Avengers 2 because he felt he was getting too old to be playing an action hero. It was a huge deal when he subsequently signed on to do Avengers 2 and Civil War.

So it seems like Iron Man 3 was deliberately structured so that it could be an ending for the character in case Robert decided not to come back.

That's not what I meant. I was referencing Thor choosing to leave Asgard for Jane, which is a HUGE plot point for the character and was rendered moot by AOU.

 

[TeeKay]

Can you please elaborate on the Thor/Jane thing? I'm confused. Ihave no idea what your point is here.

 

[MadVillainy]

A lot of my theater laughed at the Falcon getting shot moment
It was handled weirdly but I dont think it was meant to be funny

 

[MbJ]

If anything I think Coulsen himself would have told them by now.

The Avengers don't care about Coulson.

That's not what I meant. I was referencing Thor choosing to leave Asgard for Jane, which is a HUGE plot point for the character and was rendered moot by AOU.

He had to leave Jane because he found out about some massive universal threat on the horizon that demanded his attention. He didn't just get sick of her and decide to leave.

And then of course there's the real world circumstances that had to be factored in. They wanted a new team of Avengers for Civil War (and while I'm sure they didn't have any say over this decision, the Russos said they didn't want Hulk or Thor in the conflict) and given that they ended up dropping Jane from Thor 3, the plot point about Thor choosing her over Asgard would've been undone regardless.