MCU: The Marvel Cinematic Universe Official Discussion - Part 3

[DigificWriter]

A narrative that is part of a broader universe has to be able to be understood/experienced on its own (and at any time) independent of its connections to said broader universe, or else it has no inherent value outside of its connections to said broader universe.

If Agents of Shield cannot be understood without being experienced 'in real time', it has no inherent narrative value on its own.

General audiences shouldn't have to be required to see Thor: The Dark World and Captain America: The Winter Soldier in order to enjoy watching Agents of Shield, even if they were experiencing Agents of Shield as it aired on a week-to-week basis.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

It's the internet. More time & effort is put into arguing about how to watch the show than actually watching it.

But watching it would allow judging it's quality based on content rather than delivery method which apparently is the only thing worth considering so whatever.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

At this point I have to assume that DW is simply trolling

 

[SirStrangefolk]

A narrative that is part of a broader universe has to be able to be understood/experienced on its own (and at any time) independent of its connections to said broader universe, or else it has no inherent value outside of its connections to said broader universe.

If Agents of Shield cannot be understood without being experienced 'in real time', it has no inherent narrative value on its own.

General audiences shouldn't have to be required to see Thor: The Dark World and Captain America: The Winter Soldier in order to enjoy watching Agents of Shield, even if they were experiencing Agents of Shield as it aired on a week-to-week basis.

It can very well be enjoyed on it's own. You can also watch and enjoy Thor without ever watching Iron Man 2 or the Incredible Hulk, but if you go watch Age of Ultron first and then CA: The First Avenger as if they happened in that order, you'll be confused. Same goes here. AOS doesn't need the films, but that doesn't mean that if you watch both and watch them out of order there won't be things that don't match up well.

 

[DigificWriter]

AOS doesn't need the films, but that doesn't mean that if you watch both and watch them out of order there won't be things that don't match up well.

Actually, that's exactly what it SHOULD mean. If AoS cannot be enjoyed entirely on its own - and at any time - without things making 100% sense relative to its own self-contained narrative, it holds no inherent narrative value in and of itself.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

Actually, that's exactly what it SHOULD mean. If AoS cannot be enjoyed entirely on its own - and at any time - without things making 100% sense relative to its own self-contained narrative, it holds no inherent narrative value in and of itself.

One question, have you watched AoS?

Also, second question, have you ever watched a modern TV show at all? Take GoT season 3 episode 9 for example. the episode itself is part of a bigger narrative and wouldn't be fully unterstood without seeing seasons 1, 2 and episodes 1-8 of season 3 before. by your own definition, would you say, 'Rains of Castamere' has no inherent narrative value?

 

[SirStrangefolk]

Actually, that's exactly what it SHOULD mean. If AoS cannot be enjoyed entirely on its own - and at any time - without things making 100% sense relative to its own self-contained narrative, it holds no inherent narrative value in and of itself.

What I'm saying is exactly the opposite of that. I keep stressing that it can be enjoyed entirely on its own at any time, with things making 100% sense relative to its own self-contained narrative. It's just that if you first tell someone who doesn't know anything about history the history of WWII and then that of WWI as if that was the chronological order things happened, some things won't match up, even though both are perfectly understandable on their own.

 

[Mike Murdock]

Agents of SHIELD and TWS have spoilers for each other that are designed to be seen in a certain order. Certainly, if you need to watch something completely before the next thing, watch TWS first. But we're talking about episodic television. There's no reason why you can't watch a movie in between two episodes.

 

[Art Freak]

I'm reminded of this scene:

[YT]qvPugcb7QGE[/YT]

 

[Whiskey Tango]

I'm reminded of this scene:

Only use the part of the URL after the = between the yt tags bud

In this case qvPugcb7QGE

[YT]qvPugcb7QGE[/YT]

 

[Art Freak]

Thanks! I'll get my brain from The Wizard some day.

 

[Dr. Evil]

As Jeph Loeb has already said a million times "it's all connected."

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Thanks! I'll get my brain from The Wizard some day.

Nah, the tags are just unintuitive. Nobody makes their first jump.

 

[flickchick85]

A narrative that is part of a broader universe has to be able to be understood/experienced on its own (and at any time) independent of its connections to said broader universe, or else it has no inherent value outside of its connections to said broader universe.

If Agents of Shield cannot be understood without being experienced 'in real time', it has no inherent narrative value on its own.

General audiences shouldn't have to be required to see Thor: The Dark World and Captain America: The Winter Soldier in order to enjoy watching Agents of Shield, even if they were experiencing Agents of Shield as it aired on a week-to-week basis.

Those movies aren't required to enjoy AoS. It works fine on its own. People are just splitting it up to honor the chronology of events within the universe. TWS happens chronologically at a specific point within AoS's first season, so people are just saying that it works BEST when watched that way, the order Marvel intended them to be watched. It's a weekly series that runs concurrently to events happening in a series of movies, so OF COURSE movies are going to take place in between episodes of the series. That's just the nature of the format. The movies are just other episodes, basically. No one's saying AoS doesn't work it all if you don't watch it that way, just that it works the best in the viewing order that was intended.

While a slightly different scenario, the Buffy/Angel comparison is still apt, imo: they work fine on their own, but best when viewed in chronological continuity.

