Showing posts with label Marvel Studios. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Marvel Studios. Show all posts

Monday, 30 October 2017

Thor: Ragnarok Ramble


[Plot spoilers for Thor: Ragnarok. None of the major revelations but if you want to go in completely cold just ignore this one. Good film, though]

First up: judging by the presentation of Hela and Valkyrie the director of this film has some very specific fetishes and I approve of all of them.

On a more serious note I felt this was a very strong movie. I'm of the (mildly unpopular) opinion that the Thor movies are rather the weak link of the MCU: I found the first one a bit bland and the second one had a lot of issues, not least of which was its determination to waste just about every actor who wasn't Hemsworth or Hiddleston. Now, I like Loki as much as the next man (and members of every other gender regardless of orientation, Hiddleston's just that hot) but there was a lot more I felt could be done with that cast. Giving Christopher Ecclestone more lines in English, for a bloody start.

I was worried going in that the film might be biting off more than it could tell. I mean, the trailers were promising a story about Hela attacking Asgard and an adaptation of Planet Hulk. They also had to pay off the cliffhanger to Dark World and resolve the teaser from the end of Doctor Strange. That's a lot of plot but damn me if the movie didn't absolutely deliver.

Yes, its a lot funnier than the previous two even though Thor has probably been the most comedic member of the Avengers. There were a lot of laugh out loud moments in the cinema. Not least of which were the scenes where Anthony Hopkins is obviously loving playing Odin-who-is-secretly-Loki. The man doesn't get enough chances to play comedy since he became a venerable, wise looking old man several years before I was born and I hope people see this and realise there's potential there.

Loki, of course, is a big draw and his actions in this movie make me hope for a permanent face turn in the future. I say that as an unabashed fan of Keiron Gillen and Al Ewing's work on the character and wanting to see Hiddleston play the Agent of Asgard version of the character. The scene, released on YouTube and such as a teaser, between Thor and Loki in the elevator finally discussing their issues, is pitched perfectly and actually rather affecting.

Immigrant Song is actually a fantastic choice for a recurring song in this one, I can't say why but it works amazingly every time its used (and its used a lot). That wasn't just a trailer thing.

As the MCU goes on I begin to wonder if the Avengers films work as well as all that. The first one was a party in celebration of its own existence and the second was really just the first one again but with robots instead of aliens. Seeing as how well Hulk works in this film it might actually be a better approach to just have people turning up in each other's movies than just saving it all for a big team crossover every couple of years. Just a thought.

But, yeah, the Hulk works great here and there's even a scene where Banner and Thor talk super-science because even though Thor is a self-confessed non-scientist he comes from a culture so advanced that “not good at science” translates to “capable of rattling off theoretical physics” by Earth standards. Its also fun to have Thor and trying to bring Hulk down enough to get Banner back because of all the Avengers Thor is the least capable when it comes to emotions and this the funniest to put in a position where he has to be emotionally supportive and caring.

Speaking of Sakaar, Jeff Goldblum as the Grandmaster is Jeff Goldblum and if he isn't improvising half his lines its because the part was written perfectly for him. The whole set-up of Sakaar and its absolutely perfect live action adaptation of Jack Kirby's art style is a joy to watch, Its nice that Marvel managed something appropriate to the King's hundredth birthday somewhere. Pity it wasn't in an actual comic but there we are, let the Distinguished Competition corner that market.

Pillocks.

Oh, not to say how and why but at bloody last Marvel does something with the fact that Odin, as well as being a white bearded Christian-style paternal god, is also a trickster figure. That is a genuine problem I've always had with the Marvel version of Odin: the fact that he's only fifty percent Odinic. There's also a wonder moment of parallelism between Thor's development and the mythical origins of Odin but, again, can't say how because spoilers.

Cate Blanchett, of course, is amazing as Hela and if he sees this Peter Jackson is going to be kicking himself that he thought shooting a scene in green photographic negative was the best way to portray evil Blanchett. She's also ably assisted by an unexpected (at least to me) Karl Urban.

No Sif, sadly. Not for any great reason, it turns out. They just didn't contact the actress with filming dates soon enough and she was working on something else on another continent.

Still, we get Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie and she is glorious. Appropriately for a character who is an independent hero in the comics she clearly has her own storyline and issues coming into the movie, some of which parallel Thor in the first film and come of which don't. If Marvel workshops this character for a while I think she could support her own feature, I really do and I'm not just saying that because she's a gorgeous woman in command of substantial firepower. Valkyrie being bi, incidentally, is entirely a decision of the actress (probably based on researching the character's recent comics history) and not actually something in the plot of the film. I mean, she does what I'm told is known as the “bisexual strut” in the final battle, Wonder Woman-style, but that's genuinely it.

All in all, a strong movie, one of my favourites of the MCU and, I'd argue, the strongest of the Thor movies by far. 

Thursday, 16 April 2015

What can sink Marvel Studios?


