>I'm incapable of forming unique thoughts and base my perception of reality on twitter posts
Sad
Samegay. >Hey guys, let's introduce a male and remove his mouth-even though Disney already removed the mouth of a male this year-then kill him off.
The M-She-U should have ended with no way home. And that's being generous.
Scheduling. It made most of its money on the basis of advance sales, which were huge thanks to it being seen as a follow-up to Spider-Man: No Way Home and (to a lesser extent) WandaVision.
Then people actually saw the movie and found it wasn't very good and didn't really have anything to do with those other projects, so the second weekend and onward had much weaker business, but they'd already made their money.
Thor 4 wasn't really any worse except visually, it just followed a less popular movie than NWH.
The myth that the MCU version is "whitewashed" comes from people who didn't read comics and thought the racist "they were raised by a shaman and Magneto's wife was a witch" stuff was mentioned in more comics than it was.
Say what you will about the MCU, they at least made Wanda true to the majority of comics, a white girl who is not Magneto's daughter.
>The myth that the MCU version is "whitewashed"
I've noticed that these are mainly Twitter fans who think this and it's weird. They'll look you dead in the eye and say "Wanda isn't white"
The worst part of it is how they've managed to successfully bully Marvel Comics into complying with them, which in turn gives them "evidence" to support what they really want, firing Olsen and re-casting MCU Wanda.
These are people who don't read comics, just Wikipedia articles, so don't know or care that Wanda and Pietro weren't half-gypsy when they were created in the 1960s, don't know or care that it's just something that was imposed on them in the 80s when someone wrote a backstory for Magneto's lost wife. They genuinely think the twins should always have been brown and that they're fixing a mistake. Some people just want to destroy everything good and beautiful in this world.
Nope. Almost never came up in comics for 20 years after the retcon. Magneto's daughter was on the Avengers for almost all the '80s and '90s and early '00s and you can find maybe a few pages where this is mentioned.
House of M + X-Men cartoons wasting her as Magneto's daughter (and preventing the Avengers cartoon from using her) created the impression that this retcon was way more important to her history than it was, until the MCU thankfully decided to use her for the things her actual comics stories were about (joins Avengers, falls in love with robot).
That'd be a good movie too. It's cool that Raimi got to make Spider-Man and Doctor Strange films. I remember him saying he loved Doctor Strange during interviews and the press tour for the first Spider-Man film. How many people can grow up to create films about their favorite characters and have them be well received?
Or rather he did get interfered with, but what the studio interfered with was stuff around the edges.
The entire pre-reshoots plot leaked to Reddit in 2021 and the final movie was identical, scene for scene. The reshoots seem to have involved stuff like making America Chavez less annoying and cutting down the role of the other sorcerers and adding different cameos and stuff like that, but the actual story was the one Raimi created with the screenwriter during the 2020 lockdowns.
It convinced me that the MCU's reshoots are probably mostly pointless, expensive excuse for not fixing the story during the writing stage.
I believe what you're saying, but also bet it is Marvel Studios decision to cheap out on sets and props which Raimi didn't do much before. Although has been on a shit streak with things like Oz so I don't know.
NTA, but in every single review of the film I've listened to and read, the story has been probably the least acknowledged complaint for anyone. Pretty much every person who's shat on the film I've witnessed has focused almost entirely on erroneous bullshit like which cameos they'd have preferred, how their dopamine addled youtuber brain would have changed the pacing, random plot holes that they invented because they didn't listen to a chunk of dialogue ten minutes prior to the apparent "plot hole," and politicing BS.
cont.
Just one more thing I wanna add. Almost every person who shits on a movie does so because they're insecure for not being able to grasp the basic thematic elements and what it was actually trying to do, so they invent something completely untrue and make attempts to argue that was the original point (even when all the evidence points elsewhere).
…that isn’t my experience. The story was singled out as a problem in even positive reviews, which praised the visuals and performances but said the story was, at the very least, thin.
Presumably you don’t agree with the complaints that all the corruption takes place offscreen, Strange doesn’t do much more than react, America Chavez is suddenly able to do stuff because of a pep talk, etc. but the complaints were everywhere.
Also a chunk of dialogue doesn’t fix a plot hole. I agree some plot holes are insignificant but if we didn’t see a character go through a change, it doesn’t matter that there’s a 5-second explanation for it.
>All the corruption takes place off-screen
I haven't seen the movie in over a year by now, but I'll try to respond. Corruption of what; of who? >Strange doesn’t do much more than react, America Chavez is suddenly able to do stuff because of a pep talk, etc.
Strange was taken from an active character (like in the first film & infinity war) to a mostly passive character in MoM to service the growth of the side-characters. I assume this wasn't Raimi's choice, but probably a thinktank of Marvel writers who forced the load on him to save money and time (as otherwise they'd have to have put almost billions into multiple other projects). Can't say I'm fine with it, but I haven't seen people complain about that. Nor have I seen them mention that stuff at all. As you said, different experiences. As for the stuff about Chavez: I'm not excusing it, but - like my last point - it was a cramped film. You can only do so much unless you want to make the story 6 hours long, when you're getting multiple plot points forced into your film simultaneously by studio executives. Raimi didn't write the film, so if you're going to put the blame on anyone put it on Michael Waldron. He's not exactly known to be a good screenwriter. >Also a chunk of dialogue doesn’t fix a plot hole. I agree some plot holes are insignificant but if we didn’t see a character go through a change, it doesn’t matter that there’s a 5-second explanation for it.
A plot hole is an inconsistency. Poor execution is not an inconsistency.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
Corruption of everyone, really. Mostly Wanda, who becomes a completely different person offscreen and goes back to normal for no good reason (the kids crying is not remotely enough, she’d just say they’ll like her when they realize she’s right), but even the alternate Stranges. The whole movie turns on the power of a book to turn people evil and we never see any of it.
I think the choice to make Strange a passive character was baked in once they decided Strange should be running away from Wanda the whole movie, but that’s the story Raimi wanted, the story he and the writer replaced would have been different (not necessarily better, there’s a reason the last creative team couldn’t make it work).
They decided to go for campy fun over characterization, which may have been the right call but it wasn’t fun enough to compensate for the poor character work IMO.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
All of these are your opinions on it, and that's fine. I wasn't replying to you to get a review from you, though. My point's already pretty much been said.
>America Chavez is suddenly able to do stuff because of a pep talk
moronic criticisms like this is why I can't take Cinemaphile seriously.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
Why does this movie and only this movie have people swarming every time someone accuses it of not setting up its big plot moments?
