Marvel's The Eternals

[TurtleTitan97]

Marvel Studios has pinpointed its next potential franchise, the Jack Kirby-created title The Eternals, and is moving ahead with development.
The studio behind Avengers: Infinity War has hired writers Matthew and Ryan Firpo, whose spec script Ruin shot to the top of the 2017 Black List, to pen the script for the superhero team adventure.

In comics lore, the saga of the Eternals began millions of years ago when the cosmic beings known as the Celestials genetically experimented on humans, creating the super-powered and near-immortal beings and a more monstrous off-shoot known as the Deviants. The two races moved behind the scenes throughout human history while also engaging in Game of Thrones-style cosmic powerplays.
Among the characters are Ikaris, fueled by cosmic energy; Sersi, who relishes moving amongst humans; and Thena, often mistaken for the Greek goddess Athena.
Kirby created the title in 1976 during his cosmic hero stage and influenced by such as works as Chariots of the Gods, which explored ancient gods as aliens. The comic was his part of his second sojourn at Marvel, which he had left in 1970 and done the then-unthinkable, moved to rival DC Comics.
The Firpos are best known for writing Ruin, a spec script that shot to the top of the 2017 Black List. Even before that, the project was emanating enough heat that it attracted Gal Gadot and got set up at Marc Butan’s MadRiver Pictures.
Ruin tells of an ex-Nazi captain who, to atone for his crimes, hunts down and kills the members of his former SS squad.
The Firpos are repped by UTA and LBI Entertainment.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/marvel-sets-black-list-writers-eternals-movie-1112084

[Raph's Girl]

Well since Asgard is kaput...time for the adventures of the Greek gods!

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Well, Marvel Studios can seemingly do no wrong. So bring it on, I guess. :trazz:

[Andrew NDB]

Starring an openly gay lead:

https://www.comicbookmovie.com/eternals/the-eternals-will-reportedly-feature-marvel-studios-first-openly-gay-male-lead-a166869

[Autbot_Benz]

Starring an openly gay lead:

https://www.comicbookmovie.com/eternals/the-eternals-will-reportedly-feature-marvel-studios-first-openly-gay-male-lead-a166869

as long as the chosen gay actor doesn't use the press junkets to push gender inclusivity or whatever the **** Brie Larson keeps yapping about like a parrot.

[Andrew NDB]

Angelina Jolie will be the lead:

https://www.comicbookmovie.com/eternals/the-eternals-finds-its-leading-lady-in-maleficent-star-angelina-jolie-a167430

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Angelina Jolie will be the lead:

https://www.comicbookmovie.com/eternals/the-eternals-finds-its-leading-lady-in-maleficent-star-angelina-jolie-a167430

Awesome. Love me some Angelina Jolie. Can't think of a single movie I've seen with her where she wasn't good. The film might've sucked, but she was good.

[Leo656]

I wish she was still hot, and not a goddamn bird-armed mummy.

[Galactus]

So I'm guessing she's Sersi.

Wasn't the rumour that character would be the lead a while ago.

[Andrew NDB]

I wish she was still hot, and not a goddamn bird-armed mummy.

lol... that's cold, man.

[Jester]

So...that Eternals movie...

[Leo656]

So...that Eternals movie...

Won't be anywhere near as entertaining as what we were discussing before.

This forum sucks.

[Andrew NDB]

The Rock is up for an MCU part, POSSIBLY in this movie.

https://www.joyscribe.com/dwayne-johnson-teases-exciting-marvel-news/?fbclid=IwAR3oM7uIOeUjtilrIQziVkC1pCHtAPHyKFkwY5Ag VPNvoCySHVfzFTuKyWY

Maybe it's something else, though. Surfer?

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

The Rock is up for an MCU part, POSSIBLY in this movie.

https://www.joyscribe.com/dwayne-johnson-teases-exciting-marvel-news/?fbclid=IwAR3oM7uIOeUjtilrIQziVkC1pCHtAPHyKFkwY5Ag VPNvoCySHVfzFTuKyWY

Maybe it's something else, though. Surfer?

The Rock as the Silver Surfer? I don't know Silver Surfer well enough to know if this is a good thing or bad thing for the character.

Seems a'ight to me though.

[sdp]

Well to me Silver Surfer shouldn't have much of a recognizable face, let alone talk like The Rock so he is a terrible choice.

Who are the eternals? Are those the New Gods of the Marvel Universe? If so then damn, Jack Kirby kept working on the same storyline no matter what company he worked for, he'd just change the names :lol:

[Andrew NDB]

Well to me Silver Surfer shouldn't have much of a recognizable face, let alone talk like The Rock so he is a terrible choice.

Something about a chrome, shiny Rock surfing around on a cosmic surfboard giving the People's Eyebrow to bad guys is kind of endearing.

Maybe give him a different voice?

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Something about a chrome, shiny Rock surfing around on a cosmic surfboard giving the People's Eyebrow to bad guys is kind of endearing.

Maybe give him a different voice?

There's no way Johnson would agree to that. :tlol:

Wasn't it Lawrence Fishburne who did Silver Surfer in that terrible Fantastic Four sequel? He had a good voice for it. Weird belly-button TV screen though.

[AquaParade]

Very curious as to what type of tone this film aims to capture.

I suppose I’m expecting something a bit more serious than Guardians, and maybe something a bit more “heady”. If that’s the case, I’ll definitely be excited. My hope is that they are going obscure in order to break away from a few of the MCU/Disney chains in terms of fluff and fun.

Could be totally wrong, but that’s my optimistic side. If it’s just another high quality cosmic MCU film, introducing likeable characters - not that there’s anything wrong with that - I probably won’t be all that interested.

As much credit as the MCU gets for diversifying it's films when it comes to genre and/or tone, I don't really buy it. Don't get me wrong, I consider the MCU, as a whole, to be an amazing gift to a fan like myself. It's the type of movie universe I dreamt of as a child. It's totally awesome. I'd still like to see more diversity in terms of tone and genre though, similar to what Fox did with the X-Men franchise, except, ya know, without all the screw ups.

[sdp]

I think the fox deal happened too late to have Silver Surfer in the Eternals, maybe a small cameo or hints at the heralds. I don't think the Silver Surfer has had great appearances in media outside comics though with the exception of the 90s SS cartoon.

DEXf7F22Ooo

To think that Fox could've had an Cosmic Marvel movie universe had they gone on with the Silver Surfer spin-off and the other cosmic X-Men characters. I guess it's best that they didn't since it likely would've been much inferior to the MCU one.

[Andrew NDB]

I suspect "The Eternals" will be kind of like what they originally intended the "The Inhumans" to be when it was still set to be a movie.

Sort of a... 1 part X-Men, 2 parts Guardians of the Galaxy, with Jack Kirby visual stuff kind of thing. Is what I'd expect.

[oldmanwinters]

I hope Galactus is now on the table as the new Saga Big Bad.

I wonder what will become the new McGuffin now that the Infinity Stones are gone.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

I suspect "The Eternals" will be kind of like what they originally intended the "The Inhumans" to be when it was still set to be a movie.

Sort of a... 1 part X-Men, 2 parts Guardians of the Galaxy, with Jack Kirby visual stuff kind of thing. Is what I'd expect.

Exactly. Makes me wonder why Feige doesn't like the Inhumans but doesn't mind the Eternals. Maybe because the Eternals are a little less "hey we don't have the rights to the X-Men so have these losers instead!"

I hope Galactus is now on the table as the new Saga Big Bad.

I wonder what will become the new McGuffin now that the Infinity Stones are gone.

Maybe make the Silver Surfer the connecting thread. We see him show up at a planet in the end credits of Guardians of the Galaxy 3, same for Eternals, and Captain Marvel 2... and then we finally see him show up at Earth in an end credits scene right before the next Avengers event movie. :tgrin:

[sdp]

I'm sure Galactus will be the big bad but I'm sure we will only get the vaguest of hints until Avengers 5 to milk out the "WILL THEY USE GALACTUS OR NOT" free marketing speculation from fans. It's cool, I think Galactus is a nice way to finish another 10 year story arc if it is able to achieve that again.

[AquaParade]

Galactus will be interesting when it eventually happens.

When I think of him appearing in a movie, I want to see true existential terror. I mean, just seeing something of that size that "eats planets" should send ripples of terror down everyone's spine.

Of course, I'm afraid it will be somewhat handwaved. The effects of the snap were portrayed maybe better than I expected. But I guess I crave a certain amount of existential terror to go along with those types of situations, which isn't exactly the MCU's bag.

Really wouldn't take much though. Think of "2001: A Space Odyssey". Just the music and cinematography surrounding the scene in which our protagonists first encounter the "monolith". Sends chills of wonder & terror down my spine. Would love to see Galactus treated with that type of respect and reverence.

Here is the scene itself.

https://youtu.be/oU4Rk0NATNs

Thoughts?

[Andrew NDB]

When I think of him appearing in a movie, I want to see true existential terror. I mean, just seeing something of that size that "eats planets" should send ripples of terror down everyone's spine.

Absolutely this.

My fear, of course, is that while they'll faithfully adapt Galactus visually... he'll be likely be played up for laughs or treated like a joke like everybody is in the Guardians movies.

[Andrew NDB]

Millie Bobby Brown is cast in it:

http://www.darkhorizons.com/millie-bobby-brown-joins-marvels-eternals

[Andrew NDB]

There's a gay family in it with two dudes and the gay kiss made everyone cry on set:

https://www.darkhorizons.com/eternals-actor-talks-films-gay-representation/

[Sumac]

I cry from shameless plug-ins SJWs are doing.

[Leo656]

BvS had two dudes kiss and they didn't throw themselves a parade over it.

"Ultimate Edition" but still. It was just there, nobody treated it like an "event". More of that, please.

[sdp]

BvS had two dudes kiss and they didn't throw themselves a parade over it.

"Ultimate Edition" but still. It was just there, nobody treated it like an "event". More of that, please.

We are supposed to hate DCE but love MCU.

[Leo656]

I know, but I'm fairly resistant to such shallow attempts at social programming. :lol: As are more and more people, it would seem.

Also, in that film it's happening right behind Henry Cavill and his flawless profile, so it's forgivable that one's eye might not be drawn directly to the two guys kissing. He's pretty dreamy after all. :lol:

I actually think it was a good scene specifically because it's not treated like a big deal. They don't stop the scene for it, he's just out walking around and that's something a person would see when they're out walking around. Which is fine. Making a big huge triumphant deal and blowing a trumpet over it is what gets on people's nerves.

[ZariusTwo]

Ec0hqxJ8GMQ

[IMJ]

Not lookin' good......

So I'm kind of a Quasar fan after my Iron Man fandom. And because of that, Makkari was going to be my gateway into caring about this movie, but they went ahead and changed that character in every way and it's basically not the character who was Quasar best buddy in the books.

Now my only real interest in this flick would be if I found out that for some reason the Quantum Bands made an appearance - even as a background image or something and the likelihood of that is next to zero right now.

So basically, as of right now I don't plan on supporting this one financially on it's own merits.

[ZariusTwo]

I called this trailer 'lame' on a pro wrestling forum and the mods yelled at me

Someone two posts after me calls the trailer "s*it" and nothing happens to him.

Weirdos.

[IMJ]

I called this trailer 'lame' on a pro wrestling forum and the mods yelled at me

Someone two posts after me calls the trailer "s*it" and nothing happens to him.

Weirdos.

On what premise did that fool talk down to you for saying that the movie looked "lame"?

[ZariusTwo]

On what premise did that fool talk down to you for saying that the movie looked "lame"?

"You pick on Marvel movies all the time and it's super annoying", no really, that's the premise.

Then he randomly accuses me of instigating Marvel vs DC debates in threads that are months old (and I wasn't even the one bringing those debates up during the threads in question)

[IMJ]

"You pick on Marvel movies all the time and it's super annoying", no really, that's the premise.

Then he randomly accuses me of instigating Marvel vs DC debates in threads that are months old (and I wasn't even the one bringing those debates up during the threads in question)

The very nature of a forum is to discuss things in general. Whether it's in positive or negative context. Weak links in the population always rely on a virtue signaling argument instead of just having the conversation. "Don't you dare say anything bad! If you do you are an "instigator", a "racist", a "problem person".

Those people are disingenuous liars. Don't believe them. The only power they have in life is to other simps like them - just like some of the sad people here we have seen similar conflict with. "woe is me and my pathetic life, you are bad and at least I can take a stand against you". :roll: I wouldn't worry about it too much, bro. Push back the right way with truth, example and illustrate why the guy is a fool and maybe your mod will show his true colors and trip himself up badly much like happened somewhere else we know of... ;)

[ZariusTwo]

Here was my response to the little git

(I offered to PM him details on my occasional struggles with mental health, but he said I should talk to the chief admin, as he didn't want to deal with PMs because of prior 'abuse' from members, hence the beginning of the post)

Understood. I'm sorry that has happened to you.

The facts speak for themselves though...I did not bring up Marvel vs DC comparisons in here, so there was no need to bring that part of my past up in here to show how much of a 'problem' I was allegedly being, and other people have since expressed concern about the trailer, one even using far stronger language than I did (calling it "s*it"), yet none of you have come down hard on them. I was singled out for some reason, and that is what I find disturbing, and all the more telling.

You've said your piece, I've said mine. You see me as 'annoying', I see myself as 'honest', let's move on.

[Andrew NDB]

I don't know what to make of it from that trailer.

[neatoman]

Yeah, it's pretty vague. All it says is that they have been around for a long time and they're not going to hide anymore.

[CyberCubed]

As someone with no knowledge of these characters, it really looks like any generic sci-fi movie to me.

