[Movie/TV/Comic] Marvel Cinematic Universe: A place to talk all things Marvel

[PrimiOne]

They really haven’t he’s still seen as a joke just instead of such blatant shows like family guy and Big Bang we now have the totally not aqua man of the boys or invincible.

Well I'm actually talking about the opposite.

You can't ( and you shouldn't either) stop the jokes as The Deep because there's gonna be jokes about everyone , absolutely everyone including the serious dark edgy characters as Batman, the Punisher or Wolverine.

The achievement was making possible a serious non-comical depiction of Aquaman. It's not about making the jokes banish...it's about making a version that is not a joke ( that for comic readers was obvious , there's decades and volumes of stories there , but for the broader audiovisual audience was not).

That's why they casted Momoa, the toughest more threatening presence they could find although Karl Drogo/Conan didn't match the classic image of Curry. They looked for the baddest looking motherfucker ( as S.L. Jackson would say) and it worked wonders. This was a case of little to no controversy of race swapping ( well , there's flat earthers in the world, zero controversy is impossible) because most people understood why a change of image was necessary from the bland ass blondie of the comics. I mean, there's people complaining about race swapping in this very page of this very thread ( Namor) , it happens every-single-time and that miraculously barely happened with Momoa.

They sent the message ( and people bought it) : "Dare to laugh at Jason Momo's face if you have balls".

And not only in the visual design of the character and the cast. People crucified the character about the "talking to fish" skill ( because yeah there's an obvious comical part of it) that is present even in DC universe ( Justice League the conversation with Batman) and they changed the narrative: "Do you laugh at talking to fishes? Yeah? Look what talking to fishes achieve".



So in the end it's not about comical representations of Aquaman...it's a about a representation that is not. And here and now it looks easy but it was not...we got to concede that to DC because they made a great character that was FULL of obstacles and they made a great movie , so successful that has pushed Namor out of its classic depiction ( that was a battle that Marvel would have lost...and they knew).

[Lady Atia]

Namor looks a lot like his comic counterpart.

Namora doesn't.

Namora looks like the one from Earth-421 though. It's prolly done to make Namor more unique, especially as he is a mutant. Also they are just cousins, they don't have to look the same anyways. Their names are just similiar because it means "Avenging Son/Daughter".

[Xilurm]

Namora looks like the one from Earth-421 though. It's prolly done to make Namor more unique, especially as he is a mutant. Also they are just cousins, they don't have to look the same anyways. Their names are just similiar because it means "Avenging Son/Daughter".

The only thing she got going the same is that she's blue.




Meanwhile Namor pretty much looks 1:1 with a couple slight differences.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

The achievement was making possible a serious non-comical depiction of Aquaman. It's not about making the jokes banish...it's about making a version that is not a joke ( that for comic readers was obvious , there's decades and volumes of stories there , but for the broader audiovisual audience was not).

While the new movie likely has wider reach I would argue that we already had a none comical depiction for audiovisual audiences with Justice league unlimited which much like the movies got a whole generation into DC and various hero’s and aqua man was one they treated darker which got him treated more seriously for a time.

Obviously things rebounded as for show moved out of common knowledge and hero media moved on but I wouldn’t be suprised if we saw the same thing happen again once this generation of hero media is also no longer current.

[Makabreska]

Thor reviews are pouring in. Seems like they are doubling down on the comedy aspect (with doofus behaviour), which I did not like in Ragnarok.

[Orby]

Thor reviews are pouring in. Seems like they are doubling down on the comedy aspect (with doofus behaviour), which I did not like in Ragnarok.

Yea, one of my biggest issues with Thor Ragnarok was its overuse of comedy over serious aspects. Like when Asgard fell and instead of allowing this serious moment to sink in with many of lives dead, they had that Korg crack a joke and it ruined that moment.

I think one of the best things about the MCU was its ability to light up the super hero genre and make people realise that super hero movies don't always need to be dark and gritty, unfortunately the MCU has gone way too far in that direction where the comedy has become way too fixated on over letting scenes play out having emotional moments.

Basically they made Thor into a Himbo too, whichb I had heard previously and it seemed that way over time, which they basically made him into the character he was in Ghostbusters (2016) lol. And I get it this is not the 616 but my issue with Marvel todays is their ability to synch the MCU with the comics, a lot of stuff and attitudes of the MCU have bene seeping into the comics.

I have slowly been drifting away from the MCU, I seem to be hate watching at this point and I feel I could be better of spent watching something I enjoy, but every movie in phase 4 to me has been very 1 note I don't think I have ranked any of them over a 6/10 lol.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

On one hand I Wasn’t really a fan of ragnarok at all due to the comedy and mashing story lines together which this seeks to be doing again, in the other hand Portman is my favourite female actor by miles and her doing Jane thor seems like a dream mix as I like the character a lot.

So far my fondness of Jane/Portman are beating out my dislike of overall all style so I’m looking forward to seeing it this week.

[Makabreska]

I'm super OK with this. Ragnarok remains one of the best Marvel movies, imo.

Problem is when it starts to move towards an auto-parody. When serious moments during serious events are suddenly nuked by an unnecessary joke and when main character acts like a doofus. This is what started to happen with Thor since Ragnarok (End Game wasn't bad, with his trauma and guilt).

[Endus]

Problem is when it starts to move towards an auto-parody. When serious moments during serious events are suddenly nuked by an unnecessary joke and when main character acts like a doofus. This is what started to happen with Thor since Ragnarok (End Game wasn't bad, with his trauma and guilt).

