Remove ads

The Limitations of the MCU

Vympel

Vympel



The video is three parts long and quite good. It's not some sort of 'takedown' of the MCU but it is Willems thoughts on why he's not as excited about Endgame as he thought he'd be and an exploration of the reasons why that might be.

TL;DW:

- The lack of consequences, growth and lasting change;
- The slide into more generic visual storytelling; and
- the same standard look across all the movies and the same kind of CGI-filled action scenes.

(this is a summary. There are exceptions to everything)

One of the most interesting parts about the series is how complimentary he is of Joss Whedon and (by comparison) critical of the Russo Brothers. He makes a compelling argument that Whedon was/is extremely talented at shooting superheroes in an interesting, dynamic way that recognises their comic book roots, especially during action scenes. By comparison, Russo Brothers action scenes don't have much charm.

Anyway it's like ... an hour and a half long but I think it's a decent watch.
 
One of the things that, at least to me, sells the MCU across the movies is that it all shares a similar look. Each cape has their own twists and turns, but all of them talk from the same visual manual. Black Panther has some more African themes, while Iron Man is more straight techno, versus Captain Ameria's soldier, but all of them have a similar reality+ design language.
 
Ithillid said:
One of the things that, at least to me, sells the MCU across the movies is that it all shares a similar look. Each cape has their own twists and turns, but all of them talk from the same visual manual. Black Panther has some more African themes, while Iron Man is more straight techno, versus Captain Ameria's soldier, but all of them have a similar reality+ design language.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think his point is more about the way they're shot. In that regard he points to the Phase 1 films versus the subsequent phases - there's some interesting side-by-side comparisons that show that Phase 1 was actually a lot more colorful and well lit, whereas the Phase 2 movies and beyond - particularly in outdoor daylight scenes, can look quite flat and colorless.

One thing that really got me is in Part 2. There's a discussion where he points out - quite accurately I think - that in Infinity War Iron Man's Armor looks ... really not very good when compared to say, Iron Man 2 a decade ago. There's a noticeable lack of texture and detail. And he speculates it may be because of the dramatic increase in VFX shots over time.

EDIT: not just speculates, I forget. The industry is overworked:

'Black Panther' is amazing. Why are its CG models so terrible?

It's not just a matter of visual effects companies getting lazy. As movies have started to rely even more on complex VFX, the firms creating them are overworked, underpaid and, at times, literally fighting for survival, according to one person who has worked on several recent blockbusters (and who asked to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of their work). That's led to a decline in overall quality, even while some studios continue to push new boundaries, like WETA, with its work in the recent Planet of the Apes trilogy.

Big-budget films used to require between 500 and 1,000 VFX shots, but that number is now regularly between 1,000 and 2,000, according to VFX Movies' comprehensive chart. For example, The Fellowship of the Ring had just 480 visual effects shots in 2001, while the recent Hobbit films each featured around 2,000. (That's also a clear example of how more effects don't necessarily lead to better-looking movies.) Some of the biggest blockbusters today, like Captain America: Civil War and Avengers: Age of Ultron, required an astounding 3,000 VFX shots. To get all of this work done, Hollywood studios regularly enlist a large number of firms for a single film. Around a dozen worked on Black Panther, while Thor: Ragnarok had more than 20 companies churning out visual effects.

"It takes enormous teams to put this [VFX work] together. It takes individuals with specific skills sets to do it," the insider said. "Movie studios need so much work, and they're only willing to pay so much. The VFX are accounting for a pretty serious chunk of these $100 to $200 million budgets, but even that isn't enough to cover the sheer amount of shots."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That they've started handing off action scenes to effects supervisors and not directors is also a point that's made by reference to the recent Black Widow 'don't worry about action scenes' mini-controversy:

Lucrecia Martel Turned Down 'Black Widow' Because Marvel Said "Don't Worry About The Action Scenes" — Here's Why It's Not Unusual
 
Last edited:
Honestly phase 3 has been the greatest. Tony Steve and the others have evolved considerably and the villains are more dynamic. I liked captain America iron man 1 and 1st Avenger film but honestly phase 1 was eh.
 
The problem with the MCU is the same as the problem with Marvel Comics in general which this video touches on in the illusion of change segment.