[TigerClaw]

I'm looking forward to it, I know nothing about the Eternals, But since its a new marvel team, I can't wait to see what they will offer. The trailer says they never interfered, So it will be interesting to see how they explain why they weren't around when Thanos showed up and wiped out half of the population.

[Andrew NDB]

Could this possibly be how they bring in Galactus? Or foreshadow him or something? That's about the only reason I'd care about this without knowing more.

[TigerClaw]

I heard in the Comics Thanos was a Deviant, But in the MCU he's a Titan.

[Galactus]

Could this possibly be how they bring in Galactus? Or foreshadow him or something? That's about the only reason I'd care about this without knowing more.

It's possible. Heck they could easily foreshadow Apocalypse too. Quite a lot of important characters are connected to the Eternals.

I heard in the Comics Thanos was a Deviant, But in the MCU he's a Titan.

In the comics the Titanians are Eternals. A group of them that left Earth to live on Titan which in the comics is actually Jupiter's Moon Titan rather than another planet far from Earth. Comic Thanos is a Titan too but through a genetic quirk was born to look like a Deviant. He looks like Darkseid but is actually a rejigged version of Orion.

[neatoman]

I've seen some "leaks" on 4Chan that someone keeps posting but I don't know if it is genuine or just some guy who keeps posting BS for fun.

Anyway be warned in case it turns out to be real:

They are not made from humans in this version and can better be described as androids here.
The Deviants are a failed attempt to create the Eternals.
The purpose of the Eternals is to protect planets until the Celestials can harvest them.
In order to keep them motivated, the Celestials reset their memories every time they harvest so they won't understand their true purpose.
They find out the truth and rebel.

[TigerClaw]

I've seen some "leaks" on 4Chan that someone keeps posting but I don't know if it is genuine or just some guy who keeps posting BS for fun.

Anyway be warned in case it turns out to be real:

They are not made from humans in this version and can better be described as androids here.
The Deviants are a failed attempt to create the Eternals.
The purpose of the Eternals is to protect planets until the Celestials can harvest them.
In order to keep them motivated, the Celestials reset their memories every time they harvest so they won't understand their true purpose.
They find out the truth and rebel.

To me that sounds like something Galactus would do.

[neatoman]

It would not surpise me if they actually went ahead and made Galactus a Celestial for the MCU. Having more than one type of cosmic giant in tech armor who has been around since the start of the universe, is exactly the type thing the MCU tries to avoid as hard as it can, multiple similar but distinct concepts is something they really don't want. It's why the Cosmic Cube and the Eye of Agamotto are Infinity Stones, having multiple artifacts of ultimate power seems to be something they consider too confusing. They have already made Ego a Celestial and Ego barely has any similarities to the Celestials.

[ZariusTwo]

FH-6zKXSl4Y

This looks boring as all f*ck

[Andrew NDB]

I ask this earnestly... is anyone excited for this movie? Have you heard of people excited for this movie?

I should add... is anyone excited for this movie... that is excited for ONLY the movie itself/its characters and not things that MIGHT be in the movie (setting up Galactus and the stage for the Fantastic Four movie or such)?

Because I don't know of anybody at all. I definitely plan on seeing it but I'm neither stoked about it or have any ill will towards it. It's just "the latest MCU movie" to me, and I suspect most out there. I suspect it will only do a little better than Shang-Chi numbers, and probably only because of Jolie. Better on the long haul if there ends up being good word of mouth.

[CyberCubed]

I would have no idea the movie even exists if I didn't browse forums like this, that's for sure.

[IMJ]

Zero excitement for this movie. I'd only want to see it to see giant Celestials doing stuff or the possibility that they'd have the Quantum Bands or Quasar show up, which I think is a chance ZERO.

I would have been interested because Makkari was a hardcore supporting character in Quasar volume 1, but they literally race/gender/disability swapped Makkari. It's woke $#!(, so I'm out.

On that note I think they race or orientation swapped close to ever character in this movie. I think the perception of this movie for those in the know about the source material is that the Eternals is the apex of Marvel's woke $#!( agenda so far.

[sdp]

According to MCU fans (casuals) jack Kirby sucks and the marvel studios is fixing the crappy comics https://twitter.com/BrettThousand/status/1449093593889640455?t=pBBmr5Ze-ouPIyYjsjx5wQ&s=19

[IMJ]

According to MCU fans (casuals) jack Kirby sucks and the marvel studios is fixing the crappy comics https://twitter.com/BrettThousand/status/1449093593889640455?t=pBBmr5Ze-ouPIyYjsjx5wQ&s=19

The Eternals was clearly made for the Twitter 9 percenters.....
And look how well they supported Black Widow and Shang Chi.

[AquaParade]

Those aren't MCU fans, they're deranged users of Twitter. Stay away from there, son.
It's like calling Charles Manson a "Honey Nut Cheerio's fan". Leave the cheerios out of it.

[TigerClaw]

The Red Carpet Premiere is on now.

-hTxYjmU01c

[ZariusTwo]

Major spoiler has leaked

Thanos' brother Eros appears in the movie, played by Harry Styles

[sdp]

meh, he's a nobody in the comics i didn't even know he existed, are we supposed to only care because of his relationship with thanos? because casuals don't know comics and will automatically think he's cool because of that?

[IMJ]

Those aren't MCU fans, they're deranged users of Twitter. Stay away from there, son.
It's like calling Charles Manson a "Honey Nut Cheerio's fan". Leave the cheerios out of it.

:lol::lol:


meh, he's a nobody i
n the comics i didn't even know he existed, are we supposed to only care because of his relationship with thanos? because casuals don't know comics and will automatically think he's cool because of that?

I would actually say that out of all of the D-List characters this movie is comprised of, that Eros is probably the most widely known. He had more of a presence in the Avengers book that any of the "Eternals" characters had across most of the Marvel U across time. Eros became used in print a bit more around the time they were filling the Avengers book with a D-Lister team like Black Knight and Dr. Druid.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

:lol::lol:




I would actually say that out of all of the D-List characters this movie is comprised of, that Eros is probably the most widely known. He had more of a presence in the Avengers book that any of the "Eternals" characters had across most of the Marvel U across time. Eros became used in print a bit more around the time they were filling the Avengers book with a D-Lister team like Black Knight and Dr. Druid.


Honestly, I'd say Sirsi or Thena would be better known. At least to the comic fandom at large. Eros is one I'd look at and go "the Greek god?" Rather than an Eternal.

[ZariusTwo]

Reviews coming in

https://deadline.com/video/eternals-review-marvels-latest-superhero-team-takes-on-refreshing-new-directions-for-the-mcu-thanks-to-oscar-winner-chloe-zhao/

[TigerClaw]

Reviews coming in

https://deadline.com/video/eternals-review-marvels-latest-superhero-team-takes-on-refreshing-new-directions-for-the-mcu-thanks-to-oscar-winner-chloe-zhao/
Here's another review.
https://www.polygon.com/reviews/22741019/eternals-review-marvel

[ZariusTwo]

Marvel’s Eternals dreams big and falls hard

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/oct/24/eternals-review-marvel-chloe-zhao-angelina-jolie-salma-hayek-powerpoint

[IMJ]

I'm seeing a lot of "polite negativity" in the headlines on my newsfeeds.

Either way it's woke $#!(. Don't pay to see it.

[TigerClaw]

Its got a 72% on Rotten Tomatoes, Its only via 39 reviews.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/eternals

[CyberCubed]

I mean it’s a film of no-name superheroes nobody ever heard of and they introduce 11 new heroes in the same movie. This was doomed to fail.

[AquaParade]

I mean it’s a film of no-name superheroes nobody ever heard of and they introduce 11 new heroes in the same movie. This was doomed to fail.

Fail, how? By not pleasing everybody? I'm sure it will still do relatively well at the box office and gain a lot of new fans.

I don't know if I will like it, but I'm pretty much all for the MCU pushing their boundaries as much as possible, even if it results in something less than stellar sometimes, so I'm sort of glad to hear it is polarizing.

[LeotheLateBloomer]

I mean it’s a film of no-name superheroes nobody ever heard of and they introduce 11 new heroes in the same movie. This was doomed to fail.

Cubed, I'm pretty sure half of the MCU superheroes are plenty you've never heard of.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Nobody, huh? I've heard of at least half of them, if not even read about them. The others, I'm not familiar with, but mainly because I never got around to reading their entries in my Marvel Encyclopedia. Or the entries were so small or vague I don't remember them.

Used to be a time I'd compete and even win in the daily trivia contests on the Marvel boards, back when they still had them. There was a whole section dedicated to that stuff. And they asked about some of the most obscure characters in the MU.

I wonder how many of you guys know who Speedball is? Or The Spot? Trapster? How about Namorita? Or Beak? Yeah, these guys are hardly the only ones "nobody" has ever heard of, but that doesn't mean they don't have cool stories to tell about them. I'd love to see movies with a version of the Dark Avengers, or X-Factor, the Defenders, The West Coast Avengers,

[Andrew NDB]

MCU-wise, I think if "Avengers" is the epitome of general audience excitement and reaction, a 10, and something like "Ant-Man" is the lowest, a 1, with something like "Guardians of the Galaxy" in the upper middle, "Eternals" is something like a 1.5 or a 2. It just is. The only legitimate excitement I see anywhere are just from people who are always excited about seeing gay stuff and who usually begin a lot of sentences with "Isn't it time we get ______." Though even these people are being oddly quiet with this movie.

Yeah, the Inhumans. A show about a woman with living hair that's a weapon and a giant dog... and right away they cut the woman's hair and send the dog away. That's what happens, right? So, so weird. I mean, what were they thinking?

[Leo656]

I have less than no interest in this movie. I just think it's interesting that several articles say that Kumail Nanjiani steals the show, and if that's not a warning to stay away I don't know what is.

[CyberCubed]

Cubed, I'm pretty sure half of the MCU superheroes are plenty you've never heard of.

Even in the 90's I had a basic idea of who Iron Man, Captain America, Hulk, Thor, etc. were despite not reading any comics or watching anything, they still felt like they were there after Spiderman and X-men. They had toys, stuff in comic shops, even if you didn't read them you knew who they were.

I've literally never heard of, "The Eternals" in my entire life.

[Coola Yagami]

Zero interest in Eternals, just like I had zero interest in Shang Chi. For me it ended with End Game, with the exception of Spider-Man Far From Home which was the Aftermath and Black Widow cause it was about time she had her own movie, however late it was.

I just don't care or bring myself to care about these people and it feels so disjointed. Like the first movies like Iron Man, Captain America and whatnot, you already knew they were gonna form the Avengers. Even Guardians of the Galaxy with more explanation on the Infinity Stones, you knew eventually they would have to cross paths with the Avengers somehow. Then Civil War introduced Black Panther and Spider-Man so their movies were pretty much guaranteed. As we got into Infinity Game, finally all the characters were gonna gather together, leading into End Game.

The only Marvel movie I care about is Spider-Man No Way Home, and Dr. Strange Multiverse of Madness. Still not sure about Thor til I see a trailer and even then the producer made it sound like they're more interested in making a romantic comedy than actually making a superhero movie.

But the point is, I see no way they can create some other threat that somehow gets Shang Chi, the Eternals and whoever is left of the Avengers to band up to face.... so I kinda don't care.

[AquaParade]

Wait, so you were done after Endgame, but still saw Far From home & Black Widow, and are looking forward to No Way Home and Dr. Strange 2?

Does not compute.

[Coola Yagami]

Wait, so you were done after Endgame, but still saw Far From home & Black Widow, and are looking forward to No Way Home and Dr. Strange 2?

Does not compute.

Well... done as in terms for the need to watch each and every single Marvel movie out there. Like I have no rush to watch Shang Chi or Eternals or anything else that isn't Dr. Strange 2 and No Way Home.

Unless of course, we get a MCU X-Men movie.

[Andrew NDB]

Unless of course, we get a MCU X-Men movie.

I'm betting we get Avengers vs. X-Men before we get an X-Men movie.

[AquaParade]

Well... done as in terms for the need to watch each and every single Marvel movie out there. Like I have no rush to watch Shang Chi or Eternals or anything else that isn't Dr. Strange 2 and No Way Home.

Unless of course, we get a MCU X-Men movie.

We are. Plus all the unannounced projects that could catch your interest. This doesnt sound like done at all, my man.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

I'm actually pretty curious about this one, since they are characters I've mostly only seen in passing. Much like Shang Chi, which I enjoyed. Makes me wish we could see some of the Greek pantheon characters, too, like Aries, Aphrodite, or Zeus. Supposedly, Zeus once kicked Odin's butt in a battle in the comics. Would be fun to see that fight!

[Coola Yagami]

I'm betting we get Avengers vs. X-Men before we get an X-Men movie.

Which will suck because all of the Avengers that matter are now gone.

I have faith with the Hulk though. Hulk's healing is stupid strong. All he needs is the right trigger to bring back the OG rage monster Hulk and his arm will heal up. It's all up to TPTB if they want all that 'toxic masculinity' back. Honestly, just seeing Hulk kick ass on Juggernaut or Colossus would save that movie.

EDIT- ok and maybe I'm not done-done, but I'm not gonna rush out and see each and every MCU movie out there just 'because'. A lot of the new ones just sound boring.

[IMJ]

Even in the 90's I had a basic idea of who Iron Man, Captain America, Hulk, Thor, etc. were despite not reading any comics or watching anything, they still felt like they were there after Spiderman and X-men. They had toys, stuff in comic shops, even if you didn't read them you knew who they were.

I've literally never heard of, "The Eternals" in my entire life.