There are ways to make Wanda's sudden reversion to normal, Strange's conclusion that he needs to let someone else hold the knife, America's confidence burst, etc., make sense. They're all explainable, but it doesn't matter if something is explainable if it isn't actually on the screen.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Why does this movie and only this movie have people swarming every time someone accuses it of not setting up its big plot moments?
Because it clearly does and you are arguing in bad faith.
cont.
Just one more thing I wanna add. Almost every person who shits on a movie does so because they're insecure for not being able to grasp the basic thematic elements and what it was actually trying to do, so they invent something completely untrue and make attempts to argue that was the original point (even when all the evidence points elsewhere).
You're talking to brick walls LMAO. There are people who will say that Spider-Man: No Way Home, which is an inconsistent mess of theme and characterization, is better than MoM. Most people don't actually watch Marvel movies for unique, creative-driven vehicles. They just want to watch sludge content that conforms to their tastes and views exactly, and anything outside of that is considered "bad" regardless of the actual substance of the film.
Similarly, all this talk about what was reshot, what cameos did and didn't make it in, is meaningless. The actual end product of MoM is the second best MCU movie (after GOTG3) since Infinity War.
Unlike MOM, NWH never loses focus on it's lead character.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>NWH never loses focus on it's lead character.
It's totally inconsistent with Peter's characterization. In the movie, Peter's very concerned about killing all the villains, but he's okay with mind raping every civilian on Earth, including his girlfriend? After she explicitly told him not to do that?
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
He's a teenager under pressure. What, did you expect him to behave like an emotionless robot?
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
Pointing to an inconsistency in morals does not mean I want the character to act like an emotionless robot. It means I want better writing. We're supposed to take Peter's side, but then he does something antithetical to being a hero.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
The mindwipe thing is one of the biggest sacrifices a hero can do, basically erasing his own existence in order to save the world. Not incosistent at all.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
No it's not a sacrifice. It's an awful violation of people's autonomy. What happened to "great responsibility"?
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
Okay, wise guy, what exactly was Peter supposed to do? Just let the big cracks in the sky open up and roll out the red carpet for all those people from other universes?
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
You are looking at this from the perspective of what he should have done within the narrative - but my whole critique is of the narrative itself. It's not about if he should have "let the big cracks in the sky open up"; it's about the fact the writers should not have let the story present this inconsistency.
did you want Peter to personally ask every single person on Earth if they were ok with wiping their memory when the universe was about to collapse?
It's a sacrifice because other people's lives aren't affect nearly as much as his, who ends up completely alone.
My critique is purely on theme and characterization, it's not about what if Peter should have made X choice instead of Y. This movie should have simply been written differently.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>This movie should have simply been written differently.
Right, and if they had written it differently you'd be complaining and why-don't-they-justing about something else. You wouldn't be satisfied unless every movie resolves the plot before it even begins and the entire screen time is just the characters staring blankly at the wall. Because your autisms are triggered by fictional characters not being emotionless beings of pure logic and rationality that never ever make mistakes, behave irrationally or take anything but the most optimal course of action. Because your mother was close to menopause when she got pregnant with you and drank heavily throughout the entire pregnancy. Why didn't your dad just wear a condom?
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
You're assuming things about me that I haven't said here at all. I'm not asking for Spider Man to be a purely rational, logic machine. There's not a lot logic in a guy getting bitten by a spider, dressing in red and blue, and fighting crime with a magic man who can make portals with israeliteelry. What I want is character development that makes sense. You might be low IQ, so I'll just spell it out: in movies there are these things called themes, and if these themes are inconsistent, it's a problem in the narrative (see: betraying his girlfriend). It's bad writing, and it's not an attack on you to call it out, so stop acting like a sperg at me.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Make selfish request to magic man and make him erase your moral consequences so you can go to college and be left alone >Put your friends in serious mortal and legal risk >Ruin space-time >Realize you have been selfish and immature from the get-go >Request to be forgotten, to protect them and to protect the fabric of reality
... >"UM IT'S INCONSISTENT BECAUSE HE ALSO DIDN'T WANT TO KILL PEOPLE"
you're fricking moronic, anon
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
You can't read LOL. Don't bother tagging me if you're too fricking stupid to understand the words I'm typing.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
I accept your concession
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
You can't separate the characterization from the narrative when you're criticizing qualms specific to the narrative. It's dishonest to try to argue the scenario and the character decisions as mutually exclusive, just so you can focus on one side of the argument and intentionally discount the explicit reasoning behind the character's decisions. This is a classic fallacious armchair critic argument from all the way back in the early That Guy With the Glasses and RLM days, and it's constantly still used by those people as many more (like Ralph Sepe, YMS, IHE, etc.). Most logical people are going to see through such obvious dishonesty and bad faith criticism.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>You can't separate the characterization from the narrative when you're criticizing qualms specific to the narrative.
That's my whole point? I'm not here arguing that Peter needed to make a different decision, my point is that the decision itself was created through bad writing. I'm not saying the scenario and the character are exclusive - I'm saying the exact opposite.
And don't compare me to a bunch of YouTubers, most of those people wouldn't know what a theme in a movie is unless the scriptwriter came onto their channel to tell them.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>I'm not here arguing that Peter needed to make a different decision, my point is that the decision itself was created through bad writing.
Sort of depends on whether his actions make sense based on the information we've been presented.
You're watching a movie that has shown us that wiping people's memories is not considered something people have to struggle with morally the way they struggle with other things. It's worth saying that you would have preferred seeing the implications of mind-wiping played out, but it's like wishing a love potion story pointed out how truly horrible it would be to give someone a love potion -- you're still looking, 99% of the time, at a logical universe where love potions are considered funny as long as they don't actually lead to sex.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
They're just two different types of stories, and combining them creates friction in the story. In another movie, would I have preferred seeing the implications of mind-wiping? Depends on what kind of story it is, same with the love potion.
It's kind of like comparing Watchmen to Superman 2's mind-wipe kiss. Watchmen broaches serious themes like foreign policy, the ethics of vigilantism and so on. Superman 2 is a pretty straightforward superhero movie that avoids these sensitive topics. I don't think much about the mind-wipe kiss in Superman 2, because the narrative is demanding that I think about these things. But Spider Man No Way Home is broaching serious topics - like the ethics of killing supervillains (or just sending them to their deaths). So I am thinking about the implications of a mind-wipe much more than I would have otherwise. Does this make sense?