This past week the director of DC's upcoming (we hope) Wonder Woman movie quit. The official reason was “creative differences”. The unofficial reason, of course, is that this project is fucking cursed and we will never see this movie happen. At least, that was my initial reaction.

It may not be completely irrational but I do tend to assume disaster on the part of DC's film offerings. True, they have a very long history of not being able to make anything other than Batman work on film but it isn't entirely fair to assume failure for everything they do.

The converse, of course, is Marvel Studios who seem almost incapable of critical failure. So I reach the assumption that losing a director on a legendarily hard prospect of a film might sink the film, if not seriously dent DC's Justice League masterplan but what could sink Marvel's efforts, in theory?

Because one of the odd things about Marvel Studios is that its an absolute machine. The machine is run by talented individuals but seems to have enough redundancy that it can survive losing them. Edgar Wright quit Ant-Man in a way pretty similar to this Wonder Woman situation yet the new director's trailer has character and humaour to spare. Yes, its a trailer and will have most of the best bits cherrypicked for it but there were at least enough good parts to make a cool trailer. Its not like the bedevilled by rewrites and reshoots mess that Fox's recent Fantastic Four represented.

So what else is there?

They've long passed the point of relying on any name recognition beyond “Marvel Studios”. They made a success out of Guardians Of The Galaxy and, in partnership with Pixar, Big Hero Six. These are comics a lot of comic fans hadn't heard of, let alone the general public who could be relied up on to know who the Hulk or Captain America were.

Actors quitting? The Iron Man, Thor and Captain America films are all ending after the third instalment with Marvel's post-Age Of Ultron slate designed to introduce new properties. Even when Thor: The Dark World was impacted by poor actor availability it was entertaining and I'm saying this about what I consider the weakest Marvel film. True, they lost Natalie Portman to dissatisfaction after Dark World but we'll see how that plays out in Ragnarok.

Will it be when they give up on their cherished “loyalty” to the source material? We passed that Rubicon with Guardians Of The Galaxy which massively rewrote the history of most of its main characters and even ignoring that Big Hero 6 was practically a new IP it had so little to do with the original comic. Hell, looking closely at most of their films massive liberties have been taken with almost every character they've used and the supposed loyalty is mainly cosmetic. Of all the headlining characters I'd say only Captain America is a functionally perfect replica of the comics version.

Will they spread themselves too thin? They've released eleven films and three TV shows so far with a five year plan for another twelve films and three shows on the books over the next five years.

Honestly, there's only one thing I think can actually sink Marvel and its the reason I think they have done so well and banked so much good will:

I think this ride ends when it stops being fun. Essentially, if there's a secret to Marvel's success compared to Fox, Sony and Warner its that the people working on these films want to be working on these films. I'm not claiming every Marvel film is a passion project but there's a level of enthusiasm in the finished project that's lacking in a lot of other superhero films, especially the ones made just to satisfy contracts like The Amazing Spider-Man or even the generally better X-Men films. In those stakes DC has the potential to be the worst offender, which is where the real worry about Justice League and its planned spin-offs come in.

Because ultimately its being done to beat Marvel at Marvel's game. I genuinely believe that done right and with the correct level of passion DC has the superior product. Whatever else might be true about the two companies its DC that owns the most famous superheroes in the world: Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman. It absolutely baffles me its taken this long to get a Wonder Woman project off the ground (...ish) because on name recognition alone Marvel has nothing comparable. Their female headlining project? Captain Marvel. Captain chuffing Marvel!

Yeah, I like Carol Danvers fine and she's a real success story for Marvel, this is a movie that deserves to happen but Marvel has a very thin bench for female protagonists compared to DC. Carol genuinely is the best choice that isn't just a woman from a team or the female version of a more recognisable male hero (She-Hulk, otherwise, would be a better choice, in my view).

If I'm not putting this across well: I want the Wonder Woman film to happen, I want it to be good, but I do worry that Warner's historic inability to make anything beyond Batman work worries me. 

Wednesday, 11 February 2015

Spider-Man movies version 3.0


It seems, and by “seems” I mean “has been officially confirmed” that Marvel and Sony have finally agreed to shared custody of the Spider-Man film license.

When I read the news the phrase that struck out to me was “Andrew Garfield will likely be recast”. I did a bit of a double take at that, to be honest, not because I'm particularly fond of his version of Peter Parker but because it sounded harsher than they meant. I mean, recasting Spider-Man I can understand, but to go so far as to recast Andrew Garfield? That's just plain cruel, the lad doesn't deserve that.

As an unabashed Marvel Studios fanboy and a not being fond of the Amazing Spider-Man reboot I'm looking forward to this. It seems the deal is that Sony will continue to make solo Spider-Man projects and Marvel will then use that Spider-Man in crossover projects.

There were rumours a while back that Spider-Man would be the post-credits teaser in Captain America: Civil War, so maybe that's on again. Spider-Man turning up in an Avengers movie is a stone cold bonker certainty just because of the amount of money that would make (an amount of money that has been enough just in theory to make Sony not want to lose the license).