The people arguing with you are once again arguing semantics. "IIIIiii'VE heard of THEMMMMM!" If you aren't going to get roped into Dromer bull $#((ers defending an SJW I.P., then it's better to just point out that every single character in this movie is a deep-cut Marvel D-Lister.

None of these characters supported their own publication for decades, they were relegated to what was an obscure Kirby series 40 years ago, and many of them only had appearances in the Avengers roster during the volume one era where that title was littered with D-Listers on the team for some reason (and even then it was only Sersi and Black Knight). I love Marvel Cosmic though - I have forever. So my main interest in this movie was the Celestials and the possibility that there will be a mention of Eon/Epoch and the Quantum Bands. I was also excited for Makkari who was Quasar's best friend in that book (yet still a supporting character only).

But then Feige did his advertised SJW-crap to this I.P., so it's woke $#!( now. Besides, this was a generic I.P. anyway, and real Kirby fans will support his DC "Fourth World" stuff. The Eternals for Marvel were basically Kirby's Fourth World remnant ideas anyway. The best things that came out of it were the Celestials.

But this movie is a 100% no-pay-to-support for me.

[ProphetofGanja]

A show about a woman with living hair that's a weapon and a giant dog... and right away they cut the woman's hair and send the dog away. That's what happens, right? So, so weird. I mean, what were they thinking?

Wow, is that really what they did with Inhumans? Criminal. I never really cared to look into the Inhumans characters; they never really popped up in Marvel comics I read. Ditto for the Eternals. Just seems hard to relate to near-immortal cosmic children of supreme space gods.

[sdp]

I tried to get into the inhumans in the late 00's but man I never understood the appeal or why I was supposed to like any of them. I was really curious to see how the MCU would make them popular. They seemed to try to make them into mutants equivalents which made no sense to me but whatever it could've been neat to see them try, perhaps there was something to them I had not seen but alas once they got Fox they didn't care to even try.

[Autbot_Benz]

Eternals just hit 59% on Rotton Tomatoes making it the first MCU movie to be rotten

[CyberCubed]

I hope it goes even lower. I want it to plummet.

[IMJ]

I hope it goes even lower. I want it to plummet.

I don't necessarily want "failure" as the part of satisfaction. But rather I view it as "audience rejection" of this bull $#!(. If you can make needy-addicted-comic-book-nerds reject an offering then that's true evidence of a society disgusted with a direction finally.

[Leo656]

It doesn't sound like that's what's happening, though.

Like I've seen some reviews (from sources with an obvious bias) that gush about the diversity angle as the best part of the movie aside from the cinematography. But even they gave it a mediocre or poor review because in spite of hitting all their boxes, they just found the movie really, really boring.

I'll need to see a bunch more race-flipped super-hero movies full of gay main characters fail, before I'll call it a full-blown cultural rejection. Right now, it just sounds like most people don't find it to be the sort of thrill ride a Marvel movie is "supposed" to be, and that's where most of their negativity comes from. "Too many characters and not enough happening." That's what I keep reading.

Nobody knows who these characters are, on any meaningful level, so they don't especially care that they've been "Woked" up. They just don't like how they finally got Angelina Jolie into one of these things and she does nothing at all of importance... and neither does anyone else.

The whole project was flawed. They gave it to a director who had some critical acclaim but had never done a movie like this. And sometimes, that works, but it seems like her wheelhouse is artsy-fartsy stuff. Pretty pictures about "real people" that nobody actually watches. And that's fine, there's a place for that in cinema. It's not another Guardians situation, where you had a bunch of obscure characters but the person directing the whole thing had a sense of style and bombast and knew how to illustrate why those characters were interesting. In this case, they gave the project to someone whose entire style is "understated and poignant" and let her do it all Her Way, and it just seems like it didn't mesh well. Like, I haven't seen this movie, or ANY of her movies. But everything I've read about it just makes it seem like she may be a talented director as far as her own style but just completely wrong for this type of movie, and what it needed to do. Remember, "these movies aren't cinema". Yet "cinema" is literally all she's done. Why have her oversee a theme park ride? Just to see if it'll work? It won't.

Honestly, I wouldn't be shocked if the people who hired her never even saw her other films. They just read that they got great reviews, and "Hey, she's Chinese! More diversity on our big Diversity movie! That's perfect!" I can definitely see that happening. Don't forget, this is the same Disney that gave a whole Star Wars movie to a guy who hated Star Wars, just because he had "fresh ideas." They're not immune to making dumb decisions for silly reasons and in turn tanking an entire movie just because "it sounded good on paper".

[neatoman]

The fact that critics gave Captain Marvel passing reviews but are basically slamming this one... It sends chills down my spine, how bad would this have to be for them to admit it sucks?

[IMJ]

The fact that critics gave Captain Marvel passing reviews but are basically slamming this one... It sends chills down my spine, how bad would this have to be for them to admit it sucks?

Exactly. This is Marvel's full-on woke $#!( flick. It's exactly what the liberal media has baited clicks with and hinged their whole meal-ticket and life virtue on. They should be shilling it even more than they did for Craptain Marvel.

[CyberCubed]

If only movies could be like they were in the 1950's when everyone was white, straight, and women stayed in the kitchen.

[Andrew NDB]

Everybody ready for the MCU "The Uncanny X-Men," with black Magneto who is a victim of systemic racism and not the nazis, gay Wolverine, gay Iceman, and gender swapped Professor X?

[Leo656]

Exactly. This is Marvel's full-on woke $#!( flick. It's exactly what the liberal media has baited clicks with and hinged their whole meal-ticket and life virtue on. They should be shilling it even more than they did for Craptain Marvel.

All I can figure is, it must be REALLY boring if they can't even be bothered to give it a halfway decent review simply because it checks all their prerequisite boxes. Like you'd think "They made the white one non-white and the straight one gay and there's a gay couple with a kid in it and the two dudes kiss" would be enough to get a good review from SOME of those critics.

Instead they're like, "I WANT to like the movie because of all those things. But I didn't, because it takes a long-ass time for nothing at all to happen."

It's interesting and strange. Like they admit that they were rooting for the movie because of all its SJW stuff, but in the end that's still not enough for them to like it. Very odd.

Like where were these same exact people when we needed them to admit that Ghostbusters 2016 was a lousy movie? :lol: They were so busy telling everyone that it was great just because it had four women leading it, they didn't notice or didn't care that it was a huge piece of sh*t. But NOW they can suddenly put the agendas aside and admit that other things matter in a movie, too? Since when? When did these people suddenly develop taste and/or a conscience? :lol:

It's weird.

Everybody ready for the MCU "The Uncanny X-Men," with black Magneto who is a victim of systemic racism and not the nazis, gay Wolverine, gay Iceman, and gender swapped Professor X?

I keep saying this is what's going to happen and people keep telling me I'm crazy.

I only ever even speculated it because some emails leaked out a while back that explicitly said those were ideas Disney was kicking around. Maybe it'll happen and maybe it won't, but I'm not crazy if those are actual conversations that are being had behind closed doors. And I promise you, they are. DC's over here pushing TWO Black Superman projects that nobody wants, you can bet your ass Disney's over there talking about how to "modernize" the X-Men at the exact same time. And we all know what "modernize" means in 2021.

Also, you forgot the part where Magneto and Xavier are gay lovers. One more idea Disney was "allegedly" kicking around. Think it won't happen? Or at the least, think it's not being talked about? HAH. Maybe it won't happen, but anybody who doesn't think it's part of a conversation happening in some office Right Now is delusional.

[ProphetofGanja]

Everybody ready for the MCU "The Uncanny X-Men," with black Magneto who is a victim of systemic racism and not the nazis, gay Wolverine, gay Iceman, and gender swapped Professor X?

The Uncanny X-People

[Andrew NDB]

Oh, I'm sure there's heavy debate in offices about just how far to push things. If any project would seem "on paper" to be perfect to front-load with a ton of LGBTQ stuff, it'd be the X-Men. I suspect there will be many compromises made and we'll only get one or two "wtfs?!" out of it, with maybe the idea that a Generation X or something-something-X spinoff will be the big avenue for that.

It IS interesting that Disney/Marvel Studios got the rights back to X-Men and the Fantastic Four at exactly the same time and while the MCU Fantastic Four was announced like 2 years ago, we still have absolutely no sign of anything X-Men, when that's by far the bigger draw. I suspect it's because that's the one they feel they have to figure out the most.

The Uncanny X-People

Feige is pretty "progressive" but I give him enough credit that at the very least he will tell the people touting that to stfu.

[IMJ]

If only movies could be like they were in the 1950's when everyone was white, straight, and women stayed in the kitchen.

I don't think that anybody actually wants that either, you simp.

[Leo656]

I would've been a little more excited about Disney's X-Men about ten years ago, when at the worst a few characters' personalities might be different from the comics but almost everyone would at least look nearly identical to the comics and have the right powers and costumes. It would've been a dramatic step up from the FoX-Men movies, where everyone was pretty In Name Only for most of them.

Nowadays, they've got different motivations driving their adaptations; therefore, I no longer trust them and no longer especially care about Disney's X-Men. It's not even primarily about keeping things "spiritually faithful" while only using the broad-strokes of the books as a guideline, like it was back then; now, it's all about "If they were white, now they're not, if they were straight, make 'em gay, and by the way, we'll get better reviews if the director is a chick, preferably not white and/or not straight. So figure that part out, too." And everything else to them is secondary.

They have bad priorities and I don't trust them to show much restraint in a social climate where if they DON'T make those kinds of changes then everyone on Twitter will rage about how they "wasted" an opportunity to be truly "progressive".

MCU X-Men ten years ago, though, yeah, that could've been cool. Now, though? I expect Disney's X-Men to bear even less resemblance to the comic book X-Men than the Fox ones, honestly, and I didn't even think that was possible until this "make half of 'em queer and the other half not-white and we got ourselves a movie" stuff started becoming a mandate.

I mean, we'll see. I just have this really strong, really deep feeling that they're gonna botch it.

I don't think that anybody actually wants that either, you simp.

TO BE FAIR.

Both Quality and Quantity of sandwich production has fallen off dramatically since women were let OUT of the kitchen. Nobody talks about it but it's a very real and very serious problem.

[ProphetofGanja]

Make Sandwiches Great Again :lol:

[IMJ]

I would've been a little more excited about Disney's X-Men about ten years ago, when at the worst a few characters' personalities might be different from the comics but almost everyone would at least look nearly identical to the comics and have the right powers and costumes. It would've been a dramatic step up from the FoX-Men movies, where everyone was pretty In Name Only for most of them.

Nowadays, they've got different motivations driving their adaptations; therefore, I no longer trust them and no longer especially care about Disney's X-Men. It's not even primarily about keeping things "spiritually faithful" while only using the broad-strokes of the books as a guideline, like it was back then; now, it's all about "If they were white, now they're not, if they were straight, make 'em gay, and by the way, we'll get better reviews if the director is a chick, preferably not white and/or not straight. So figure that part out, too." And everything else to them is secondary.

They have bad priorities and I don't trust them to show much restraint in a social climate where if they DON'T make those kinds of changes then everyone on Twitter will rage about how they "wasted" an opportunity to be truly "progressive".

MCU X-Men ten years ago, though, yeah, that could've been cool. Now, though? I expect Disney's X-Men to bear even less resemblance to the comic book X-Men than the Fox ones, honestly, and I didn't even think that was possible until this "make half of 'em queer and the other half not-white and we got ourselves a movie" stuff started becoming a mandate.

I mean, we'll see. I just have this really strong, really deep feeling that they're gonna botch it.



TO BE FAIR.

Both Quality and Quantity of sandwich production has fallen off dramatically since women were let OUT of the kitchen. Nobody talks about it but it's a very real and very serious problem.

C'mon dude. You know that only moms make sandwiches not women. :roll:

[Leo656]

I do believe that most moms did at some point used to be women, so I feel that it's okay to speak broadly. Especially when speaking about Broads.

Make Sandwiches Great Again :lol:

I try and do my part.

I generally go turkey, ham, provolone, dab of mayo, chicken, turkey, ham, provolone, dab of mayo, chicken, turkey, ham, provolone, chicken. On white. Both slices mayo'd up. Seems pretty "great" to ME, mang.

Dagwood Bumstead, now there's a guy who made a great sandwich. I mean, I assume, just going by visuals. Damn thing was taller than he was, I assume it was pretty damn good. You figure it'd have to be.

[Galactus]

Other than the character lineup being diverse I'm not sure what makes this movie anymore 'woke' than your average modern day Hollywood blockbuster. True, Marvel are bigger targets of the perpetual culture wars outrage because of how prolific they are and how they've dominated the last decade. Still it doesn't sound like there is anything more 'woke' about this than any other recent blockbuster or any recent Marvel movie.

Surely that that this picture isn't getting the glowing reviews from professional reviewers surely proves that there isn't some big conspiracy in the industry to push movies that promote diversity. Nor do Disney pay off critics to give their movies good scores in general.

The reason I feel that Captain Marvel got a bit of a pass is that it still followed the MCU formula. At this point it's like a nice, reassuring comfort blanket for audience. If there is one takeaway from all the reviews I've read is that this doesn't follow the Marvel formula that strongly and no one knows quite what to make of that.

Interesting that this is being compared to the DCEU movies particularly the Justice League Snyder cut. Since they never got into detail about what it is exactly that is evocative of that movie (although I could hazard some guesses). Strangely all the DCEU fans that have blasted Marvel films for looking like TV movies and having lots of quips and not being serious enough are strangely quiet on this. Makes you wonder if their support of the DCUE was largely due to contrarianism and brand loyalty. (Except for you Leo656 I know you're a true blue fan of that stuff.)

