Marvel Cinematic Universe - Timeline (Part 5)

Pro Bot said:
Secret Invasion is art, you're just a hater. Way better than Daredevil. It's a bit sexist that my favorite female superhero, Raava/War Machine, wasn't in the "girls get it done" scene in Avengers: Endgame. Don Cheadle played a very attractive woman in that film.
Click to expand...
... I know that's trying to be joking and all, but it kinda peevs me a bit.
 
stphylcccs said:
Killing them off can definitely work with the right plot, I just don't think they should bring them back if they do. Killing them off for no reason is a good way to show how powerful/amoral the villain is (for example) and even then movies don't have to be narratively satisfying to be good. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre ended with no sense of catharsis, which is the main reason the BBFC gave for banning it in the uk for 20 years, yet it's now praised for its unsatisfying ending, because it's unsatisfying ending is satisfying
Click to expand...
You don't have to kill off THE versions of characters from these films, though. You have an entire multiverse to do that. There was a planned sequence where Thanos kills all of the 2015 Avengers in Avengers: Endgame, just so show how strong he is.

Bringing back legacy characters just to kill them off is a lazy way to get people to care. You don't have to work hard to do it, they already care because of someone else's hard work. Luke Skywalker's death in Star Wars: Episode VIII: The Last Jedi didn't need to happen. It was lame. Killing off all the characters you like and leaving you with all the ones you aren't keen on makes watching the movie bitter and less exciting. Heck, I'd even compare it to killing off an adorable dog in a movie... did they have to work hard in John Wick to make you like the dog, or was it simply effective because we love dogs?

As for your argument on The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, I think that leaving a viewer with a sense of dread and unease is GOOD. That can be satisfying, and it doesn't require bringing back a character from a 20+ year old movie and destroying their entire universe, rendering the entire film series canonically meaningless.
 
stphylcccs said:
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre ended with no sense of catharsis, which is the main reason the BBFC gave for banning it in the uk for 20 years, yet it's now praised for its unsatisfying ending, because it's unsatisfying ending is satisfying
Click to expand...
In fairness, the BBFC back then was run by old idiots and moral guardians who didn't want any "bad influences" on the UK public, even stuff like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles being censored IIRC. You can thank the likes of Mary Whitehouse and James Ferman for stuff like Texas Chainsaw Massacre being labelled a Video Nasty for decades.
 
stphylcccs said:
Not gonna lie, I'm kinda sick of the good guys always winning. It's unrealistic, and has just gotten rid of all stakes.
Click to expand...
See:
Ironheart (4 months ago)
Pro Bot said:
It was lame. Killing off all the characters you like and leaving you with all the ones you aren't keen on makes watching the movie bitter and less exciting.
Click to expand...
See: Logan (2017)
 
barryh said:
See:
Ironheart (4 months ago)

See: Logan (2017)
Click to expand...
Ah, but Logan didn't exactly do it for cheap nostalgia heartstring reasons. It was earned, and it certainly wasn't the same thing as destroying the whole universe. He died for a reason. What would Tobey die for if his entire universe got destroyed and all of his adventures were rendered pointless?
 
barryh said:
See:
Ironheart (4 months ago)

See: Logan (2017)
Click to expand...
Yeah, I know it does happen sometimes, and I love when big companies actually decide to do it, but usually it doesn't happen. Obviously don't just bring back legacy to nostalgia bait, then kill off those universes, but I feel if they could do it right it work really well
 
stphylcccs said:
Killing them off can definitely work with the right plot, I just don't think they should bring them back if they do. Killing them off for no reason is a good way to show how powerful/amoral the villain is (for example) and even then movies don't have to be narratively satisfying to be good. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre ended with no sense of catharsis, which is the main reason the BBFC gave for banning it in the uk for 20 years, yet it's now praised for its unsatisfying ending, because it's unsatisfying ending is satisfying
Click to expand...
Yeah but Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a slasher flick.

Meanwhile, Marvel movies, including the old movies, are usually more hopeful. So, for, say, the Raimiverse to get erased for shock value feels tonally off.

stphylcccs said:
True, I don't know how it managed to get banned, or why it's considered one of the scariest movies of all time
Click to expand...
Most horror movies aren't actually scary anyway, especially slashers. The run-off-the-mill horror video game is probably scarier than most of the top horror movies.
 
BB10 said:
Meanwhile, Marvel movies, including the old movies, are usually more hopeful. So, for say the Raimiverse to get erased for shock value feels tonally off.
Click to expand...
I understand this, I'm just sick of the hopeful, heroes-always-win trope. I don't care if they don't just destroy popular universes, I just think it'd be cool if they actually did it. Wouldn't hinder the viewing enjoyment if they didn't, it'd just be a nice inclusion (in my opinion, obviously)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top