It's not about logic in the sense that I need these characters to deeply think about the philosophical implications of every single one of their actions. But it is about logic in the sense that I expect consistency when a narrative demands it.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>But Spider Man No Way Home is broaching serious topics - like the ethics of killing supervillains (or just sending them to their deaths). So I am thinking about the implications of a mind-wipe much more than I would have otherwise. Does this make sense?
Oh, sure, it makes sense. Where I think we part company is that I don't think the issues in NWH are really meant to be taken seriously, given it's a type of superhero movie much closer to Superman 2 than Watchmen. The ethical issues are more along the lines of "why doesn't Batman kill the Joker," it's a world so removed from anything real.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
I think the Batman thing is different because it's not usually so woven into the narrative like it is in NWH. The exception would be something like The Dark Knight. But what the TDK gets right is it implicates Batman in Joker's crimes. People become more afraid of the Joker because he goes further than Batman, and Batman has to deal with the fallout from that.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
Both cases is about Peter's heroism, doing everything in his power to save everyone.
The mindwipe thing mainly affects himself, completely erasing his own life to stop universal collapse.
As is saving the villains, even after Goblin killed May.
One does not contradict the other.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
It doesn't effect himself, it effects literally everyone except him. And recall, when this almost happened at the beginning of the movie, MJ specifically asks Peter not to do a thing like that again without consulting her.
TOPKEK I love when dumbfricks like you get put in a corner and have to resort to acting like the entire conversation didn't happen and isn't easily accessible to the people reading the thread, as if they can't just scroll up and see you're a bullshit dumbshit liar. The fallback on "meds now schizo" really puts the special ed cherry on top of this moron sundae you've been crafting ever since your initial statement. You've already been BTFO'd by like 15 people by now. Go do something else already, moron! KEK!!!
"KEK" "TOPKEK" "moron SUNDAE"!!!
As much as I am fricking annoyed by the other people in this thread, they at least can actually type a sentence that engages with my arguments. You're so much of a fricking bot all you can do is spew out insults.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
Anon, I've been engaging with your arguments so well that you had to resort to roleplaying like you can't see them anymore.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
You typed out a greentext inventing positions that I've never said I had. If that's "engaging" to you, you don't have any understanding of the word.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
Yeah, pal, keep pathetically acting like nobody can go back and read your other posts. Really helping your case.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>It doesn't effect himself
he's completely alone and forgotten by everyone. How it doesn't effect him?
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
Because he's the only one who is not a victim of the mind-wipe. The problem is you're looking at it like it's a noble sacrifice when it is not that at all.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
please tell me why it's not a sacrifice to erase your own existence for the sake of saving the world
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
He's not erasing his existence, he's mind raping everyone on earth to forget him. I'm sorry if phrasing it that way makes you uncomfortable, but that is literally what is happening.
Even if I were to grant that it's the noble ending, it's the same decision he was trying to make at the beginning of the movie - which is what created the mess with the multiverse. So basically, Peter fricks up, almost destroys the universe, then saves the day by... doing exactly the same thing he did at the beginning? Only this time it's good because people's lives are in danger (which he caused)? This isn't good writing.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
erasing people's knowledge that Peter Parker is Spider-Man =/= erasing people's knowledge of Peter Parker.
The former was a selfish desire to make his life, and of people close to him easier, the latter is him giving up all records and memories of him in order to stop total universal collapse.
He gave up all the meaningfull memories and relationships he gained through his entire life in order to save them.
If that's not sacrifice, what is?
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>erasing people's knowledge that Peter Parker is Spider-Man =/= erasing people's knowledge of Peter Parker.
This is a bit of an arbitrary distinction. It's basically saying heroes can make moral decisions that regular people aren't allowed to just because they are heroes.
I'm not saying that Peter made the mindrape decision in the same context, therefore they are morally equivalent. I mentioned earlier in the thread that I'm not really speaking to morals at all. What I'm saying is that he makes a bad choice, then learns it was bad, and the problems it created are solved by making the same choice. It doesn't really make sense from a writing perspective.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
stop calling it mindrape you fricking moron. it's just a spell. he's not charles xavier reading everyone's sexual fantasies and making cringe jokes about it. it affects reality, not their minds. dr strange deleted their memories through editing fundamental forces in reality. that's the whole catalyst to the villains coming back in the first place, so i dont know how the frick you would have missed that. anyways, you're so morally up in arms over something you can't even concisely explain in simple terms exactly what is wrong with it. you're just b***hing in a totally unrelated thread for 100 posts about some bullshit arbitrary issue you invented completely of your own accord. wasn't there a post hours ago warning the thread about people who do that? shut the frick up, man. it's evident your wrong, because you've been corrected like 60 times and not one person ITT agrees with you. god damn
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
Try proofreading your replies before you post them and maybe you wont end up contradicting yourself like you do here: >it affects reality, not their minds. >dr strange deleted their memories
Key word: MEMORIES. Do you think the mind is somehow disconnected from the memories? Just because the spell "edits fundamental forces" doesn't change anything about the end result. And just because your squeamish about the word "rape" doesn't mean anything to me. Peter and Strange went into people's brains and changed it without their consent (including his GF, when she explicitly said not to). I can't dumb it down for anymore than that, sorry.
Also, > not one person ITT agrees with you
Laughable you think I care about this at all. Everyone I've talked to hasn't been able to present a single argument against what I've said. You guys are just sperging about how I've offended you by making you actually think about a movie. It's created cognitive dissonance in your brain, which is why you're so upset that you're bringing up threads I wasn't even in.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
People are mad because you keep saying Peter hasn’t made a sacrifice in the movie even when people present evidence. Maybe you’re being overly pedantic over the word sacrifice. Peter objectively LOSES things from the wish. His relationship with MJ, his friends, any extended family, his connections to Happy/being Ironboy, his ability to get into a good school, and his High School diploma. However, you’re autistically fixated on this not being a “sacrifice” due to some vague reasoning about narrative that doesn’t address the movie purposefully showing what Peter LOST due to the wish.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
Stop shifting the goalposts like a huge homosexual, you sperg. Just frick off already. If you have to keep switching up your argument you're saying nothing of genuine worth. >The characterization is inconsistent because of the narrative >"Okay, well here's specifically how the narrative portrays the characterization in a specific way. It's not inconsistent with the themes at all, because they're explicitly portrayed as congruent with the events of the narrative and goals of the storytellers" >I'm not criticizing the narrative, I'm criticizing the characterization. It's inconsistent with the themes of the narrative >(Doesn't ever explain specifically why btw) >"You can't criticize the characterization as inconsistent with the themes of the narrative without acknowledging that the characterization is consistent within the themes of the narrative, because [insert the goals and execution of the narrative themes]. it's dishonest." >B-but I didn't say that. I actually was critiquing the narrative, too, even though I just told you to ignore that.