Admittedly I really like most MCU movies and think the formula is successful for a reason but I was looking forward to one doing something different. Also a Kirby fan I do genuinely like the Eternals and have long thought of all of the more space opera creations of Kirby they'd suit a movie the most so it sucks this may not be the success it could have been. Then again, who knows how the actual audience will react to this. It's mixed response didn't Captain Marvel earning a billion and both of those Venom movies were outright panned but audiences loved them for some reason.

[TigerClaw]

The RT rating went back up to 60%
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/eternals

[Leo656]

Interesting that this is being compared to the DCEU movies particularly the Justice League Snyder cut. Since they never got into detail about what it is exactly that is evocative of that movie (although I could hazard some guesses).

Is it? That's interesting, if weird. I confess I'd only read a very few specific reviews, but so far I hadn't seen or heard anything like that. I've seen it compared to other MCU films, naturally, but I hadn't seen anyone mention any DC films at all, specifically that one.

Also, most people liked Zack Snyder's Justice League and most people seem to dislike this movie so far, so that still seems like an odd comparison for anyone to make. Other than I have seen people say both movies were "too long" and "rather self-serious", but even that says little in the grand scheme of things.

But again, the only few reviews I did read in detail for this movie, were from some of the more "liberal" media outlets, and only because I was shocked that their blurb was negative and so I figured I'd see what they felt was so bad about it, since all the dudes kissing, race-flipped characters and whatnot wasn't enough for them to score it high. Like, I thought for sure Those People would celebrate this movie even if others didn't. So when I saw that they didn't, I was like "Okay, lemme see what they said, then." All told, I think it was three reviews altogether that I read. So, not very many.

Makes you wonder if their support of the DCUE was largely due to contrarianism and brand loyalty. (Except for you Leo656 I know you're a true blue fan of that stuff.)

I do love me some Zack, just in general. :lol: It's like Lynch, I haven't seen every single thing he's done but everything I have seen I'm a big fan of. Different guy, different style, same basic thing.

I really, really can't stress enough how impressed I was by "Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole". :trazz: Not even a DC movie, not even a "real" movie (rather a CGI animated kids' movie). Turns out I just really like the way he rolls and the subject matter is not entirely relevant. I mean, it helps; I'm more connected to his DC stuff because I'm more invested in DC in general. But in the grand scheme of things it turned out that I just plain like his style.

Same with Lynch. At one point, I thought "Maybe it's just Twin Peaks. I might not like his other stuff." So far, though, all Aces with me. I even liked "Wild At Heart", and I can only even tolerate Nicolas Cage on a good day. :lol: Some guys, I'll watch them direct any damn thing just because I sincerely enjoy their method and execution. :)
---------

In my personal experience though, I haven't seen or met anyone insincerely claiming to like the DC movies just to be "contrarian". It takes some brass to even admit out loud that you like those movies, on the internet. It only invites insults, so to say it and not mean it would be... questionable. Brand loyalty? Eh, kinda doubt that too. Pretty much nobody even tries to defend Wonder Woman 1984, just for example. I don't think I even know anyone who's seen ALL the recent DC movies, and I definitely don't know anyone who liked them all just because they said "DC" on them. I can't even get a few people to watch "Aquaman" or "Shazam" because they think the trailers made them seem too silly; definitely no "brand loyalty" going on over there with those individuals.

I really do think it's as simple as a lot of the people who like DC movies better are a lot like me: they just have more specific tastes and those tastes tend to run counter to the mainstream, and further, they resent being told either 1. There's only one "right way" to make super-hero movies (the "make them as silly as possible because hey, they wear capes" way), or 2. That liking what they like makes them some kind of idiot, which we've seen a lot of over the last eight years.

Naturally, when people constantly say those things to you, and then hold up something you really do not like much as an example of how "Things SHOULD Be", you occasionally get a bit forceful and defensive with the pushback. You might even get a bit resentful of That Other Thing, and it makes you dig in a little deeper. But that doesn't in and of itself imply that their likes are in any way insincere. More like they really do feel the way they feel, and people constantly telling them they're "wrong" for it is what makes them push back harder than necessary at times.

At least, that's been my experience in discussing comic book movies over the past decade. Most of my friends are DC People; movies or comics, they just prefer that type of presentation, is all. AND, they just plain wish that was "allowed", and since it isn't, they get annoyed and defensive sometimes. Because we're all only human, at the end of the day.

I can't speak for everyone, obviously. In my circle, though, and speaking only for myself and them... if we're hanging out at Denny's having deep, analytical conversations about those movies that are longer than the movies themselves, and we don't actually care as much as we say we do... then we're kind of a bunch of stupid assholes, no? :lol:

[Andrew NDB]

Other than the character lineup being diverse I'm not sure what makes this movie anymore 'woke' than your average modern day Hollywood blockbuster.

From what I understand, the Eternals from the comics are all straight white people. Now usually nowadays, you get an adaptation and maybe 1 or 2 characters are either gender swapped or race swapped... but in this movie, 90% of the characters are gender and race swapped, crippled and/or made gay. That's a big difference, just out of the bag.

Now, are woke politics a big part of the movie? I have no idea. Apparently the movie is pretty slow... is a good amount of that time spent on the oppression of being a gay immortal, or not having white skin? Maybe. Maybe not. But it's starting from a big place of wokeness, regardless.

[oldmanwinters]

From what I understand, the Eternals from the comics are all straight white people. Now usually nowadays, you get an adaptation and maybe 1 or 2 characters are either gender swapped or race swapped... but in this movie, 90% of the characters are gender and race swapped, crippled and/or made gay. That's a big difference, just out of the bag.


I would say DC's Suicide Squad movies would be comparable to 90% swapped from the source material, but moreso for the sake of keeping viewers on their toes about killing off the cast as opposed to being politically correct.

[Xav]

Kumail Nanjiani Responds to Critics of LGBTQ Eternals Character: 'We're Upsetting the Right People' (https://news.yahoo.com/kumail-nanjiani-responds-critics-lgbtq-011302494.html)

[Andrew NDB]

Kumail Nanjiani Responds to Critics of LGBTQ Eternals Character: 'We're Upsetting the Right People' (https://news.yahoo.com/kumail-nanjiani-responds-critics-lgbtq-011302494.html)

Ugh. That's like the textbook SJW response from anyone doing this stuff in comics, movies, and TV. "We're upsetting the right people!"

Why is upsetting people even part of things? Why can't the focus be telling a good story, developing good characters?

[ZariusTwo]

The film confirms the DC universe is part of the MCU due to references made to fictitious versions of Superman, Batman and Alfred!

https://bleedingcool.com/movies/eternals-confirms-batman-as-well-as-superman-is-now-part-of-the-mcu/

[neatoman]

The film confirms the DC universe is part of the MCU due to references made to fictitious versions of Superman, Batman and Alfred!

https://bleedingcool.com/movies/eternals-confirms-batman-as-well-as-superman-is-now-part-of-the-mcu/

And... How is that significant? I don't understand how that is the least bit more relevant than the references to Empire Strikes Back, Aliens or Footloose.

The RT rating went back up to 60%
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/eternals

Which, amusingly, is the exact minimum for a "fresh" rating. There is probably some algorithm that prevents "big movies" from scoring below 60% before the second week in theaters or something.

[ZariusTwo]

And... How is that significant?

Just mentioning it. So what?

[neatoman]

Just mentioning it. So what?

Well it's not you, it's the fact that someone felt like it was worth writing an article over. A movie confirming that a real life comic book exist in it's world as well isn't meaningful because we already knew some real life pop culture existed in this world already. If they confirmed that the comic books this movie is based on exists in-universe, that would be something since it would imply something weird is going on. There is nothing that would really prevent the particular comics mentioned here from existing in the MCU.

[Leo656]

Yeah, I noticed a few articles chirping about "A character in a Marvel movie mentioned Superman!" like that was a huge deal. Like "Uh, yeah, so did Aunt May in the first Spider-Man, like 20 years ago. So?" I don't get why it's noteworthy.

Unless explicitly stated otherwise, when I watch a movie I pretty much assume that 99.9% of life in that world is exactly like ours, with the obvious exception of the fiction presented on the screen. Therefore, unless I'm told they don't, I assume that any movie I'm watching has pretty much the same pop culture we do. Same comics, same movies, same whatever.

It's like someone chirping about "Someone in an MCU movie mentioned the Rolling Stones! The Rolling Stones are canon in the MCU! They exist there!" :lol: I'm like "Well yeah, I mean obviously, why wouldn't they?"

Pretty sure I've seen Superman mentioned as existing (as a fictional character) within the comic book Marvel Universe, as well. So it's like, not news. It's weird that it would be mentioned at all.

[IMJ]

Well it's not you, it's the fact that someone felt like it was worth writing an article over. A movie confirming that a real life comic book exist in it's world as well isn't meaningful because we already knew some real life pop culture existed in this world already. If they confirmed that the comic books this movie is based on exists in-universe, that would be something since it would imply something weird is going on. There is nothing that would really prevent the particular comics mentioned here from existing in the MCU.


I'm glad you posted this. I just opted out of commenting on the "Superman EXISTS! in the MCU!" nonsense at first until I read what you wrote here.

The concept reminds me of being in the theaters over the years with people who are so ready to part of something that they begin to interject meaning into anything they see on the screen. I've literally sat next to people who want to be part of something so badly that they'll point at random character "X" and say something like "Ohhh that's the guy who becomes.... umm? You know, that other character". And it's nobody.

That's what's going on with this interpretation of "the big confirmation!" about Superman in the MCU. It's ridiculous. It foreshadows nothing. It's simply a joke of comparison. That's it. :roll:

Discussing these perceptions as they arise is SO important. The fact that I occasionally comment on those mis-perceptions should inform people as to why I routinely include ad hominins in my explanations for what goes on in society. It's because the evidence is all around us as to the sheer number of people you are surrounded by at any given moment who are doing some weird mental algebra on the basis of their own misguided perceptual mental calculus about any given situation. Perceptual nonsense.

The "Superman callout" in Eternals was just a dialog joke of opportunity - most of us can perceive that without even seeing the movie. It's not the latest reveal as to the something huge for the MCU. Even if, ten years from now Warner and Disney strike up an unprecedented agreement to have the JLA crossover with the Avengers on film, this line in the Eternals still has nothing to do with anything. But if that happens, you'd better believe that some clown will point back to "The Eternals" and write an article that they "foreshadowed this years ago!". And there are people who will believe it.

[Leo656]

I kinda just feel - based on what I've read about it - that the Eternals movie is so otherwise unremarkable that some people are grasping at anything to write articles about regarding it.

"Someone in the movie mentioned Superman!" is, I guess, more "exciting" than an article about, "They finally got Angelina Jolie in an MCU movie and she doesn't do anything."

[neatoman]

I should also point out that Star-Lord referencing TMNT is actually weirder than any mention of Superman ever will be. That reference would imply a comic book written to be an explicit/obvious homage to Daredevil exists in a world in which Daredevil is a real person. Not only that but also pre-dating his emergence as a vigilante by several decades.

Of course, most people are probably not aware of this connection and therefore nobody cares or thinks the reference is weird. I don't know if James Gunn is aware either, in all likelihood the reference was just thrown in there because no thought was given to whether or not it makes sense, why would most people actually question if TMNT could be a thing in the MCU?

[Leo656]

That is pretty head-spinning. :lol:

[Andrew NDB]

I should also point out that Star-Lord referencing TMNT

Did that happen in a GotG movie or something? If so, that I don't remember that happening should speak to how little that meant to me.

[neatoman]

Did that happen in a GotG movie or something? If so, that I don't remember that happening should speak to how little that meant to me.

I think it happens early on in the first GotG, he calls some mook a Ninja Turtle.

[Leo656]

I am exactly the kind of asshole who'd be like, "Would he even know what a Ninja Turtle is, given his situation?" :lol: That's me, I'm That Guy.

[TigerClaw]

Did that happen in a GotG movie or something? If so, that I don't remember that happening should speak to how little that meant to me.
Here you go.

Hxs7GkhGijE

[IMJ]

I think it happens early on in the first GotG, he calls some mook a Ninja Turtle.

Exactly. And once again most reasonable people just chuckle at the joke. But nowadays we've got nitwits writing articles about "they exist in the MCU! OMG What could this mean?"

Reminds me of when ICP wrote a song going on about the wonder of the universe and their best example was "magnets? How do they work?" :roll:

[Leo656]

Don't you blaspheme against ICP in my house, son.

[IMJ]

Don't you blaspheme against ICP in my house, son.

"MAGNETS?!? How the f do they work?"

[ProphetofGanja]

Exactly. And once again most reasonable people just chuckle at the joke. But nowadays we've got nitwits writing articles about "they exist in the MCU! OMG What could this mean?"

Reminds me of when ICP wrote a song going on about the wonder of the universe and their best example was "magnets? How do they work?" :roll:

that song is a national treasure and we should all take it's message to heart /sincerity

[IMJ]

that song is a national treasure and we should all take it's message to heart /sincerity



:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::D

[Leo656]

The correct line is "F*ckin' magnets... how do THEY work?", for the benefit of all philistines.

And it was a purposely goofball statement in order to lightheartedly convey the message that there is wonder all around us, from the mystical to the mundane.

"LoL these numbskulls think magnets are witchcraft" is not the f*cking point.

Also, even if they were that ignorant, which they are not... they gave us "Halls of Illusions" and "Suicide Hotline". Which are miracles all unto themselves.

"Thy Unveiling" was just Bonus Points.

"Always remember to F*ck Off!" :tgrin:

[IMJ]

Oh my fault.
I don't know what came over me.... some kind of magnetism......