For the destruction of Asgard, specifically, there's two really big narrative reasons to lighten the tragedy.

The first is the message that Asgard is the people, not the city. This was key to letting Thor, and the rest of the Asgardians, move on after the destruction. Grieving too strongly about the loss of the city itself would have cheapened that message.

The second, perhaps more narratively important though not as emotionally impactful, is that the destruction of Asgard is, fundamentally, Thor's conscious and deliberate choice. And it's the right choice. That's what the narrative is telling us. It's tragic, but necessary. They can't beat Hela otherwise, and the alternative is that everyone dies or is fully subjugated, and if we go back to the first element, that's a more "real" death of Asgard than the destruction of the city proper.

So sure; we needed a moment to grieve, but defusing that to let everyone move on was also narratively necessary.

[Biomega]

Problem is when it starts to move towards an auto-parody. When serious moments during serious events are suddenly nuked by an unnecessary joke and when main character acts like a doofus. This is what started to happen with Thor since Ragnarok (End Game wasn't bad, with his trauma and guilt).

I get where people are coming from, but for me, it just worked in Ragnarok. That movie was just great fun, goofs and all.

Maybe because I can never take the supposed gravitas of comic-book moments seriously even when they set them up to be serious. They're superhero flicks. Big purple bad man want glowy stone. Somehow Peter going "I don't feel so good Mr. Stark" just doesn't move me in that kind of context, and so I'm not really feeling the absence of seriousness when something goes all-in on the goof like Ragnarok. I'd rather enjoy Jeff Goldblum being Jeff Goldblum and shit like that, based on its own merit much more so than some larger narrative - which is always ridiculous in Marvel movies anyway.

[Jotaux]

I loved Thor Ragnarok, probably top 3 in MCU movies for me.

[Shadowferal]

Yea, one of my biggest issues with Thor Ragnarok was its overuse of comedy over serious aspects. Like when Asgard fell and instead of allowing this serious moment to sink in with many of lives dead, they had that Korg crack a joke and it ruined that moment.

If Jane's fate is the same as it was in the comics I'm sure it'll be uproariously funny.

[Syegfryed]

Yes and they're going for mezo-american inspiration.....

Which is not underwater......

Greece plus higher sea levels is a very over done "Atlantis" look.

Maybe for you and some others yeah.

What is "an atlantean vibe"?

Not aztecan/carnaval, not gold and feathers at least.

I mean, i like the actor but the costume is goofy imo.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

If Jane's fate is the same as it was in the comics I'm sure it'll be uproariously funny.

?

Destroying the hammer fighting mangog and then becoming Valkyrie after beating cancer and getting the all weapon in her blood?

[Wonderment2]

Which is not underwater......



Maybe for you and some others yeah.




Not aztecan/carnaval, not gold and feathers at least.

I mean, i like the actor but the costume is goofy imo.

Greece isn't underwater ethier? What sort of logic is that. MCU is going for mezo-american + water... A region closer to the Atlantic then Greece.

You complaining about the feel of a non-existent place?

[Shadowferal]

? Destroying the hammer fighting mangog and then becoming Valkyrie after beating cancer and getting the all weapon in her blood?

It's cute that you think they'll follow the comics. But Hemsworth came out saying he's not ready to put the hammer down. I think he's probably going to be the only actor from the previous movies to be in subsequent phases.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

It's cute that you think they'll follow the comics. But Hemsworth came out saying he's not ready to put the hammer down. I think he's probably going to be the only actor from the previous movies to be in subsequent phases.

?

Your the one who brought up janes comic fate and how it would be funny and that was her comic fate so I have no idea what you are on about now.

You don’t think they will do mangog/the all weapon but if they did it would be funny for some reason?

[Orby]

For the destruction of Asgard, specifically, there's two really big narrative reasons to lighten the tragedy.

The first is the message that Asgard is the people, not the city. This was key to letting Thor, and the rest of the Asgardians, move on after the destruction. Grieving too strongly about the loss of the city itself would have cheapened that message.

The second, perhaps more narratively important though not as emotionally impactful, is that the destruction of Asgard is, fundamentally, Thor's conscious and deliberate choice. And it's the right choice. That's what the narrative is telling us. It's tragic, but necessary. They can't beat Hela otherwise, and the alternative is that everyone dies or is fully subjugated, and if we go back to the first element, that's a more "real" death of Asgard than the destruction of the city proper.

So sure; we needed a moment to grieve, but defusing that to let everyone move on was also narratively necessary.

I think you are wrong on all accounts, but I think that depends on how you take humour with serious moments, for me. I hated that scene. I still liked the movie fine. Its not like it took away from the whole movie, but for me that one bit was a bit of a deflating moment.

[Snuke]

I think you are objectively 100% wrong on all accounts, but I think that depends on how you take humour with serious moments, for me. I hated that scene. I still liked the movie fine. Its not like it took away from the whole movie, but for me that one bit was a bit of a deflating moment.

They literally explained that Asgard, as we saw destroyed, was simply land they inhabited. The special part was its people. Hence, New Asgard.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I think you are objectively 100% wrong on all accounts, but I think that depends on how you take humour with serious moments, for me. I hated that scene. I still liked the movie fine. Its not like it took away from the whole movie, but for me that one bit was a bit of a deflating moment.

Point of order:

You can't use "100% objectively wrong" and "but i think that depends" together.