What kind of fricking argument are you even trying to make at this point? Just let it go already, Jesus Christ. You have no idea what you're talking about anymore.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
You are braindead and you can't even keep track of what I'm saying. When did I say I'm not criticizing the narrative? You are inventing things to get upset over, like a schizophrenic.
This whole greentext is literally nonsense. It makes sense only in your own brain. You are "quoting" me, but it's not anything I've said. Go back and read what I have actually written, instead of spewing reddit-tier bullshit at me like "SHIFTING GOAL POASTS!!"
The irony here is that despite the fact that you think I don't have an argument, you haven't even been able to engage with anything I've said.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
TOPKEK I love when dumbfricks like you get put in a corner and have to resort to acting like the entire conversation didn't happen and isn't easily accessible to the people reading the thread, as if they can't just scroll up and see you're a bullshit dumbshit liar. The fallback on "meds now schizo" really puts the special ed cherry on top of this moron sundae you've been crafting ever since your initial statement. You've already been BTFO'd by like 15 people by now. Go do something else already, moron! KEK!!!
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
did you want Peter to personally ask every single person on Earth if they were ok with wiping their memory when the universe was about to collapse?
It's a sacrifice because other people's lives aren't affect nearly as much as his, who ends up completely alone.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>did you want Peter to personally ask every single person on Earth if they were ok with wiping their memory when the universe was about to collapse?
And even if he was going to do that they didn't exactly have time to talk billions of people into a memory wipe because THE SKY WAS LITERALLY BREAKING APART, AN INFINITE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WERE ABOUT TO FLOOD THE UNIVERSE LIKE IT WAS BLACK FRIDAY, AND STRANGE WAS BARELY HOLDING THEM BACK.
There wasn't a lot of time, is my point.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
The sky cracking and such only happened because he asked for Strange to mind wipe everyone, and then fricked it up when Strange was mid-spell.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
Look, in the moral universe they set up in the movie clearly mind wiping is not a crime the way it would be if it existed in real life (if… yeah… that’s the ticket).
It may seem like bullshit that magic authority figures are fine with this kind of spell, but within the movie’s logic it’s not the issue where reasonable people disagree.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
When the writers introduce the topic of morality e.g. through Peter's actions and unwillingness to condemn the villains to death - then the logic of the universe opens itself up to these criticism.
Making people forget who you exist at all for the sake of protecting them, is not "deeply unsettling." It's a completely selfless act, and it's the direct product of realizing how selfish and immature his actions had been the entire trilogy (especially that specific fricking movie). It also doesn't contradict not wanting to murder anyone, whatsoever. If you want to be a virtue signalling pseud, shit on a character you don't have to intentionally lie about to justify your argument.
See my comment here:
You are looking at this from the perspective of what he should have done within the narrative - but my whole critique is of the narrative itself. It's not about if he should have "let the big cracks in the sky open up"; it's about the fact the writers should not have let the story present this inconsistency. [...]
My critique is purely on theme and characterization, it's not about what if Peter should have made X choice instead of Y. This movie should have simply been written differently.
You aren't understanding my point.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
Alright, pseud. Give us an alternative that would solve this non-existent inconsistency.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Points out bad writing >"WELLL SIR WHY DON'T YOU WRITE A MOVIE THEN"
This is one of the most boring responses possible. I'm not going to fix the writer's problems for them. They get paid to make movies, they should be better at it.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
I accept your concession. If you're incapable of providing a simple solution to your presented issue, then there's no genuine logic informing your critique.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
You still aren't understanding what I'm saying. You are just reading my sentences looking for buzzwords to latch on to. But sounds like you're too tired to argue anyway, sorry for making your brain work so hard today, it's probably not used to it.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
I accept your concession
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
Anon, Peter Parker is purposely one of the most morally conflicted characters in fiction. The entire time Spider-Man's existed, he's flip-flopped constantly on just about every issue. The only moral consistency he has ever had, has always been: >Help the misunderstood >Make sure the least amount of people die as possible, especially if it can be avoided
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
This isn't a discussion about morals really. It's about what is good and bad writing. If you write a character to spend an entire movie taking a moral high ground about saving the villains of the story, but then write him as re-writing every human's memory without their consent (and then making this seem like a tragic sacrifice for him, instead of something deeply unsettling), it's just bad writing.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
Making people forget who you exist at all for the sake of protecting them, is not "deeply unsettling." It's a completely selfless act, and it's the direct product of realizing how selfish and immature his actions had been the entire trilogy (especially that specific fricking movie). It also doesn't contradict not wanting to murder anyone, whatsoever. If you want to be a virtue signalling pseud, shit on a character you don't have to intentionally lie about to justify your argument.
Yeah, I pretty much agree. People are too willing to bend and twist what is already self-evident to contort others' opinions so that they'll feel more comfortable with either not understanding a piece of art, or disliking it blindly.
>What went right?
*Wrong
My experience was terrible, nobody informed me that I had to watch 2 television shows before this movie, I didn't understand the plot at all which ruined my experience entirely.
Please keep the movies and television shows separate, they do it for comics and games already, I will not consume Marvel television.
>What went right?
The shit that was undeniably Raimi horror directing classics. So the deadite Dr. Strange stuff was pretty good. Reed Richards dying, Wanda coming through that portal.
Because the director is fricking Raimi, the guy is just far above MCU directors.
Why can't Feige just hire good directors all the time? Most of the MCU is mediocre at best because he's only hiring literal whos
>Why can't Feige just hire good directors all the time?
Most directors who are actually good aren't just going to jump into a Marvel movie without certain guarantees of creative freedom. Feige would rather just hire whos because they don't have enough clout/success to demand that freedom. So it allows the MCU to just streamline their production line.
He could hire at least one A-lister director per Phase specially if they already are sucessful with capeshit
Imagine even a single Nolan MCU movie,Todd Phillips, then a Del Toro movie, and even a Cameron movie. Every single Phase would have something to people to be hyped about other than praying that the actor who will be the next big villain don't frick up irl.
I think this movie underdelivered. They really can't make Strange a likeable enough character to carry the movie, and the supporting cast was non-existent/super boring. America's inclusion stuck out like a sore thumb.
I did like the Illuminati and the music fight! I kind of wish Jim had been Mr. Fantastic in the new movie.
Nothing.
worthless opinions
it was Raimi kino
Samegay.