[Andrew NDB]

"All time low."

https://nextshark.com/chloe-zhao-marvel-eternals-mixed-reviews/

[IMJ]

"All time low."

https://nextshark.com/chloe-zhao-marvel-eternals-mixed-reviews/

It's all meaningless if the addicts and those who "need to be involved" go and pay for woke $#!(.

[Leo656]

She was literally born in China, she knows they're gonna chop the movie down or else they can't release it there.

Also, the fact that "We gotta have some gay dudes in this" was a studio mandate before they even had a director is... well, that says a ton about their overall priorities.

Like literally "the gay couple" and the cinematography is all I've seen anyone comment positively about.

It will be interesting to see if she does, indeed, get pulled off the sequels. Which, no matter what that guy in the article says, were always the plan. They didn't hire Jolie to do nothing at all and have the movie be a one-and-done. They very obviously are saving her "real" moments for the sequels. Also, MCU movies are too expensive to do ANY of them as a one-and-done. The guy's lying out his ass, you DO by design need to do "three of these things" or else even doing one has no point. That's why we have three "Ant-Man" movies even though ONE is too many.

But anyways, let's see if consistency of standards comes into play here. Snyder got his shot, and then mixed reviews and underwhelming box office got him nudged out. By that logic, this woman had her shot, to similar feedback. Will she likewise be nudged aside? In all fairness... what's good for the goose ought to be good for the gander. I'm not saying I'd want that or am rooting for that - I don't care at all, either way, I'm never watching this - but simply saying, Fair ought to be Fair across the board.

But, she's a woman of color and Zack Snyder was a straight white male. In 2021 that makes all the difference. So I expect the movie's failure to be written off as "Something something Fanboys Are Racist And Homophobic", and she'll still get to do the sequel. They'll probably put more fart jokes in the sequel and then it'll make more money. She's a protected class, they "can't" cut her loose, any more than WB could cut Patty Jenkins after Wonder Woman 1984 bombed.

[Jester]

Was on Facebook and saw a clip with Kumail Nanjiani's character as a Bollywood actor and I'm not sure if that's good representation or a glaring stereotype.

Edit: Kumail is Pakistani-American...not Indian. So I looked to see if Pakistani actors work in Bollywood features and found this. (May need to dig deeper...but it's odd.)

[AquaParade]

Was on Facebook and saw a clip with Kumail Nanjiani's character as a Bollywood actor and im not sure if that's good representation or a glairing stereotype.

My rule of thumb: if you're not sure whether you should be concerned about something like this, then don't be.

[Jester]

Typically I'm not...just kinda "Devil's Advocating".

[Leo656]

All I know is that when people consistently say that guy is the best thing about your movie... that's like saying that the best thing about the sh*t you just took is that you didn't see any blood when you wiped.

[AquaParade]

All I know is that when people consistently say that guy is the best thing about your movie... that's like saying that the best thing about the sh*t you just took is that you didn't see any blood when you wiped.

You really dislike him? I thought he was pretty funny in "The Big Sick".

Typically I'm not...just kinda "Devil's Advocating".

Sure, but I needed a propellant to say something intelligent sounding and you were first in line.

[Leo656]

Ehhhhh kinda. Partly just doing schtick. I definitely am not a "fan". He was alright in that one episode of Archer but he grates on my nerves very quickly in anything he's in.

At least there's that one Walking Dead game where he gets thrown off a roof.

[ProphetofGanja]

I liked him a lot in Silicon Valley, and there was some Netflix movie with him and Issa Rae that was pretty good

[Leo656]

Might be the voice. He starts off high-pitched and sounds like he gets even higher as he goes along. I find that grating.

[Galactus]

Is it? That's interesting, if weird. I confess I'd only read a very few specific reviews, but so far I hadn't seen or heard anything like that. I've seen it compared to other MCU films, naturally, but I hadn't seen anyone mention any DC films at all, specifically that one.

Also, most people liked Zack Snyder's Justice League and most people seem to dislike this movie so far, so that still seems like an odd comparison for anyone to make. Other than I have seen people say both movies were "too long" and "rather self-serious", but even that says little in the grand scheme of things.

The main comparisons I've been seeing is for the Justice League: Snyder Cut and Prometheus. The latter makes sense as Choe Zhao publicly says that she pitched this movie as Prometheus from the point of view of the Engineers.

This was getting compared to Justice League when the first trailer hit and people saw that some of the core Eternals have the same powers as the the main Justice League characters. People saw Ikaris flying and shooting energy beams out of his eyes and the comparisons to Superman were being made instantly. That coupled with more desaturated colour palette and the bigger cinematography which is something the DCEU has always had over the MCU (not that every movie needs it mind you) the comparisons were pretty obvious.

Still, apparently the similarities go deeper than that according to people who have actually seen the movie so we'll see. I actually tried to stomach Grace Randolph's voice to hear her opinion given that she's a big booster of the DCEU and the Snyder directed ones in particular so I was interested to hear her take...strangely she never really stated much about it other than it doesn't follow the standard Marvel formula and that's concerning for some reason. I get that simply deviating from the formula isn't a guarantee it differs in a way that people who have never been onboard with it will like but focus was on what an alienating thing this will be to MCU fans as opposed to what she personally thought of it. She also had a bee in her bonnet for them referencing Superman - as if it's some great sin to promote the competition.

That's the weird thing about the discourse around this movie. There is very little specifics about what is supposedly wrong with it. I imagine it probably tries for something grander and more cerebral than your typical Marvel fare and it just misses the mark in places. I'm a fan of the characters but none of the trailers have really wowed me. Of course I'm still rooting for it because if the audience doesn't respond to it then the main takeaway by Disney is that trying to be different is something to be avoided.


It will be interesting to see if she does, indeed, get pulled off the sequels. Which, no matter what that guy in the article says, were always the plan. They didn't hire Jolie to do nothing at all and have the movie be a one-and-done. They very obviously are saving her "real" moments for the sequels. Also, MCU movies are too expensive to do ANY of them as a one-and-done. The guy's lying out his ass, you DO by design need to do "three of these things" or else even doing one has no point. That's why we have three "Ant-Man" movies even though ONE is too many.

But anyways, let's see if consistency of standards comes into play here. Snyder got his shot, and then mixed reviews and underwhelming box office got him nudged out. By that logic, this woman had her shot, to similar feedback. Will she likewise be nudged aside? In all fairness... what's good for the goose ought to be good for the gander. I'm not saying I'd want that or am rooting for that - I don't care at all, either way, I'm never watching this - but simply saying, Fair ought to be Fair across the board.

But, she's a woman of color and Zack Snyder was a straight white male. In 2021 that makes all the difference. So I expect the movie's failure to be written off as "Something something Fanboys Are Racist And Homophobic", and she'll still get to do the sequel. They'll probably put more fart jokes in the sequel and then it'll make more money. She's a protected class, they "can't" cut her loose, any more than WB could cut Patty Jenkins after Wonder Woman 1984 bombed.

The box office will be key. If it does do decent money then I don't think Disney will care if critics were iffy on this.

I have to point out the Snyder was perceived to have dropped the ball on what was seen to be a sure thing. Batman and Superman are two of the biggest and most loved pop culture in the history of the world. He also had two...arguably three chances to make his vision work for the DCEU work before the WB pulled the plug on him.

Patty Jenkins made one (really) good Wonder Woman movie and one bad one. I think there is enough good will towards her because of the first movie that people will give another Wonder Woman movie by her a shot.

I've been somewhat on the fence about Eternals but even without the inevitable reworking if it fails the sequel already has hints it would be better received if the spoilers I've read are true.

From what I understand, the Eternals from the comics are all straight white people. Now usually nowadays, you get an adaptation and maybe 1 or 2 characters are either gender swapped or race swapped... but in this movie, 90% of the characters are gender and race swapped, crippled and/or made gay. That's a big difference, just out of the bag.

Now, are woke politics a big part of the movie? I have no idea. Apparently the movie is pretty slow... is a good amount of that time spent on the oppression of being a gay immortal, or not having white skin? Maybe. Maybe not. But it's starting from a big place of wokeness, regardless.

Actually the Eternals were not all white. There has always been some talk of whether Kirby meant them all to look like different ethnicities Kingo specifically is definitely supposed to be look Japanese.

Also the latest revamp of the Eternals in the comics has had them die and be reborn in different forms, some of which have been race and gender swapped. Granted I'm sure this was done with foreknowledge of what direction the movies were going in regards to casting but it's technically it's a thing.

[Coola Yagami]

Also the latest revamp of the Eternals in the comics has had them die and be reborn in different forms, some of which have been race and gender swapped. Granted I'm sure this was done with foreknowledge of what direction the movies were going in regards to casting but it's technically it's a thing.

The comics have been doing that **** lately. Why else do you think they've been creating all these characters like female Thor, Riri Williams, bi Tim Drake, gay Superman son and now, transgender Amazons. So that that whenever they get to be in movies and shows and people complain they can turn right around and say 'but Tim is bi in the comics, so there!'.

I'm actually surprised when the Human Torch died for a while, they didn't somehow replace him with an alternate dimension variant or whatever to somehow make him black to fit with the movie at the time.

[Leo656]

if the audience doesn't respond to it then the main takeaway by Disney is that trying to be different is something to be avoided.


I agree, that would be bad.

I mean, it doesn't affect me, I tapped out on the MCU after Avengers 2 and haven't seen a single one in its entirety since. But a lot of that is because I don't like their "house style". I won't lie, they'll never get me back - half the characters I cared about are dead and the other half are botched - but I would respect them for trying to shift outside of their comfort zone.

I'm not sure the media will "allow" them to do that, though. Like, you're right, usually profit wins out over reviews. But you mention Snyder, and the fact is his DC movies DID turn profit - not enough to justify the exorbitant expense, but still the highest box office grosses any of his movies had ever pulled in, by far. And after disc sales, they all did end up way in the black, eventually. They didn't earn billions, but they didn't LOSE money, is the point, they made quite a bit of it. Just not enough to crow about. It was the critical reviews and all of the bad ink, not the financials of the situation, that soured WB on Zack. So it could very well happen again here, in theory; there's precedent in this genre for a director to be nudged aside even if they turn profit, simply because their bosses wanted more glowing praise from Entertainment Weekly.

Granted, Disney is not WB, so it's not a guarantee they'd react the same. But they've done similar, as well. "The Last Jedi" did huge numbers but I doubt we'll see Rian Johnson playing in the Star Wars sandbox again anytime soon, no matter what anyone says. I am aware that they SAY he's getting another Star Wars movie, but... "we'll see". And again, if he doesn't, in that case it won't be because the movie did bad business, it was because the company didn't like being made fun of, and decided to sh*tcan the guy who was making people laugh at them. No other reason. That's what happened to Zack, that's what happened to Johnson, and it could very well happen here. It's USUALLY all just dollars and cents... but it doesn't have to be, is my point.

What I mean by the media "not allowing" Disney to make MCU movies outside of the typical formula... well, let's go back to the reviews for "Thor: Ragnarok". Most of the reviews for that movie contained a line that said something to the effect of, "THIS is what super-hero movies need to be. THIS! Right here! All the time! ALL THIS! THIS is right, anything else is WRONG!" Now, that's not the movie's fault, so I won't speak to anything but the reviews. And the reviews for that movie were very telling, insofar as what critics think of comic book movies and what they "should" be.

And a lot of people judge which movies they see by the reviews. They go only by RT scores. That's stupid, but that's reality. "I never watch a movie with an RT score under 70", I see it all the time. There's an imbalance now where what "succeeds" and what doesn't, what gets made and what doesn't, DOES have almost as much to do with what critics say than it does the box office. And as we're seeing with these reviews for this movie, critics still seem very hung up on that "They're not doing it the RIGHT way!" angle, and they still think MCU movies should be cookie-cutter romps.

We'll see if the audience agrees with them or not. But yeah, even if I never watch another Marvel movie, I definitely agree that in the grand scheme of things, it would be bad for everyone if all they did was The Same Thing, Forever, and if they weren't allowed to experiment at all because critics skewed the narrative and audiences listened.

In this, Eternals is less of a movie and more of a social experiment. "Will Disney be 'allowed' to pivot away from their proven formula, or not?" I do feel like this property was probably chosen very specifically to be the "experimental" Marvel movie, simply because if it fails they can just say, "Well, nobody knew the characters, what do you expect?" and immediately go back to doing "formula" movies and it's no harm and no foul. It makes sense that they'd take a gamble on something like this and not something with much more "name brand" characters.

[Galactus]

The comics have been doing that **** lately. Why else do you think they've been creating all these characters like female Thor, Riri Williams, bi Tim Drake, gay Superman son and now, transgender Amazons. So that that whenever they get to be in movies and shows and people complain they can turn right around and say 'but Tim is bi in the comics, so there!'.

I'm actually surprised when the Human Torch died for a while, they didn't somehow replace him with an alternate dimension variant or whatever to somehow make him black to fit with the movie at the time.

That's not how it started.

Marvel's big diversity push happened when the Marvel Cinematic Universe was still overseen by Ike Perlmutter who infamously vetoed movies about women and black people. He was also the reason for ages there was no Black Widow toys and when concerns were raised about recasting Rhodey he said "all black people look the same".

Thankfully he had little control over the actual comics at this point but the idea that this guy would be okay with the main stable of heroes being replaced by black and ethnic minority characters would have been very far fetched.

The real reason it happened was because Brian Michael Bendis tried something new in Ultimate Spider-Man with Miles Morales and that sold well then they tried Kamala Khan as the new Ms Marvel and that sold well then Jane Foster become the new Thor which was only supposed to be short story line but sold so well that Marvel asked Jason Aaron to keep that the status quo for as long as he could.