 

[BatsDC]

The ONLY MCU films I mess with:

Iron Man - 4.5 / 5
Iron Man 2 (kinda) - 3 / 5
Winter Soldier - 4 / 5

The rest are corny AF. Avengers, and GOTG are particularly corny. Chris Pratt is about as annoying as it gets. Can't wait for him to ruin my Jurassic Park franchise. Ugh.

Yet you enjoyed Ninja Turtles?

 

[Flint Marko]

Yet you enjoyed Ninja Turtles?

I've found there are certain people hell-bent on criticizing the MCU for whatever reason regardless of whether or not that criticism actually makes sense.

 

[Art Freak]

It's just trendy to besmirch what it is great. Never has a franchise/studio been able to do what they've done. Ten tentpole movies (with many more to come) that objectively have all been critical and box office successes and two (soon to be six) TV shows all with a thriving and evolving throughline of continuity. Just because one likes something else better doesn't mean this here isn't good.

 

[DigificWriter]

Those movies aren't required to enjoy AoS. It works fine on its own. People are just splitting it up to honor the chronology of events within the universe. TWS happens chronologically at a specific point within AoS's first season, so people are just saying that it works BEST when watched that way, the order Marvel intended them to be watched. It's a weekly series that runs concurrently to events happening in a series of movies, so OF COURSE movies are going to take place in between episodes of the series. That's just the nature of the format. The movies are just other episodes, basically. No one's saying AoS doesn't work it all if you don't watch it that way, just that it works the best in the viewing order that was intended.

While a slightly different scenario, the Buffy/Angel comparison is still apt, imo: they work fine on their own, but best when viewed in chronological continuity.

As a die-hard Buffy/ANGEL fan, I have to say that I disagree with you that those shows 'work best' when intercut chronologically. There's no noticeable difference between watching them consecutively or watching them simultaneously.

 

[kedrell]

I've found there are certain people hell-bent on criticizing the MCU for whatever reason regardless of whether or not that criticism actually makes sense.

The old saying of you really can't argue with success, applies I think. It used to bug me somewhat with all the stuff critics would complain about. But ever since Avengers I'm just like 'cool story, bro' whenever I come across them because at this point it's like they're trying to take down an aircraft carrier with a BB-gun. Let'em complain, who gives a **** anyway?

 

[flickchick85]

As a die-hard Buffy/ANGEL fan, I have to say that I disagree with you that those shows 'work best' when intercut chronologically. There's no noticeable difference between watching them consecutively or watching them simultaneously.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that, then. I find there to be a pretty significant difference since some storylines start on one show and finish on the other, each serves to further flesh out the universe and arcs of characters who appear on both, and each one references events in the other, so watching them together definitely feels like a more complete experience to me.

 

[Flint Marko]

The old saying of you really can't argue with success, applies I think. It used to bug me somewhat with all the stuff critics would complain about. But ever since Avengers I'm just like 'cool story, bro' whenever I come across them because at this point it's like they're trying to take down an aircraft carrier with a BB-gun. Let'em complain, who gives a **** anyway?

I'm not going to pretend that Marvel is at all above criticism but some people are truly grasping at straws to try and drum up criticisms. For instance, in another thread right now I am in a debate with someone who continually asserts that iron man 3 is a "failure".

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Well you know Ben Kingsley ruined everyones childhood in that movie apparently

The legion of hardcore Mandarin fans that no one knew existed were very upset.

 

[kedrell]

I'm not going to pretend that Marvel is at all above criticism but some people are truly grasping at straws to try and drum up criticisms. For instance, in another thread right now I am in a debate with someone who continually asserts that iron man 3 is a "failure".

I have some level of critique for all of the MCU films. There's not one in the bunch that I think is flawless and above being criticized. But that's still a far cry from bemoaning Marvel Studios as if they are ruining Hollywood(along with the rest of the superhero genre doing that as well) that I keep seeing in article after article posted in the op-ed sections of entertainment news sites and such. Just googling 'superheroes, Hollywood, bad' will net you a flood of cinephile b**ching and moaning. I read them now just to get a good chuckle at the expense of those cry babies.

I saw your debate in the other thread. Good luck. I've lost all interest in defending that which really doesn't need my help to defend it. It's record stands well against such vitriol all on it's own, IMO. Besides,I don't have the energy for that debate crap anymore.

 

[Art Freak]

Besides,I don't have the energy for that debate crap anymore.

Weren't you in like multiple debates on another board only a few weeks back? I might be mixing you up though. I swear there was something about Mockingbird's costume as well as one or two other concurrent debates within the same pages. It went on and on and...

 

[DigificWriter]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that, then. I find there to be a pretty significant difference since some storylines start on one show and finish on the other, each serves to further flesh out the universe and arcs of characters who appear on both, and each one references events in the other, so watching them together definitely feels like a more complete experience to me.

The only Buffy/ANGEL episodes that absolutely HAVE to be seen chronologically intercut are The Harsh Light of Day/In the Dark (BtVS 4x03/AtS 1x03), Pangs/I Will Remember You (BtVS 4x08/AtS 1x08), and Sanctuary/The Yoko Factor (AtS 1x19/BtVS 4x20).

Otherwise, the two series can very much be viewed independently and 'in a vacuum' without losing anything whatsoever in terms of narrative value.

I digress, though, because we're off-topic.