>Hey guys, let's introduce a male and remove his mouth-even though Disney already removed the mouth of a male this year-then kill him off.
The M-She-U should have ended with no way home. And that's being generous.
Absolutely Nothing.
I thought it was neat. Especially relative to some of the dreck in the rest of phases 4 and 5.
>What went right?
it was shot
it got released
The bits where Marvel wasn't paying attention and Raimi sneaked in some Evil Dead were pretty good.
it was a good movie. I enjoyed it.
yess that was great. i'm glad he's still around, man.
the strange vs strange fight
nothing else, really
Scheduling. It made most of its money on the basis of advance sales, which were huge thanks to it being seen as a follow-up to Spider-Man: No Way Home and (to a lesser extent) WandaVision.
Then people actually saw the movie and found it wasn't very good and didn't really have anything to do with those other projects, so the second weekend and onward had much weaker business, but they'd already made their money.
Thor 4 wasn't really any worse except visually, it just followed a less popular movie than NWH.
Killing the whitewashed Wendy and Lizard Olsen's career
Wanda is the daughter of Whizzer and Miss America, anon, the MCU version is the comic accurate version.
Hasn't been a thing in decades. Cope and seethe.
The myth that the MCU version is "whitewashed" comes from people who didn't read comics and thought the racist "they were raised by a shaman and Magneto's wife was a witch" stuff was mentioned in more comics than it was.
Say what you will about the MCU, they at least made Wanda true to the majority of comics, a white girl who is not Magneto's daughter.
>The myth that the MCU version is "whitewashed"
I've noticed that these are mainly Twitter fans who think this and it's weird. They'll look you dead in the eye and say "Wanda isn't white"
The worst part of it is how they've managed to successfully bully Marvel Comics into complying with them, which in turn gives them "evidence" to support what they really want, firing Olsen and re-casting MCU Wanda.
These are people who don't read comics, just Wikipedia articles, so don't know or care that Wanda and Pietro weren't half-gypsy when they were created in the 1960s, don't know or care that it's just something that was imposed on them in the 80s when someone wrote a backstory for Magneto's lost wife. They genuinely think the twins should always have been brown and that they're fixing a mistake. Some people just want to destroy everything good and beautiful in this world.
uh, wanda is magneto's daughter. that's... like 90% of what she is. the other 10% is WINDS OF DESTINY, CHANGE!
Nope. Almost never came up in comics for 20 years after the retcon. Magneto's daughter was on the Avengers for almost all the '80s and '90s and early '00s and you can find maybe a few pages where this is mentioned.
House of M + X-Men cartoons wasting her as Magneto's daughter (and preventing the Avengers cartoon from using her) created the impression that this retcon was way more important to her history than it was, until the MCU thankfully decided to use her for the things her actual comics stories were about (joins Avengers, falls in love with robot).
and failing at all of that
I thought the Wanda vs Illuminati fight was pretty weak. Most people probably still don't know what the deal with Blackbolt was.
Nothing. It's the literal start to the MCU's collapse
>I'm incapable of forming unique thoughts and base my perception of reality on twitter posts
Sad
I think there's a decent third of a film in here, but exec meddling ruined it. Raimi deserved full control
>Raimi deserved full control
If Raimi had full control the plot would be about Raimiverse Ben wanting to kill MCU Peter for dating black girls.
That'd be a good movie too. It's cool that Raimi got to make Spider-Man and Doctor Strange films. I remember him saying he loved Doctor Strange during interviews and the press tour for the first Spider-Man film. How many people can grow up to create films about their favorite characters and have them be well received?
>Multiverse of Whiteness
>Raimi deserved full control
He had it.
Or rather he did get interfered with, but what the studio interfered with was stuff around the edges.
The entire pre-reshoots plot leaked to Reddit in 2021 and the final movie was identical, scene for scene. The reshoots seem to have involved stuff like making America Chavez less annoying and cutting down the role of the other sorcerers and adding different cameos and stuff like that, but the actual story was the one Raimi created with the screenwriter during the 2020 lockdowns.
It convinced me that the MCU's reshoots are probably mostly pointless, expensive excuse for not fixing the story during the writing stage.
>but what the studio interfered with was stuff around the edges.
They cut out Spider-Man's cameo. Raimi insisted on it being pivotal to the entire movie.
I believe what you're saying, but also bet it is Marvel Studios decision to cheap out on sets and props which Raimi didn't do much before. Although has been on a shit streak with things like Oz so I don't know.
NTA, but in every single review of the film I've listened to and read, the story has been probably the least acknowledged complaint for anyone. Pretty much every person who's shat on the film I've witnessed has focused almost entirely on erroneous bullshit like which cameos they'd have preferred, how their dopamine addled youtuber brain would have changed the pacing, random plot holes that they invented because they didn't listen to a chunk of dialogue ten minutes prior to the apparent "plot hole," and politicing BS.
cont.
Just one more thing I wanna add. Almost every person who shits on a movie does so because they're insecure for not being able to grasp the basic thematic elements and what it was actually trying to do, so they invent something completely untrue and make attempts to argue that was the original point (even when all the evidence points elsewhere).
…that isn’t my experience. The story was singled out as a problem in even positive reviews, which praised the visuals and performances but said the story was, at the very least, thin.
Presumably you don’t agree with the complaints that all the corruption takes place offscreen, Strange doesn’t do much more than react, America Chavez is suddenly able to do stuff because of a pep talk, etc. but the complaints were everywhere.
Also a chunk of dialogue doesn’t fix a plot hole. I agree some plot holes are insignificant but if we didn’t see a character go through a change, it doesn’t matter that there’s a 5-second explanation for it.
>All the corruption takes place off-screen
I haven't seen the movie in over a year by now, but I'll try to respond. Corruption of what; of who?
>Strange doesn’t do much more than react, America Chavez is suddenly able to do stuff because of a pep talk, etc.
Strange was taken from an active character (like in the first film & infinity war) to a mostly passive character in MoM to service the growth of the side-characters. I assume this wasn't Raimi's choice, but probably a thinktank of Marvel writers who forced the load on him to save money and time (as otherwise they'd have to have put almost billions into multiple other projects). Can't say I'm fine with it, but I haven't seen people complain about that. Nor have I seen them mention that stuff at all. As you said, different experiences. As for the stuff about Chavez: I'm not excusing it, but - like my last point - it was a cramped film. You can only do so much unless you want to make the story 6 hours long, when you're getting multiple plot points forced into your film simultaneously by studio executives. Raimi didn't write the film, so if you're going to put the blame on anyone put it on Michael Waldron. He's not exactly known to be a good screenwriter.