Seeing three home runs in a row they clearly thought they had a winning formula and ran with it. They scored a few more hits with diverse characters, a few were only moderately successful and few outright flopped. What motivated it was they making huge profits from most of these characters but I doubt anyone truly believed at the time that there was much potential for them to be in the movies.

[Leo656]

What kinda dumbass thinks that Terence Howard and Don Cheadle look anything remotely similar? :lol:

That goes beyond racism into "I just shot smack into both my eyeballs" territory.

[Andrew NDB]

What kinda dumbass thinks that Terence Howard and Don Cheadle look anything remotely similar? :lol:

That goes beyond racism into "I just shot smack into both my eyeballs" territory.

I don't get into these fake "That's racist!" discussions... but yeah, I've had that same thought. You'd be hard-pressed to find two black guys that look more different than Terence Howard and Don Cheadle. Like, behind the scenes, maybe they didn't say it... but there must have been this general understanding of, "Well... it IS another black guy, right? That's good enough, yeah?"

[Andrew NDB]

lXed5Inp844

This must be the clip Jester saw. It's not GHASTLY... but man, what a weird clip to throw out there to try and drum up interest in the movie. This has, like, the opposite effect. I want to see it less now.

[IMJ]

lXed5Inp844

This must be the clip Jester saw. It's not GHASTLY... but man, what a weird clip to throw out there to try and drum up interest in the movie. This has, like, the opposite effect. I want to see it less now.

"The world outside your window". We don't measure things in terms of quality anymore and we aren't allowed to say that any aspect of a culture is a personal turn-off. Instead we are supposed to be, as was alluded to by another dromer here, "intellectually open-minded" which now means that being gay, evaluating cultural oddities and so on are automatically just things that you enjoy and embrace in your life. :roll:

Instead of... you know evaluating it's place in your life and either doing it or rejecting it. Like a person who understands things.

Understand the ridiculousness of this? Some of the mouth-breathers here will miss the nuance. We now live. In a world. Where being "open-minded". No longer means evaluation. But instead just means "everything is okay" and should be partaken in. :roll: I grew up in an area of Chicagoland that had a lot of Indian Immigrants in it. I had Indian friends. Cool people. I have nothing against Indian culture and need to say that here for the mouth breathers who can't grasp my point.

"Inclusion" no longer means respecting a culture or what people choose to do. Instead, inclusion now means do what we do or you are a bigot. This movie is woke $#!(. Stop being so easily manipulated people.

[sdp]

I think we can all agree no matter how you feel about the MCU that the peak was reached with end game and it'll never reach that point again. It's not going to die overnight of course, it'll continue to do just fine for the next few years but on a downward trend. X-Men is not going to magically save the MCU, hell not even Iron Man coming back with RDJ.

[IMJ]

I think we can all agree no matter how you feel about the MCU that the peak was reached with end game and it'll never reach that point again. It's not going to die overnight of course, it'll continue to do just fine for the next few years but on a downward trend. X-Men is not going to magically save the MCU, hell not even Iron Man coming back with RDJ.

They can't even bring RDJ back as Iron Man in any gratifying way.

I'll tell you exactly what they are going to do - RDJ will come back as Iron Man. In a final bow out he will appear in two movies - at the end of an Avengers flick he will be revealed as a pawn of Kang (and to be evil).

And then in the next movie he will rebel against Kang doing something that let's the "new heroes" defeat Kang.

It will take from the most hated Iron Man story in history - "The Crossing". And that will be RDJ's "encore" under the guise that he returned to "do something new".

And it will f'n SUCK.

[Andrew NDB]

Guaranteed we get a "Tony plucked from a point in time" to show up in Avengers vs. X-Men.

[IMJ]

Guaranteed we get a "Tony plucked from a point in time" to show up in Avengers vs. X-Men.

See, if that were the case, maybe that'd be entertaining.

But with the confirmation that Kang is the next bad guy, and given how "The Crossing" was structured in the late 90's book event, and how this would allow Downey an "encore" and then to be killed off again to "pass the torch", I can't help but believe that it's going to play out as "Evil Iron Man manipulated by Kang only to betray him at the last minute, die again and pass the torch".

I mean - the whole thing is literally setup to the patterns of "The Crossing" story adapted to film where Kang plucks Iron Man from a timeline to use him for evil. The audience cheers at RDJ's return, but the "artsy BS" is in place for Downey to "do something different with the character" as a send off.

[AquaParade]

There are a gazillion different "cool" ways to bring Tony back, and all you need is some creativity. I mean, generally speaking, I'd like for a larger sense of consequence, in regards to death, within the MCU. That aside, you could come up with a bunch of creative ways to bring back Tony in a way that is fun and exciting, and I don't think it's fair to say the MCU is devoid of creativity.

There are so many ways to do it, they probably haven't even decided yet. But for sure, they are already planning it. I think plucking him from somewhere in the timeline is the obvious route to go, because you don't want to undo his death. A "variant" version is just as likely. I mean, there are so many cool things you could do with that, if you're creatively inclined. I wouldn't mind seeing Tony's reaction to the news that his death is imminent within the next few years, were they to pluck him from the "main" MCU timeline.

[ProphetofGanja]

There are a gazillion different "cool" ways to bring Tony back, and all you need is some creativity.

I don't know about y'all but I'm ready to see an Iron Man variant in the next Doctor Stange flick played by Tom Cruise :lol:


...the peak was reached with end game infinity war and it'll never reach that point again...

there, fixed it for you :wink:

[IMJ]

I don't know about y'all but I'm ready to see an Iron Man variant in the next Doctor Stange flick played by Tom Cruise :lol:




there, fixed it for you :wink:

YESSSSss.... End Game was incredibly underwhelming. Especially when measured against Infinity War. It was truly a Back to the Future III as compared to Back to the Future II.

[ProphetofGanja]

YESSSSss.... End Game was incredibly underwhelming. Especially when measured against Infinity War. It was truly a Back to the Future III as compared to Back to the Future II.

I mean I'm a HUGE MCU fan, and I really, really wanted to love it, but there were just a few too many plot holes or instances where I feel like narratively they made a misstep for me to truly love it. I liked it for the most part when I saw it theaters, was largely dissatisfied with it the first time I rewatched it at home, but now I've made my peace with it and am more looking forward to the next installments of the Marvel franchises I enjoy most (Spider-Man, Doctor Strange, Ant-Man, etc.).

I mean christ if the directors and writers of a movie can't even agree on how time travel/timeline hopping works then how are we supposed to trust in the validity of any of the in-universe rules they've set-up? :trolleye:

[sdp]

You don't have to love it, Marvel will never hit that pop culture peak ever again, the amount of hype out of 10 years worth of movies culminated in it whether you liked it or not it was still the top of relevance the brand will ever have. A bad example since I think Pokemon is far more popular than Marvel but as popular as it is right now it will never reach the height of the Pokemon Go fad, and the Pokemon Go fad never reached the height of the original 1999/2000 fad. It might be good, the worse these movies get the less we'll get and the more quality we'll get out of them and hopefully other genres that aren't cape stuff gets movies made.

[Andrew NDB]

YESSSSss.... End Game was incredibly underwhelming. Especially when measured against Infinity War. It was truly a Back to the Future III as compared to Back to the Future II.

There's a lot to like in Endgame (also a lot to dislike) but yeah, it's not nearly the polished machine that Infinity War was.

[IMJ]

I mean I'm a HUGE MCU fan, and I really, really wanted to love it, but there were just a few too many plot holes or instances where I feel like narratively they made a misstep for me to truly love it. I liked it for the most part when I saw it theaters, was largely dissatisfied with it the first time I rewatched it at home, but now I've made my peace with it and am more looking forward to the next installments of the Marvel franchises I enjoy most (Spider-Man, Doctor Strange, Ant-Man, etc.).

I mean christ if the directors and writers of a movie can't even agree on how time travel/timeline hopping works then how are we supposed to trust in the validity of any of the in-universe rules they've set-up? :trolleye:

We are, given what you said here, apparently on close to identical pages regarding all of this.

[neatoman]

The movie premiered in Sweden today so I went to see it and... Yeah, it is bad, there really isn't much in terms of redeeming qualities. Here is a non-spoiler rundown of why it doesn't work:


The actors have very little chemistry and that might be in part because most of them don't just have very little screen time together, many of them don't have much screen time at all.
While I would commend the movie for trying to give the goal of saving the world some kind of moral dilemma, it doesn't really mean much if you spend more than a few minutes thinking about it.
There is a lot of really weird humor in this movie, not only is much of it unfunny, it lacks proper timing and often interrupt moments that are meant to be taken seriously.
Many of the characters just seem really underdeveloped, they just don't seem much like believable people.
In many ways it seems like perfect example of the MCU biggest criticism, "Set-Up for Set-Up for Set-Up the movie". The movie proper ends with a cliffhanger and the two after credits scenes seem like set-up for two other movies, yes, this movie really does just seem like forerunner for three different movies.
Finally, it is boring, it is really boring. It is very long, it is very slow and I swear there is a lot that could have been cut.


As for spoilers:
Celestials incubate within planets and new Celestials need to be created to maintain a living universe. For some poorly explained reason I can't remember, an intelligent population is required for the new Celestials to emerge, killing them all in the process. To make sure intelligent life emerges, the Deviants were created to hunt down any creature that stood in the way of intelligent life evolving, the problem is that they eventually start to hunt the intelligent life. To solve this problem the Eternals, who are Androids in this version and thus can't change to become a threat to intelligent life, were created to hunt down the Deviants. When the intelligent life reaches it's zenith, the Celestial emerges. To prevent the Eternals from getting attached and protecting the intelligent life beyond it's purpose, they are lead to believe they're a natural alien race and their minds are reset so they can continue to do this several times over. The reason it goes differently this time is because the leader is allowed to know the truth and something about Humans was different enough for her not to let it happen.

There are several problems with this.

First off. Yes, I understand that saving the world this time does have some negative side effects as it will prevent new stars from forming. However, what actually prevents the Celestials from trying this on another planet? How many other Celestials are incubating? Surely the loss of one has to be more of a setback than a catastrophe. Indeed, the movie ends with some of the Eternals being sent off to trial for killing the Celestial incubating in Earth, the outcome of which will determine if it was justified. So clearly the notion that humanity might have been worth the death of a Celestial is being given serious thought.

The movie also confirms that Thanos is indeed an Eternal in this continuity but this raises questions about their nature. Eros shows up and claims to be the Brother of Thanos and there is an artbook or something that states Thanos has a father. The problem here is that if the Eternals are unchanging Androids with built in limits that prevent them from going too far, they should not really be able to procreate. Granted, we don't know the full extent of what family means here but Infinity War did indeed imply Thanos was a Titan native and that he was part of the Titan race, a planet of Eternals doesn't really make sense regardless because their purpose is to protect intelligent life rather than have societies of their own. And if Thanos and his family were just protectors of Titan, it shouldn't have failed to overpopulation itself, Titan's Celestial would just have emerged and destroyed the planet, there would have been no ruins to go back to. This also raises the question as to why Thanos and Eros weren't just reset and sent off to other worlds, why was Thanos allowed to conquer and wipe out populations if this goes against the purpose of Eternals?

We are also not really given a reason for why Earth is special. We are told it because the leader saw goodness in humanity but surely that can't be unique to humanity? And when we are given examples of problems with humanity, we are shown the Spanish wiping out the Aztecs and the ruins of Hiroshima. The defense of humanity seems pretty weak. The Hiroshima bombing even seems emotionally crushing to one of them, granted he doesn't remember helping to destroy planets but how much worse can the previous alien civilizations have been in comparison? If they were comparable to what humanity is now, what could they possibly have done that was so much worse that they weren't worth saving?

[Andrew NDB]

Might as well spill what the after credits scenes are all about.

[IMJ]

The movie premiered in Sweden today so I went to see it and... Yeah, it is bad, there really isn't much in terms of redeeming qualities. Here is a non-spoiler rundown of why it doesn't work:


The actors have very little chemistry and that might be in part because most of them don't just have very little screen time together, many of them don't have much screen time at all.
While I would commend the movie for trying to give the goal of saving the world some kind of moral dilemma, it doesn't really mean much if you spend more than a few minutes thinking about it.
There is a lot of really weird humor in this movie, not only is much of it unfunny, it lacks proper timing and often interrupt moments that are meant to be taken seriously.
Many of the characters just seem really underdeveloped, they just don't seem much like believable people.
In many ways it seems like perfect example of the MCU biggest criticism, "Set-Up for Set-Up for Set-Up the movie". The movie proper ends with a cliffhanger and the two after credits scenes seem like set-up for two other movies, yes, this movie really does just seem like forerunner for three different movies.
Finally, it is boring, it is really boring. It is very long, it is very slow and I swear there is a lot that could have been cut.


As for spoilers:
Celestials incubate within planets and new Celestials need to be created to maintain a living universe. For some poorly explained reason I can't remember, an intelligent population is required for the new Celestials to emerge, killing them all in the process. To make sure intelligent life emerges, the Deviants were created to hunt down any creature that stood in the way of intelligent life evolving, the problem is that they eventually start to hunt the intelligent life. To solve this problem the Eternals, who are Androids in this version and thus can't change to become a threat to intelligent life, were created to hunt down the Deviants. When the intelligent life reaches it's zenith, the Celestial emerges. To prevent the Eternals from getting attached and protecting the intelligent life beyond it's purpose, they are lead to believe they're a natural alien race and their minds are reset so they can continue to do this several times over. The reason it goes differently this time is because the leader is allowed to know the truth and something about Humans was different enough for her not to let it happen.

There are several problems with this.