Thesis statement: The MCU is basically a redo of the original envisioned scale of the Marvel comics of the 60s and 70s. Sure, some of the characters are different (no Fantastic Four, no Spider-Man, no X-men) and the origins are modernised and there are bits and pieces taken from later day storylines which filled in gaps well but Phase 1 and Phase 2 are very much a retread. This is problematic because it runs into the exact same pitfalls of those comics as well - you can only do world changing events so many times before the world ceases to be recognisable. In order to maintain the illusion of "the world just outside your window" conflicts have to be personal and the amazing technology and magic and all the aliens can't be allowed to meaningfully impact the day to day realities of american life. Which is to say that for all of the vaunted and complex continuity of a shared universe eventually it has to die for the serial to keep going.

To put this more succintly;

Tom Brevoort said:
It's been approximately 13 years since the Fantastic Four first debuted, in Marvel Time.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This wouldn't necessarily be a problem if Marvel comics were actually still set in the 70s (it would just give them pretty horrendous pacing) but again we know that Marvel is actually "the world just outside your window" so the Fantastic Four of the modern day needs to be happening in 2019 even though they only debuted 13 years ago, meaning they debuted in 2003. Every year, the year of origin also travels forwards one year. What this did is completely destroy any sense of progression, not just for the narratives but for the characters as well. Peter Parker can never properly move on with his life and become a successful adult, he's always going to be right on the cusp of it because that's when he's best received. Reed and Sue will never retire to let Franklin take over the family business. Bruce Banner will never finally be left to his own devices. The X-men will never achieve equality despite fighting for it for going on 80 years. And so on.

If we go through the basic arcs of the Phase 1 MCU big players you can see where this is beginning to creep in.

- Iron Man goes to a foreign country that the US is at war with and gets into an accident which forces him to confront the personal responsibility he needs to have over the weapons he manufactures.
- Captain America is created by the US government but his close and personal interaction with the underbelly of a government at war causes him to distrust them and go his own way.
- Hulk is a living weapon that people want to control but Bruce Banner would like to be free.
- Thor is the darling prince about to inherit the throne but in order to do so properly he must first learn to be a true hero for his people.

If those sound familiar it's because bits of these arcs get recycled in every subsequent movie. Tony's arc is always centred on responsibility, Cap often seems to run into bad government, Hulk always happens to wind up being controlled by someone or else fighting against it, Thor always has a new lesson in Kingship to learn, etc. Things are still happening but the further through the MCU you get, the slower they appear. Arcs are now incredibly decompressed; Cap turning his back on shield happens over the course of like three or four movies; the Steve vs. Tony conflict evolves over the course of three or four movies as well.

All of this is to say that the MCU - with the recent run of Infinity War into Captain Marvel into Endgame - has just hit the inflection point where Marvel Time has to take over from Real Time for things to keep making sense.

(This is entirely a criticism of the cinematic universe concept as applied by Marvel, it says nothing about the quality of the individual movies which on average seem to be on an upwards trend.)

Edit: also this is exactly why I'm insanely hyped for Endgame, it's basically the end of the MCU as far as I'm concerned because I'm pretty sure after it continuity will evaporate. It really does feel like I'm going to see the culmination of this grand experiment in telling one story over 22 (?) movies. Even as Marvel keeps going after Endgame I will no longer feel compelled to see the films except as stand alones.
 
Last edited:
I don't agree. Let's compare the two main heroes Tony and Steve

Tony: Iron Man1 sees him shut down the weapons division after facing the consequences. Iron Man 2 sees him acting like a jerk buts largely because as far as he knows he's going to die. By Agr of Ultron he's acting out of a desire to prevent tragedy and he now is more open to government insight.

Steve: distrust grows after events of first avenger, crystallizes after hydra and is informed by his sense of loss. In the first movie he completely has faith in the government. It's only after avengers 1 and winter soldier that he starts doubting. So he's not the same character

Technology has progressed and it's pretty heavily hinted that tony and Steve are going to die or else retire for good.

The movies aren't even close to the comics in terms of marvel time.
 