>Also a chunk of dialogue doesn’t fix a plot hole. I agree some plot holes are insignificant but if we didn’t see a character go through a change, it doesn’t matter that there’s a 5-second explanation for it.
A plot hole is an inconsistency. Poor execution is not an inconsistency.
Corruption of everyone, really. Mostly Wanda, who becomes a completely different person offscreen and goes back to normal for no good reason (the kids crying is not remotely enough, she’d just say they’ll like her when they realize she’s right), but even the alternate Stranges. The whole movie turns on the power of a book to turn people evil and we never see any of it.
I think the choice to make Strange a passive character was baked in once they decided Strange should be running away from Wanda the whole movie, but that’s the story Raimi wanted, the story he and the writer replaced would have been different (not necessarily better, there’s a reason the last creative team couldn’t make it work).
They decided to go for campy fun over characterization, which may have been the right call but it wasn’t fun enough to compensate for the poor character work IMO.
All of these are your opinions on it, and that's fine. I wasn't replying to you to get a review from you, though. My point's already pretty much been said.
>America Chavez is suddenly able to do stuff because of a pep talk
moronic criticisms like this is why I can't take Cinemaphile seriously.
Why does this movie and only this movie have people swarming every time someone accuses it of not setting up its big plot moments?
There are ways to make Wanda's sudden reversion to normal, Strange's conclusion that he needs to let someone else hold the knife, America's confidence burst, etc., make sense. They're all explainable, but it doesn't matter if something is explainable if it isn't actually on the screen.
>Why does this movie and only this movie have people swarming every time someone accuses it of not setting up its big plot moments?
Because it clearly does and you are arguing in bad faith.
You're talking to brick walls LMAO. There are people who will say that Spider-Man: No Way Home, which is an inconsistent mess of theme and characterization, is better than MoM. Most people don't actually watch Marvel movies for unique, creative-driven vehicles. They just want to watch sludge content that conforms to their tastes and views exactly, and anything outside of that is considered "bad" regardless of the actual substance of the film.
Similarly, all this talk about what was reshot, what cameos did and didn't make it in, is meaningless. The actual end product of MoM is the second best MCU movie (after GOTG3) since Infinity War.
Unlike MOM, NWH never loses focus on it's lead character.
>NWH never loses focus on it's lead character.
It's totally inconsistent with Peter's characterization. In the movie, Peter's very concerned about killing all the villains, but he's okay with mind raping every civilian on Earth, including his girlfriend? After she explicitly told him not to do that?
He's a teenager under pressure. What, did you expect him to behave like an emotionless robot?
Pointing to an inconsistency in morals does not mean I want the character to act like an emotionless robot. It means I want better writing. We're supposed to take Peter's side, but then he does something antithetical to being a hero.
The mindwipe thing is one of the biggest sacrifices a hero can do, basically erasing his own existence in order to save the world. Not incosistent at all.
No it's not a sacrifice. It's an awful violation of people's autonomy. What happened to "great responsibility"?
Okay, wise guy, what exactly was Peter supposed to do? Just let the big cracks in the sky open up and roll out the red carpet for all those people from other universes?
You are looking at this from the perspective of what he should have done within the narrative - but my whole critique is of the narrative itself. It's not about if he should have "let the big cracks in the sky open up"; it's about the fact the writers should not have let the story present this inconsistency.
My critique is purely on theme and characterization, it's not about what if Peter should have made X choice instead of Y. This movie should have simply been written differently.
>This movie should have simply been written differently.
Right, and if they had written it differently you'd be complaining and why-don't-they-justing about something else. You wouldn't be satisfied unless every movie resolves the plot before it even begins and the entire screen time is just the characters staring blankly at the wall. Because your autisms are triggered by fictional characters not being emotionless beings of pure logic and rationality that never ever make mistakes, behave irrationally or take anything but the most optimal course of action. Because your mother was close to menopause when she got pregnant with you and drank heavily throughout the entire pregnancy. Why didn't your dad just wear a condom?
You're assuming things about me that I haven't said here at all. I'm not asking for Spider Man to be a purely rational, logic machine. There's not a lot logic in a guy getting bitten by a spider, dressing in red and blue, and fighting crime with a magic man who can make portals with israeliteelry. What I want is character development that makes sense. You might be low IQ, so I'll just spell it out: in movies there are these things called themes, and if these themes are inconsistent, it's a problem in the narrative (see: betraying his girlfriend). It's bad writing, and it's not an attack on you to call it out, so stop acting like a sperg at me.
>Make selfish request to magic man and make him erase your moral consequences so you can go to college and be left alone
>Put your friends in serious mortal and legal risk
>Ruin space-time
>Realize you have been selfish and immature from the get-go
>Request to be forgotten, to protect them and to protect the fabric of reality
...
>"UM IT'S INCONSISTENT BECAUSE HE ALSO DIDN'T WANT TO KILL PEOPLE"
you're fricking moronic, anon
You can't read LOL. Don't bother tagging me if you're too fricking stupid to understand the words I'm typing.
I accept your concession
You can't separate the characterization from the narrative when you're criticizing qualms specific to the narrative. It's dishonest to try to argue the scenario and the character decisions as mutually exclusive, just so you can focus on one side of the argument and intentionally discount the explicit reasoning behind the character's decisions. This is a classic fallacious armchair critic argument from all the way back in the early That Guy With the Glasses and RLM days, and it's constantly still used by those people as many more (like Ralph Sepe, YMS, IHE, etc.). Most logical people are going to see through such obvious dishonesty and bad faith criticism.
>You can't separate the characterization from the narrative when you're criticizing qualms specific to the narrative.
That's my whole point? I'm not here arguing that Peter needed to make a different decision, my point is that the decision itself was created through bad writing. I'm not saying the scenario and the character are exclusive - I'm saying the exact opposite.
And don't compare me to a bunch of YouTubers, most of those people wouldn't know what a theme in a movie is unless the scriptwriter came onto their channel to tell them.
>I'm not here arguing that Peter needed to make a different decision, my point is that the decision itself was created through bad writing.
Sort of depends on whether his actions make sense based on the information we've been presented.
You're watching a movie that has shown us that wiping people's memories is not considered something people have to struggle with morally the way they struggle with other things. It's worth saying that you would have preferred seeing the implications of mind-wiping played out, but it's like wishing a love potion story pointed out how truly horrible it would be to give someone a love potion -- you're still looking, 99% of the time, at a logical universe where love potions are considered funny as long as they don't actually lead to sex.