First off. Yes, I understand that saving the world this time does have some negative side effects as it will prevent new stars from forming. However, what actually prevents the Celestials from trying this on another planet? How many other Celestials are incubating? Surely the loss of one has to be more of a setback than a catastrophe. Indeed, the movie ends with some of the Eternals being sent off to trial for killing the Celestial incubating in Earth, the outcome of which will determine if it was justified. So clearly the notion that humanity might have been worth the death of a Celestial is being given serious thought.

The movie also confirms that Thanos is indeed an Eternal in this continuity but this raises questions about their nature. Eros shows up and claims to be the Brother of Thanos and there is an artbook or something that states Thanos has a father. The problem here is that if the Eternals are unchanging Androids with built in limits that prevent them from going too far, they should not really be able to procreate. Granted, we don't know the full extent of what family means here but Infinity War did indeed imply Thanos was a Titan native and that he was part of the Titan race, a planet of Eternals doesn't really make sense regardless because their purpose is to protect intelligent life rather than have societies of their own. And if Thanos and his family were just protectors of Titan, it shouldn't have failed to overpopulation itself, Titan's Celestial would just have emerged and destroyed the planet, there would have been no ruins to go back to. This also raises the question as to why Thanos and Eros weren't just reset and sent off to other worlds, why was Thanos allowed to conquer and wipe out populations if this goes against the purpose of Eternals?

We are also not really given a reason for why Earth is special. We are told it because the leader saw goodness in humanity but surely that can't be unique to humanity? And when we are given examples of problems with humanity, we are shown the Spanish wiping out the Aztecs and the ruins of Hiroshima. The defense of humanity seems pretty weak. The Hiroshima bombing even seems emotionally crushing to one of them, granted he doesn't remember helping to destroy planets but how much worse can the previous alien civilizations have been in comparison? If they were comparable to what humanity is now, what could they possibly have done that was so much worse that they weren't worth saving?


Just curious - given the marketing, the word of mouth, etc; did you expect this to be a good movie? Why did you fork over the cash and reward this?

Might as well spill what the after credits scenes are all about.

My understanding is that Harry Stiles appears as Eros - a character the media shills made a huge deal about but that 99% of the movie going population will have ZERO clue about if the aren't into the deeper Marvel material.

[neatoman]

Might as well spill what the after credits scenes are all about.

The first one is Eros showing up because he needs the help of his fellow Eternals. I'm assuming this task is unrelated to the trial because why else wouldn't they all be on trial otherwise? This is also the scene where Thanos is confirmed to be an Eternal.

The second one is where Sersi's boyfried (who was barely in the movie by the way) is revealed to be in posession of a magic sword which he will pick up and Become the Black Knight in a future movie. This scene is absolutely an example of the MCU's worst tendencies. It really does seem like he is only in this movie to hype up the next movie he'll be in, there was virtually no point in having him in this movie beyond the need to set-up the hook.

Just curious - given the marketing, the word of mouth, etc; did you expect this to be a good movie? Why did you fork over the cash and reward this?

I expected it to be less awkward, not good but at least following a decent structure. I go watch movies I figured was going to be worse than I expected this to be (and indeed are), sometimes I even go and watch movies I know for a fact are bad. It's a little complicated to answer but I don't think it's a bad thing to deliberately watch bad movies. Good movies are certainly preferable but there is something refreshing about watching bad ones.

I guess you need to see Andy Warhol's "art" in order to appreciate a real artist sometimes?

[Andrew NDB]

So basically...

... no Galactus or Fantastic Four stuff. Lame.

[IMJ]

The first one is Eros showing up because he needs the help of his fellow Eternals. I'm assuming this task is unrelated to the trial because why else wouldn't they all be on trial otherwise? This is also the scene where Thanos is confirmed to be an Eternal.

The second one is where Sersi's boyfried (who was barely in the movie by the way) is revealed to be in posession of a magic sword which he will pick up and Become the Black Knight in a future movie. This scene is absolutely an example of the MCU's worst tendencies. It really does seem like he is only in this movie to hype up the next movie he'll be in, there was virtually no point in having him in this movie beyond the need to set-up the hook.

Wait, wait, wait... lmfao! You mean after all of the hype about Kit Harrington being the "all powerful" D-list super-hero :roll: , Black Knight; he doesn't actually appear in this movie as the Black Knight until he acquires the Ebony Blade after the credits?!?!? HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!

[neatoman]

So basically...

... no Galactus or Fantastic Four stuff. Lame.

No, which is weird given that we know they're making that movie. We haven't heard anything about an Eternals 2.

[AquaParade]

I have to hand it to them though, because I'm still more curious to see this film than I was Black Widow or Shang-Chi.

And hey, I agree with y'all about Infinity War vs Endgame. I give credit to Endgame, at the end of the day, just for being an entertaining flick and then some, considering all they had to accomplish.

At the same time, it feels like they’re just crapping all over our faces at certain points, like when all the Avengers are able to communicate via magic ear-piece in the final act, without a care or explanation given. And I agree again with Prophet when it comes to the writers and directors not having their story straight when it comes to time travel and other plot holes.

Infinity War has a better pace and a really cool ending. I mean, it could have been a great ending if the MCU wasn't so predictable, and they actually took some players off the board in that moment, but it was still a fun cliffhanger and I enjoyed seeing the more naive portion of the audience react to it.

I like to just be grateful for both at the end of the day though. They're a hell of a package for general fans of Marvel. It's easy to take things for granted.

[Leo656]

In many ways it seems like perfect example of the MCU biggest criticism, "Set-Up for Set-Up for Set-Up the movie". The movie proper ends with a cliffhanger and the two after credits scenes seem like set-up for two other movies, yes, this movie really does just seem like forerunner for three different movies.

AND YET.

Just the other day, the Marvel Studios folks were literally saying when asked if they were concerned about word of mouth hurting the movie, or the movie under-performing, "Not really. I mean, it's just an experiment, y'know, trying something new. We don't HAVE to do three of these things every time." I'm paraphrasing, and I forget who said it, but they were literally spinning it like "We didn't make this thing expecting to franchise it, so if it's not a hit, no big deal."

F*cking liars. :lol: What did I just say the other day? "Of course they went into it looking to make three of them, that's the entire formula with this sh*t." And, as usual, I'm clairvoyant. Motherf*cker was just trying to get out in front of the movie tanking by saying "Well if it does, it won't matter because we never looked past this one anyway." Except YES THEY DID.

Doesn't affect me at all. I just can't help but snicker when I'm calling these guys' plays in advance and getting it right on the money. Especially when I don't even watch these movies.
--------------

As to the many completely reasonable concerns neatoman brings up in his Spoiler'ed text... the nicest thing I can say is, Mistake Number One is you're trying to actually use your brain while watching a Marvel movie. :trazz: "You're just s'posed to shut your brain off and enjoy the ride, maaaaaaaaan! It's all stupid capesh*t nonsense anyways!"

Believe me, I empathize. But it is what it is.

[AquaParade]

I don’t get it - what did you call? It sounds like you’re just calling him a liar, but that’s not really calling anything.

I think it’s actually fair to say the MCU creates their own formulas. Especially the more that Feige gets away from Perlmutter. Even their sequels are starting to avoid the typical formula and are expanding into crossover films, rather than standard sequels. And now they’re branching into sharing space with Disney+ shows. So I can imagine a world where the plan is to feature these characters more but not necessarily in “Eternals 2”.

And for what it’s worth, tickets are tracking above Shang-Chi, so it’s not like we’re looking at a likely flop.

I mean, I get you, that these guys spin the story - I mean, it’s their job.

Edit: oh I get what you “called”. You’re going off the quote above you, duh. I still stand by my post, but I get that part of what you mean now.

[Leo656]

I mean, it's just funny that he was automatically trying to deflect criticism by saying "We don't need to do more stuff with this specific property if it does badly, we didn't plan to do more anyway," and then anyone who sees the movie can immediately tell that was a lie since it's full of sequel hooks and stuff that goes nowhere in this one and is only there to plant seeds.

I accept that All Marketing Is Spin. I tell people that all the time. Heck, my entire business is about "promise people one thing, then give them anything else except the thing that was promised" because that's how wrestling works. It gives me a bit of an existential crisis, but whatever.

But he wasn't even "doing spin", he was just plain lying and I have this serious pathological disgust for lying liars who lie. That's all. When I catch them wide open, I chuckle. That's all.

Nothing these movies do affects me on an emotional or personal level because I'm simply never going to watch any of them. I mean, this may sound harsh, but I'd rather gargle broken glass than watch an MCU movie outside of like three of them. So I don't have any strong care about what does well, How they do This, or whatever. I'm just watching how things unfold from the cheap seats and laughing at what amuses me, like Statler and Waldorf.

That should be alright, right? Am I hurting anybody? I hope not.

[neatoman]

Oh yeah, there is no way they aren't planning on bringing back these characters.
Sprite is even gifted the ability to age by the end of the movie, a very obvious way of saying they want to keep the door open for this character to come back. Kind of difficult to have an unageing child character in live-action.

Ikaris does kill himself by going into the sun but in a way that makes it hard to tell if he really died. He seems like he might be tough enough to survive that.

[Andrew NDB]

On the plus side, it can be something they could point to later on when taken to task for a lack of diversity.

"Look, we tried it with The Eternals. It didn't work! But we tried."

Obviously not in those words. But essentially.

[neatoman]

On the plus side, it can be something they could point to later on when taken to task for a lack of diversity.

"Look, we tried it with The Eternals. It didn't work! But we tried."

Obviously not in those words. But essentially.

If you are talking about Phastos and his husband...
... The husband is barely in the movie and Phastos is the second to last person to reunite with the group. While we are given a decent chunk of footage showing his family life, and in fairness it does give him some motive beyond saving the world for the sake of it, most of it comes in quite late and seems tacked in a way. We get way more screen time and lines out of Kingo's butler than we do the husband.

I believe it is deliberately design to seem important for the western cuts of the movie but pointless enough to be edited out elsewhere.

[Leo656]

I just read an article claiming that it's being heavily review-bombed by bigots because of the gay stuff. Conveniently, those "reviews" were pulled down before anyone actually, y'know... saw them. But they're totally telling you it definitely happened and they're super-concerned about it, you guys.

I mean, maybe it did, I don't know. I'm just saying. I'm just saying.

If I were a cynical person, I might suggest that they're doing everything they can to get out ahead of the thing just in case it does bomb. It might, it might not... but if you look at it closely, it almost seems like they almost expect it to. And are preemptively forming their own narrative just in case.

IF I were a cynical person.

[Galactus]

The movie premiered in Sweden today so I went to see it and... Yeah, it is bad, there really isn't much in terms of redeeming qualities. Here is a non-spoiler rundown of why it doesn't work:


The actors have very little chemistry and that might be in part because most of them don't just have very little screen time together, many of them don't have much screen time at all.
While I would commend the movie for trying to give the goal of saving the world some kind of moral dilemma, it doesn't really mean much if you spend more than a few minutes thinking about it.
There is a lot of really weird humor in this movie, not only is much of it unfunny, it lacks proper timing and often interrupt moments that are meant to be taken seriously.
Many of the characters just seem really underdeveloped, they just don't seem much like believable people.
In many ways it seems like perfect example of the MCU biggest criticism, "Set-Up for Set-Up for Set-Up the movie". The movie proper ends with a cliffhanger and the two after credits scenes seem like set-up for two other movies, yes, this movie really does just seem like forerunner for three different movies.
Finally, it is boring, it is really boring. It is very long, it is very slow and I swear there is a lot that could have been cut.


As for spoilers:
Celestials incubate within planets and new Celestials need to be created to maintain a living universe. For some poorly explained reason I can't remember, an intelligent population is required for the new Celestials to emerge, killing them all in the process. To make sure intelligent life emerges, the Deviants were created to hunt down any creature that stood in the way of intelligent life evolving, the problem is that they eventually start to hunt the intelligent life. To solve this problem the Eternals, who are Androids in this version and thus can't change to become a threat to intelligent life, were created to hunt down the Deviants. When the intelligent life reaches it's zenith, the Celestial emerges. To prevent the Eternals from getting attached and protecting the intelligent life beyond it's purpose, they are lead to believe they're a natural alien race and their minds are reset so they can continue to do this several times over. The reason it goes differently this time is because the leader is allowed to know the truth and something about Humans was different enough for her not to let it happen.

There are several problems with this.

First off. Yes, I understand that saving the world this time does have some negative side effects as it will prevent new stars from forming. However, what actually prevents the Celestials from trying this on another planet? How many other Celestials are incubating? Surely the loss of one has to be more of a setback than a catastrophe. Indeed, the movie ends with some of the Eternals being sent off to trial for killing the Celestial incubating in Earth, the outcome of which will determine if it was justified. So clearly the notion that humanity might have been worth the death of a Celestial is being given serious thought.

The movie also confirms that Thanos is indeed an Eternal in this continuity but this raises questions about their nature. Eros shows up and claims to be the Brother of Thanos and there is an artbook or something that states Thanos has a father. The problem here is that if the Eternals are unchanging Androids with built in limits that prevent them from going too far, they should not really be able to procreate. Granted, we don't know the full extent of what family means here but Infinity War did indeed imply Thanos was a Titan native and that he was part of the Titan race, a planet of Eternals doesn't really make sense regardless because their purpose is to protect intelligent life rather than have societies of their own. And if Thanos and his family were just protectors of Titan, it shouldn't have failed to overpopulation itself, Titan's Celestial would just have emerged and destroyed the planet, there would have been no ruins to go back to. This also raises the question as to why Thanos and Eros weren't just reset and sent off to other worlds, why was Thanos allowed to conquer and wipe out populations if this goes against the purpose of Eternals?