Another reboot, then, and in my own humble opinion I just want to put this out there:

Do we really need another origin? I'm not saying the Andrew Garfield version should continue, that project is pretty much damned by its own critical and financial failure, but that story's been told twice in recent memory and it was hardly obscure to begin with. Uncle Ben is almost as famous an origin as Krypton blowing up or the Waynes being gunned down in the street. Spider-Man is one of the few superheroes where the filmmakers can rely on the audience having a genuine working knowledge of the character.

So maybe this time let's just get on with things? Cover the origin in a flashback or a montage and dive straight into the adventure. One of the problems with Amazing Spider-Man 1 was the creators trying to redo the origin in a way that was markedly different from Raimi's Spider-Man, hence the incoherent speech Michael Sheen rambles his way through instead of saying “With great power comes great responsibility” and the painfully C-list villain.

Of course, this could all go wrong. Marvel will have an exec on the Sony projects so two studios that don't exactly have a history of getting on will be working together closely, pursuing their own projects with the same property simultaneously.

Maybe this will finally be the moment when Marvel Studios finally over-reaches itself. And I'd like to be clear: this prophecy of doom isn't motivated by Sony's involvement, it isn't like I believe them to be completely incapable, depending on my mood I credit them with either two or three decent Spider-Man movies. Rather, I think that what might sink Spider-Man 3.0 is what sunk Spider-Man 2.0 and even the final instalment of Spider-Man 1.0: design by committee. Two companies, two sets of execs reporting to two sets of bean-counters on a multi-billion dollar property.

Maybe tomorrow nothing will have been announced and I can get back to whimsical fun about comics or sexual politics. I keep meaning to write something about the sexual morals of Saved By The Bell (no, seriously) but people will insist on announcing things, its most inconvenient. 

Thursday, 21 November 2013

Random thoughts on Thor: The Dark World

SPOILER WARNING: Since the film has been out for a while (as evidence by my being 20% of the cinema audience) I don't see any reason to restrain myself.

The Mighty Thor in London
I rather like that the “Midgard” bits of the film are set in London. London does seem to attract the godly type of superhero these days what with Wonder Woman moving there a couple of years ago. The Greenwich Meridian seems to be the centre of the universe, which is a bit odd but rather sweet.

Asgard
The one thing I came out of the first film wanting was to see more of the Nine Realms. We got a lot more Asgard in this film, which makes sense, since the first film was about Thor in Jane's world this time we see her in his. She even meets his mum (who is absolutely hardcore, by the way). Natalie Portman wants out of the series after this point, which I don't blame her for as her character has a lot less to do this time round. Still, it might not be a bad thing to drop Jane here, now she's seen Thor's world there's nowhere else to take her really.

I hope they keep Darcy, though.

How to waste Christopher Ecclestone in one easy step
Christopher Ecclestone is a brilliant actor, I think most people will agree. He has a great deal of charisma, an imposing physical presence and great delivery. However, a lot of his power comes from his voice and so having him speaking elven gibberish for half the film was a mistake, there's no other way to put it.

Hogun the Grinning
They wrote him out because the actor was only available briefly, which I can understand, it was a job to do and it was done as well as could be expected.

Guardians of the Galaxy looks fun
The traditional tease for the next film saw Sif and Volstagg delivering the aether, aka the red Infinity Stone, to the Collector who was Benicio delToro acting bloody odd. He also had a bloody odd bright pink minion lady. The acting choices were jarring but I suppose it'll make sense when we see these characters in context with the film they're actually from.

It also makes sense of Thanos' cameo at the end of Avengers Assemble if the Infinity Gems are on the table for this phase of the films. I wonder if there are any other artefacts beyond the aether and the tesseract that might also be “Infinity Stones”.

Chris Evans' cameo
I loved that bit: Chris Evans playing Loki pretending to be Captain America. “Let's have a bracing conversation about truth!” and “Gee, fella!”. You can see the actor having a ball playing the straight aspects of his character for (louder) laughs than normal.

It's all about Loki
You wouldn't have to follow the comicbook sites to know which character from this film is getting his own comic. With Hogun off the board the other two Warriors Three and Lady Sif got a bit sidelined in favour of Loki. Ray Stevenson got some good lines as Vostagg but it really was all about Loki. Which is no bad thing, Tom Hiddlestone plays a great anti-hero/villain and his imprisonment in the earlier half of the film gave him a chance to really convey the character's psychology in ways his previous two turns didn't.

And that ending was a great tease for the next film whenever it's due to come out. 2016 I assume.

Coming soon...

The trailer for Captain America: The Winter Soldier looked amazing. They seem to be going to a Captain America vs. SHIELD idea. 47 Ronin seems interesting but I hope there's more reason for Keanu Reeves' headlining role than Hollywood not being able to handle non-white leading men even in a film clearly about an Asian fantasy world (I did actually think it was the second Last Airbender movie when the trailer started).