They're just two different types of stories, and combining them creates friction in the story. In another movie, would I have preferred seeing the implications of mind-wiping? Depends on what kind of story it is, same with the love potion.
It's kind of like comparing Watchmen to Superman 2's mind-wipe kiss. Watchmen broaches serious themes like foreign policy, the ethics of vigilantism and so on. Superman 2 is a pretty straightforward superhero movie that avoids these sensitive topics. I don't think much about the mind-wipe kiss in Superman 2, because the narrative is demanding that I think about these things. But Spider Man No Way Home is broaching serious topics - like the ethics of killing supervillains (or just sending them to their deaths). So I am thinking about the implications of a mind-wipe much more than I would have otherwise. Does this make sense?
It's not about logic in the sense that I need these characters to deeply think about the philosophical implications of every single one of their actions. But it is about logic in the sense that I expect consistency when a narrative demands it.
>But Spider Man No Way Home is broaching serious topics - like the ethics of killing supervillains (or just sending them to their deaths). So I am thinking about the implications of a mind-wipe much more than I would have otherwise. Does this make sense?
Oh, sure, it makes sense. Where I think we part company is that I don't think the issues in NWH are really meant to be taken seriously, given it's a type of superhero movie much closer to Superman 2 than Watchmen. The ethical issues are more along the lines of "why doesn't Batman kill the Joker," it's a world so removed from anything real.
I think the Batman thing is different because it's not usually so woven into the narrative like it is in NWH. The exception would be something like The Dark Knight. But what the TDK gets right is it implicates Batman in Joker's crimes. People become more afraid of the Joker because he goes further than Batman, and Batman has to deal with the fallout from that.
Both cases is about Peter's heroism, doing everything in his power to save everyone.
The mindwipe thing mainly affects himself, completely erasing his own life to stop universal collapse.
As is saving the villains, even after Goblin killed May.
One does not contradict the other.
It doesn't effect himself, it effects literally everyone except him. And recall, when this almost happened at the beginning of the movie, MJ specifically asks Peter not to do a thing like that again without consulting her.
"KEK" "TOPKEK" "moron SUNDAE"!!!
As much as I am fricking annoyed by the other people in this thread, they at least can actually type a sentence that engages with my arguments. You're so much of a fricking bot all you can do is spew out insults.
Anon, I've been engaging with your arguments so well that you had to resort to roleplaying like you can't see them anymore.
You typed out a greentext inventing positions that I've never said I had. If that's "engaging" to you, you don't have any understanding of the word.
Yeah, pal, keep pathetically acting like nobody can go back and read your other posts. Really helping your case.
>It doesn't effect himself
he's completely alone and forgotten by everyone. How it doesn't effect him?
Because he's the only one who is not a victim of the mind-wipe. The problem is you're looking at it like it's a noble sacrifice when it is not that at all.
please tell me why it's not a sacrifice to erase your own existence for the sake of saving the world
He's not erasing his existence, he's mind raping everyone on earth to forget him. I'm sorry if phrasing it that way makes you uncomfortable, but that is literally what is happening.
Even if I were to grant that it's the noble ending, it's the same decision he was trying to make at the beginning of the movie - which is what created the mess with the multiverse. So basically, Peter fricks up, almost destroys the universe, then saves the day by... doing exactly the same thing he did at the beginning? Only this time it's good because people's lives are in danger (which he caused)? This isn't good writing.
erasing people's knowledge that Peter Parker is Spider-Man =/= erasing people's knowledge of Peter Parker.
The former was a selfish desire to make his life, and of people close to him easier, the latter is him giving up all records and memories of him in order to stop total universal collapse.
He gave up all the meaningfull memories and relationships he gained through his entire life in order to save them.
If that's not sacrifice, what is?
>erasing people's knowledge that Peter Parker is Spider-Man =/= erasing people's knowledge of Peter Parker.
This is a bit of an arbitrary distinction. It's basically saying heroes can make moral decisions that regular people aren't allowed to just because they are heroes.
I'm not saying that Peter made the mindrape decision in the same context, therefore they are morally equivalent. I mentioned earlier in the thread that I'm not really speaking to morals at all. What I'm saying is that he makes a bad choice, then learns it was bad, and the problems it created are solved by making the same choice. It doesn't really make sense from a writing perspective.
stop calling it mindrape you fricking moron. it's just a spell. he's not charles xavier reading everyone's sexual fantasies and making cringe jokes about it. it affects reality, not their minds. dr strange deleted their memories through editing fundamental forces in reality. that's the whole catalyst to the villains coming back in the first place, so i dont know how the frick you would have missed that. anyways, you're so morally up in arms over something you can't even concisely explain in simple terms exactly what is wrong with it. you're just b***hing in a totally unrelated thread for 100 posts about some bullshit arbitrary issue you invented completely of your own accord. wasn't there a post hours ago warning the thread about people who do that? shut the frick up, man. it's evident your wrong, because you've been corrected like 60 times and not one person ITT agrees with you. god damn
Try proofreading your replies before you post them and maybe you wont end up contradicting yourself like you do here:
>it affects reality, not their minds.
>dr strange deleted their memories
Key word: MEMORIES. Do you think the mind is somehow disconnected from the memories? Just because the spell "edits fundamental forces" doesn't change anything about the end result. And just because your squeamish about the word "rape" doesn't mean anything to me. Peter and Strange went into people's brains and changed it without their consent (including his GF, when she explicitly said not to). I can't dumb it down for anymore than that, sorry.
Also,
> not one person ITT agrees with you
Laughable you think I care about this at all. Everyone I've talked to hasn't been able to present a single argument against what I've said. You guys are just sperging about how I've offended you by making you actually think about a movie. It's created cognitive dissonance in your brain, which is why you're so upset that you're bringing up threads I wasn't even in.
People are mad because you keep saying Peter hasn’t made a sacrifice in the movie even when people present evidence. Maybe you’re being overly pedantic over the word sacrifice. Peter objectively LOSES things from the wish. His relationship with MJ, his friends, any extended family, his connections to Happy/being Ironboy, his ability to get into a good school, and his High School diploma. However, you’re autistically fixated on this not being a “sacrifice” due to some vague reasoning about narrative that doesn’t address the movie purposefully showing what Peter LOST due to the wish.
Stop shifting the goalposts like a huge homosexual, you sperg. Just frick off already. If you have to keep switching up your argument you're saying nothing of genuine worth.