Last edited:
The fetishization of continuity and connectedness, along with the idea that a story needs to have a fixed end point that every chapter/episode/movie/whatever must inexorably march towards, is dumb as hell and needs to be dialed way the heck down.
 
Last edited:
Considering the MCU pretty much the only movie serie to have this many movies and characters in such little ammount of time, I feel it's a bit like asking much considering this is new territory in a lot of way
 
Arthur Frayn said:
The fetishization of continuity and connectedness, along with the idea that a story needs to have a fixed end point that every chapter/episode/movie must inexorably march towards, is dumb as hell and needs to be dialed way the heck down.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Depends. If you don't have an endpoint you just repeat the same stories again and again.

Secret wars 2015 was the perfect endpoint for the 4. They go off to rebuild the multiverse doom lets go of his hatred and things are good.


The way I see it the universe should endure but characters need to have their story end
 
Arthur Frayn said:
The fetishization of continuity and connectedness, along with the idea that a story needs to have a fixed end point that every chapter/episode/movie/whatever must inexorably march towards, is dumb as hell and needs to be dialed way the heck down.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This is basically a massive strawman. Nobody said that everything needs to "march inexorably" towards the endpoint just that the endpoint has to, you know, exist. The story has to stop eventually; if you don't agree that a story even needs to have an ending in the first place then I don't think we can get much further than a 'lets agree to disagree' on this.
 
Ithillid said:
One of the things that, at least to me, sells the MCU across the movies is that it all shares a similar look. Each cape has their own twists and turns, but all of them talk from the same visual manual. Black Panther has some more African themes, while Iron Man is more straight techno, versus Captain Ameria's soldier, but all of them have a similar reality+ design language.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is sort of why Dr Strange is one of the only ones that actually stood out to me over the past few years. It's visual style was the only one to really stand out from the pack
 
the atom said:
This is sort of why Dr Strange is one of the only ones that actually stood out to me over the past few years. It's visual style was the only one to really stand out from the pack
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's just too bad that the rest of it kind of sucks :V

Also honestly as a film it's actually not really that unique? I don't even mean in the sense that Strange is Tony Stark but with magic and a medical background, but there's a certain samey-ness to the way it's put together as a film. There's a clear house style at play. That's probably one of the reasons why the franchise has been so successful: the films have a really consistent style which appeals to fans, and which is easy to digest.

I really liked Black Panther, but compare it to Creed and you can see the difference in terms of Coogler's powers as a director.
 
I liked strange; they did Stephen with enough panache, they experimented a fair bit (Moro's is far more sympathetic here than in the comics and strange outsmarts dormammu instead of fighting him.)

Delirium is right that an endpoint is needed but he's overly pessimistic. For the most part the characters have developed quite nicely and by all implications Steve and tony are both going to either die or retire. Either way the torch is being passed to a new generation.
 
LordYam said:
I liked strange; they did Stephen with enough panache, they experimented a fair bit (Moro's is far more sympathetic here than in the comics and strange outsmarts dormammu instead of fighting him.)

Delirium is right that an endpoint is needed but he's overly pessimistic. For the most part the characters have developed quite nicely and by all implications Steve and tony are both going to either die or retire. Either way the torch is being passed to a new generation.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
On the one hand, yes, an endpoint (or endgame, as you might call it) is needed. On the other hand, popular characters bring in money, which incentivizes the so-called Marvel Time effect. People thought the Original Avengers were getting retired at the end of Avengers 2, but here we are with them still going strong. Really, the only character who seems to change much is Tony Stark, who still remains much the same despite arguably evolving every movie he's in.
 
Caps become more jaded and cynical. Also most didn't because thanos was coming.
 
Ford Prefect said:
I really liked Black Panther, but compare it to Creed and you can see the difference in terms of Coogler's powers as a director.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This to me is the biggest, most important issue with the MCU. Like you can talk about the fundamental issues with how the movies are structured, or the boring music, or the CGI or whatever. But the biggest chink in the armor is the fact that the movies are so standardized that no one director or creative team can take a superhero story and create their own, unique form of it that'll change the way we look at these kinds of movies.

Sam Raimi's Spiderman is Sam Raimi's Spiderman. And Tim Burton's Batman is Tim Burton's Batman. But Ryan Cooler's Black Panther is just Marvel's Black Panther directed by Ryan Cooler. And that just kind of sucks.