>The characterization is inconsistent because of the narrative
>"Okay, well here's specifically how the narrative portrays the characterization in a specific way. It's not inconsistent with the themes at all, because they're explicitly portrayed as congruent with the events of the narrative and goals of the storytellers"
>I'm not criticizing the narrative, I'm criticizing the characterization. It's inconsistent with the themes of the narrative
>(Doesn't ever explain specifically why btw)
>"You can't criticize the characterization as inconsistent with the themes of the narrative without acknowledging that the characterization is consistent within the themes of the narrative, because [insert the goals and execution of the narrative themes]. it's dishonest."
>B-but I didn't say that. I actually was critiquing the narrative, too, even though I just told you to ignore that.
What kind of fricking argument are you even trying to make at this point? Just let it go already, Jesus Christ. You have no idea what you're talking about anymore.
You are braindead and you can't even keep track of what I'm saying. When did I say I'm not criticizing the narrative? You are inventing things to get upset over, like a schizophrenic.
This whole greentext is literally nonsense. It makes sense only in your own brain. You are "quoting" me, but it's not anything I've said. Go back and read what I have actually written, instead of spewing reddit-tier bullshit at me like "SHIFTING GOAL POASTS!!"
The irony here is that despite the fact that you think I don't have an argument, you haven't even been able to engage with anything I've said.
TOPKEK I love when dumbfricks like you get put in a corner and have to resort to acting like the entire conversation didn't happen and isn't easily accessible to the people reading the thread, as if they can't just scroll up and see you're a bullshit dumbshit liar. The fallback on "meds now schizo" really puts the special ed cherry on top of this moron sundae you've been crafting ever since your initial statement. You've already been BTFO'd by like 15 people by now. Go do something else already, moron! KEK!!!
did you want Peter to personally ask every single person on Earth if they were ok with wiping their memory when the universe was about to collapse?
It's a sacrifice because other people's lives aren't affect nearly as much as his, who ends up completely alone.
>did you want Peter to personally ask every single person on Earth if they were ok with wiping their memory when the universe was about to collapse?
And even if he was going to do that they didn't exactly have time to talk billions of people into a memory wipe because THE SKY WAS LITERALLY BREAKING APART, AN INFINITE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WERE ABOUT TO FLOOD THE UNIVERSE LIKE IT WAS BLACK FRIDAY, AND STRANGE WAS BARELY HOLDING THEM BACK.
There wasn't a lot of time, is my point.
The sky cracking and such only happened because he asked for Strange to mind wipe everyone, and then fricked it up when Strange was mid-spell.
Look, in the moral universe they set up in the movie clearly mind wiping is not a crime the way it would be if it existed in real life (if… yeah… that’s the ticket).
It may seem like bullshit that magic authority figures are fine with this kind of spell, but within the movie’s logic it’s not the issue where reasonable people disagree.
When the writers introduce the topic of morality e.g. through Peter's actions and unwillingness to condemn the villains to death - then the logic of the universe opens itself up to these criticism.
See my comment here:
You aren't understanding my point.
Alright, pseud. Give us an alternative that would solve this non-existent inconsistency.
>Points out bad writing
>"WELLL SIR WHY DON'T YOU WRITE A MOVIE THEN"
This is one of the most boring responses possible. I'm not going to fix the writer's problems for them. They get paid to make movies, they should be better at it.
I accept your concession. If you're incapable of providing a simple solution to your presented issue, then there's no genuine logic informing your critique.
You still aren't understanding what I'm saying. You are just reading my sentences looking for buzzwords to latch on to. But sounds like you're too tired to argue anyway, sorry for making your brain work so hard today, it's probably not used to it.
I accept your concession
Anon, Peter Parker is purposely one of the most morally conflicted characters in fiction. The entire time Spider-Man's existed, he's flip-flopped constantly on just about every issue. The only moral consistency he has ever had, has always been:
>Help the misunderstood
>Make sure the least amount of people die as possible, especially if it can be avoided
This isn't a discussion about morals really. It's about what is good and bad writing. If you write a character to spend an entire movie taking a moral high ground about saving the villains of the story, but then write him as re-writing every human's memory without their consent (and then making this seem like a tragic sacrifice for him, instead of something deeply unsettling), it's just bad writing.
Making people forget who you exist at all for the sake of protecting them, is not "deeply unsettling." It's a completely selfless act, and it's the direct product of realizing how selfish and immature his actions had been the entire trilogy (especially that specific fricking movie). It also doesn't contradict not wanting to murder anyone, whatsoever. If you want to be a virtue signalling pseud, shit on a character you don't have to intentionally lie about to justify your argument.
Yeah, I pretty much agree. People are too willing to bend and twist what is already self-evident to contort others' opinions so that they'll feel more comfortable with either not understanding a piece of art, or disliking it blindly.
>What went right?
*Wrong
My experience was terrible, nobody informed me that I had to watch 2 television shows before this movie, I didn't understand the plot at all which ruined my experience entirely.
Please keep the movies and television shows separate, they do it for comics and games already, I will not consume Marvel television.
WandaVision and ???
Why were you eating any TV shows in the first place, fatass? I just watch them.
It's not great per se, but it's the only post-Endgame movie I've enjoyed so far. Haven't seen GotG 3 so maybe my opinion will change.
Raimi's directing, bringing great personality and energy to a super undercooked story, that barely seems to care about it's main protagonist.
killing the lesbian moms literally less than a minute after introducing them
>What went right?
The shit that was undeniably Raimi horror directing classics. So the deadite Dr. Strange stuff was pretty good. Reed Richards dying, Wanda coming through that portal.
The combined 30 minutes they let Sam Raimi out of Feige's leash
Because the director is fricking Raimi, the guy is just far above MCU directors.
Why can't Feige just hire good directors all the time? Most of the MCU is mediocre at best because he's only hiring literal whos
>Why can't Feige just hire good directors all the time?
Most directors who are actually good aren't just going to jump into a Marvel movie without certain guarantees of creative freedom. Feige would rather just hire whos because they don't have enough clout/success to demand that freedom. So it allows the MCU to just streamline their production line.
He could hire at least one A-lister director per Phase specially if they already are sucessful with capeshit
Imagine even a single Nolan MCU movie,Todd Phillips, then a Del Toro movie, and even a Cameron movie. Every single Phase would have something to people to be hyped about other than praying that the actor who will be the next big villain don't frick up irl.
I think this movie underdelivered. They really can't make Strange a likeable enough character to carry the movie, and the supporting cast was non-existent/super boring. America's inclusion stuck out like a sore thumb.
I did like the Illuminati and the music fight! I kind of wish Jim had been Mr. Fantastic in the new movie.
Pizza Poppa.