Also, their assertion that NO. YOU CANT PISS. You have to see the WHOLE MOVIE because it's ALL IMPORTANT feels like kind of a limitation.
 
Last edited:
Reveen said:
This to me is the biggest, most important issue with the MCU. Like you can talk about the fundamental issues with how the movies are structured, or the boring music, or the CGI or whatever. But the biggest chink in the armor is the fact that the movies are so standardized that no one director or creative team can take a superhero story and create their own, unique form of it that'll change the way we look at these kinds of movies.

Sam Raimi's Spiderman is Sam Raimi's Spiderman. And Tim Burton's Batman is Tim Burton's Batman. But Ryan Cooler's Black Panther is just Marvel's Black Panther directed by Ryan Cooler. And that just kind of sucks.

Also, their assertion that NO. YOU CANT PISS. You have to see the WHOLE MOVIE because it's ALL IMPORTANT feels like kind of a limitation.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

A big chunk of the MCU is kind've standardized (the Russo Brothers aren't exactly the world's most dynamic directors), but there's a lot of Ryan Coogler threaded through Black Panther, just as Iron Man 3 and Thor: Ragnarok are unmistakably their respective directors own visions. I'd also argue the first Thor and Captain America films are pretty unique to their respective directors.

But like, none of the Bond movies really pop as individual films? Aside from maaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyybeeee Skyfall (and that's like, 80% just Deakins being Deakins) all of the Bond films blend together and are fairly standardized, and nobody really has a problem with that.
 
The Narrative Experiment That Is the Marvel Cinematic Universe

Earlier this month, Marvel Studios announced that the prèmiere of "Avengers: Endgame" would be preceded by marathon screenings of all the movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, or M.C.U. Since the M.C.U. consists, to date, of twenty-two movies, the screenings were fifty-nine hours and seven minutes long. They topped the thirty-one-hour screenings held last year, before the prèmiere of "Avengers: Infinity War," and the twenty-nine-hour screenings held in 2015, before the release of "Avengers: Age of Ultron." An M.C.U. marathon is "equal parts dare, endurance test, and assertion of fan dominance," the reporter Alex Abad-Santos wrote, at Vox, after a pre-"Ultron" screening. Alex McLevy, a writer and editor at the A.V. Club, described the event he attended as "beyond anything I have ever experienced in a movie theater. . . . It's beautiful, and terrifying."
When "Iron Man" came out, in 2008, it was a standalone film. Moviegoers didn't know that it would kick off a titanic interconnected narrative that, during the next decade, would include aliens thrashing New York City ("The Avengers"); a space jailbreak ("Guardians of the Galaxy"); a "Terminator"-style robot insurrection ("Avengers: Age of Ultron"); a civil war ("Captain America: Civil War"); and an apocalypse ("Thor: Ragnarok"). Although the subtitle of the newest film, "Endgame," suggests a conclusion, there are more movies on the horizon, including "Spider-Man: Far from Home," sequels to "Black Panther" and "Doctor Strange," and a third installment of "Guardians of the Galaxy." Last month, Disney paid seventy-one billion dollars for 21st Century Fox's entertainment business, insuring that Marvel characters previously owned by Fox—including Deadpool, the X-Men, and the Fantastic Four—could appear in future additions to the M.C.U.
Though some fans complain about substandard movies and ever-lengthening runtimes, audiences remain invested in the M.C.U.: "Avengers: Infinity War" was the fourth-highest-grossing movie of all time, closely followed, in the top ten, by "The Avengers," "Avengers: Age of Ultron," and "Black Panther." It seems likely, in other words, that the M.C.U. will continue to expand for the foreseeable future. This raises questions both superheroic and narratological. Will half of all the people on Earth, who were snuffed out at the end of "Infinity War," ever be resurrected? And can the M.C.U. really keep expanding? How flexible is a story, ultimately? Can it be extended indefinitely without becoming meaningless, or will it reach some natural limit? How infinite can a fictional world be?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This is an interesting article on the narrative structure of the MCU
 
Considering how endgame ended I'm pretty sure a lot of worries were disproven
 
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top