We are also not really given a reason for why Earth is special. We are told it because the leader saw goodness in humanity but surely that can't be unique to humanity? And when we are given examples of problems with humanity, we are shown the Spanish wiping out the Aztecs and the ruins of Hiroshima. The defense of humanity seems pretty weak. The Hiroshima bombing even seems emotionally crushing to one of them, granted he doesn't remember helping to destroy planets but how much worse can the previous alien civilizations have been in comparison? If they were comparable to what humanity is now, what could they possibly have done that was so much worse that they weren't worth saving?

So...

The Eternals themselves are androids??? Like robotic ones with wires and circuits and stuff? Or androids in the sense that they are genetically engineered? I knew they were changing the origin but I didn't expect anything as drastic as you described. It sounds way too convoluted when the whole Celestials create three Humans, Deviants and Eternals on the same planet as a big experiment and check back in every couple of hundred years to judge how it is going would have been much better...and fit in with the whole Prometheus with super heroes that Chole Zhao wanted to do.

As for the rest I can't say that Zhao and the rest didn't do their homework '; there is story elements from Earth-X and Gaiman's sort of reboot of the Eternals but it sounds a lot like while technically being drawn from the comics the execution is very different.

If you don't mind answering a question; are the Deviants apart from Kro all mindless animal like beings? He's the only one from the trailers that actually talks. Is a former romance between him and Thena a thing in this? He strokes her cheek in the trailer but that's not necessarily a sign that it's included in the movie.

AND YET.

Just the other day, the Marvel Studios folks were literally saying when asked if they were concerned about word of mouth hurting the movie, or the movie under-performing, "Not really. I mean, it's just an experiment, y'know, trying something new. We don't HAVE to do three of these things every time." I'm paraphrasing, and I forget who said it, but they were literally spinning it like "We didn't make this thing expecting to franchise it, so if it's not a hit, no big deal."

F*cking liars. :lol: What did I just say the other day? "Of course they went into it looking to make three of them, that's the entire formula with this sh*t." And, as usual, I'm clairvoyant. Motherf*cker was just trying to get out in front of the movie tanking by saying "Well if it does, it won't matter because we never looked past this one anyway." Except YES THEY DID.

Doesn't affect me at all. I just can't help but snicker when I'm calling these guys' plays in advance and getting it right on the money. Especially when I don't even watch these movies.

Of course. What do you expect him to say; we thought we'd made something really special but it's clear we vastly misjudged things and now having to re-think everything.

This is a similar trap to what the DCEU fell into. Just assuming what they had was gold and planning a whole series of movies on it. At least here they didn't let Chloe Zhao film Eternals and Eternals 2 back-to-back and all the movies it seems to set up are Eternals or Eternals adjacent and their other movies look to be much more 'Marvel' in their execution. Still given the numbers it looks like it will make enough to actually justify a sequel and I suspect that it's Zhao's if she wants it but only if she or whoever made some of the more baffling decisions with the movie agrees to certain concessions.

[Leo656]

I mean, something besides the complete and total opposite of the actual truth would've been nice. Just to illustrate that they don't actually think the audience is a bunch of drooling morons.

"We didn't expect to do any sequels anyway. I mean, half the movie is nothing BUT sequel hooks, and you'll see that out loud when you watch it, but I mean... we totally didn't plan on making any sequels."

That's some of the most patronizing "spin" I've ever heard, can't help it. Like it's just so laughable of a thing to say at all that I couldn't help but be amused by it.

[neatoman]

So...

The Eternals themselves are androids??? Like robotic ones with wires and circuits and stuff? Or androids in the sense that they are genetically engineered? I knew they were changing the origin but I didn't expect anything as drastic as you described. It sounds way too convoluted when the whole Celestials create three Humans, Deviants and Eternals on the same planet as a big experiment and check back in every couple of hundred years to judge how it is going would have been much better...and fit in with the whole Prometheus with super heroes that Chole Zhao wanted to do.

As for the rest I can't say that Zhao and the rest didn't do their homework '; there is story elements from Earth-X and Gaiman's sort of reboot of the Eternals but it sounds a lot like while technically being drawn from the comics the execution is very different.

If you don't mind answering a question; are the Deviants apart from Kro all mindless animal like beings? He's the only one from the trailers that actually talks. Is a former romance between him and Thena a thing in this? He strokes her cheek in the trailer but that's not necessarily a sign that it's included in the movie.



The Eternals themselves are androids. Because of the advanced alien tech, it is a but hard to tell how they were created and what they are made of, but it does seem to lean more towards wires and circuits. They even state that the secret behind their immortality is that they were never actually alive in the first place, so yes, they seem to be more like robots than biological experiments.

The Deviants are animal-like at their core. Kro starts out as a mindless beast and doesn't even begin to gain the ability to think until a day or so before the plot kicks in. He becomes more intelligent by stealing energy and memories from Eternals. When he is fully sentient, it is about a day or so before the climax.

He does not have a history with Thena, for rather obvious reasons. But Gilgamesh has a history with her and he uses the memories he stole from him to mess with her in order to make her vulnerable enough to steal energy from. Then she kills him.

[Andrew NDB]

If you are talking about Phastos and his husband...
... The husband is barely in the movie and Phastos is the second to last person to reunite with the group. While we are given a decent chunk of footage showing his family life, and in fairness it does give him some motive beyond saving the world for the sake of it, most of it comes in quite late and seems tacked in a way. We get way more screen time and lines out of Kingo's butler than we do the husband.

I believe it is deliberately design to seem important for the western cuts of the movie but pointless enough to be edited out elsewhere.

I'm not talking about any of them in particular. I don't even know any of the characters' names without looking.

I just read an article claiming that it's being heavily review-bombed by bigots because of the gay stuff. Conveniently, those "reviews" were pulled down before anyone actually, y'know... saw them. But they're totally telling you it definitely happened and they're super-concerned about it, you guys.

I mean, maybe it did, I don't know. I'm just saying. I'm just saying.

If I were a cynical person, I might suggest that they're doing everything they can to get out ahead of the thing just in case it does bomb. It might, it might not... but if you look at it closely, it almost seems like they almost expect it to. And are preemptively forming their own narrative just in case.

IF I were a cynical person.

Could be. Could be Eternals 2021 is to homophobia and bigots what Ghostbusters 2016 was to sexist man babies. From the retroactive spin side. They just need to make sure it's going to underperform notably first before firing up the engines.

[ZariusTwo]

Did strongly in Korea

https://deadline.com/2021/11/eternals-worldwide-opening-box-office-korea-opening-day-1234867276/

[neatoman]

Did strongly in Korea

https://deadline.com/2021/11/eternals-worldwide-opening-box-office-korea-opening-day-1234867276/

Uh yeah, there were quite a lot of people in my theatre and there weren't a lot of available tickets elsewhere. It's probably going to do quite well, at least compared to Shang-Chi and Black Widow.

[ZariusTwo]

Film now banned across the gulf

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/eternals-banned-saudi-arabia-qatar-kuwait-1235042241/

[Leo656]

Are we shocked that countries where you still get beheaded for being gay aren't okay with this movie?

[IMJ]

I'm not talking about any of them in particular. I don't even know any of the characters' names without looking

Why would anyone diminish or straw man your point about this movie's diversity-exaggeration by going right to the gay couple?!? :lol:

The entire movie is woke $#!( with nearly every character being race-swapped, gender-swapped, orientation-swapped, or even physically-challenged swapped (Makkari is deaf in this movie for some reason). Why would anyone take what you wrote above and go straight to "well if you meant the gay couple"... :lol: WTF people!??!?! :lol::lol::lol:

"Well you know, this whole movie is an assault on the traditional elements of the source material, and literally every character is conformist to the religion of neo-hate, but if you meant the gay people when you mentioned "diversity".... :lol::lol::lol:

Are we shocked that countries where you still get beheaded for being gay aren't okay with this movie?

Well yeah but you know man... it did well in Korea, and it still has the American-zombie audience to siphon dollars from, and you know... neatoman said that there were quite a lot of people in his theater so, you know.... let's continue to be toxically-phony-positive about this one for no conceivable reason.

The truth is that on paper this movie will be financially fine by somebody's twisting of the metrics. Nowadays it's somehow a success to say that a movie will have a bigger gross than Black Widow, another woke $#( flick. It's toxic positivity for personal psychology xyz instead of having the fortitude to deal with the world as it comes.

[Leo656]

I mean, if it's in more theaters than Black Widow than it probably will do better, that's just math. I feel like I'm seeing more TV commercials for it.

I just think it's silly that "Arab countries are mad that there's gay people in the movie" is even a headline. Pretty sure Disney knew what they were getting into. They have Google.

If they had any balls, they would've made Kumail's character the gay one. I spent ten years as a personal trainer and 99% of my clientele were Indian/Pakistani/etc., and I got to know many of them quite well. Some of those people are pretty laid back, but a lot of them? A lot of them are NOT okay with the gay stuff, let's just put it that way. Many, many of them even in this country are more than a little bit... "conservative". Like they might skew left in every other area but when it comes to the gay stuff they're as far "right" as it gets. So THAT might've been a "bold creative choice".

BUT, it might've gotten him shot in the head, too. :lol: So y'know, I guess it makes sense why they didn't use him for that.

[Andrew NDB]

or even physically-challenged swapped (Makkari is deaf in this movie for some reason)

Yeah, The Eternals badly needed a handicapped person so they borrowed the deaf lady from Walking Dead. She went absent from the show for a year (in-story, they buried her in a cave) just for that.

I'm telling you guys, this Thanos gauntlet of diversity is popping up everywhere, like a wall of armor against any possible criticism. Star Trek: Discovery has it (multi-racial bridge crew, now complete with a cripple), Walking Dead has it (multi-racial main cast, complete with a deaf lady), Fear the Walking Dead has it (multi-racial cast, complete with a cripple), the MCU now has it obviously by borrowing Walking Dead's deaf lady, and Star Trek: Strange New Worlds will have it (multi-racial cast, plus an actual blind guy).

[Autbot_Benz]

Even Disney/Marvel knows this is a hard sell because half of the TV spots for Eternals starts with showing footage from earlier MCU movies. :lol:

[neatoman]

Why would anyone diminish or straw man your point about this movie's diversity-exaggeration by going right to the gay couple?!? :lol:

The entire movie is woke $#!( with nearly every character being race-swapped, gender-swapped, orientation-swapped, or even physically-challenged swapped (Makkari is deaf in this movie for some reason). Why would anyone take what you wrote above and go straight to "well if you meant the gay couple"... :lol: WTF people!??!?! :lol::lol::lol:

"Well you know, this whole movie is an assault on the traditional elements of the source material, and literally every character is conformist to the religion of neo-hate, but if you meant the gay people when you mentioned "diversity".... :lol::lol::lol:


In my defense for making that assumption, the gay people were the thing that made headlines before this movie came out (something about the crew crying tears of joy when they filmed the kiss or some nonsense like that) and it is seemingly the thing that has gotten it banned in the middle east. Nobody really cares one way or another about the mute because mutes are not an international hot button issue. If they had done this movie without the gays and kept in all the diversity aspects, there probably wouldn't be as much talking about the diversity aspect because they have pretty much that type of diversity for the sake of diversity since at least the 90's.

[IMJ]

In my defense for making that assumption, the gay people were the thing that made headlines before this movie came out (something about the crew crying tears of joy when they filmed the kiss or some nonsense like that) and it is seemingly the thing that has gotten it banned in the middle east. Nobody really cares one way or another about the mute because mutes are not an international hot button issue. If they had done this movie without the gays and kept in all the diversity aspects, there probably wouldn't be as much talking about the diversity aspect because they have pretty much that type of diversity for the sake of diversity since at least the 90's.

Hm.
You know this is something to chew on.... there's something there to it. Like.... I'm still formulating it in response to what you've said here, but it's along the lines of -

Why is the gay couple the hot button issue? Are we in so far to the gender and race swaps that the gay inclusion is actually prescient? As in, that's the "final societal care"?

The truth is that I would guess that this franchise is so awkward that most people don't realize that Makkari is supposed to be a light-hearted, comedic white guy, and that Ajax isn't hispanic and isn't a woman, etc.

Because sure, from what I've seen in reviews the three "hanging chads" as it were are that:

1) non-U.S. countries are fuming at the gay superhero thing
2) there is an entirely unneccessary sex scene in the movie that Marvel presumed they were "breaking down walls" by including
3) That it's direction led to an incredibly slow and incredibly uncharismatic flick that was boring

So on all of that, considering what you've said there as well, my guess is that those three things were the lowest hanging fruit of criticism to get on the band wagon with and that these characters are so obscure that most people don't even know they were swapped for anything but traditional.

[CyberCubed]

Banning an entire movie for one gay kiss is odd, can't they just cut that scene out of the movie? You'd be cutting what...30 seconds and have the rest of the 2 hour movie just fine?

It's like how when R rated movies used to air on normal television, they would simply cut the nude scenes but show the rest of the movie so it could be aired. I don't know why they don't do the same thing here.

[IMJ]

Banning an entire movie for one gay kiss is odd, can't they just cut that scene out of the movie? You'd be cutting what...30 seconds and have the rest of the 2 hour movie just fine?

It's like how when R rated movies used to air on normal television, they would simply cut the nude scenes but show the rest of the movie so it could be aired. I don't know why they don't do the same thing here.

It's actually surprising given how Marvel Studios has literally bent a knee to sap off of the Chinese market in the past.

[Leo656]

Apparently, the Powers That Be in those countries asked Disney to simply cut those scenes out, and Disney simply refused. TPTB told Disney "We won't screen the movie in our country, then," and Disney said That's Fine.

Look for Disney to chest-thump about it soon. "We put our principles over our profits because the scene was THAT important to our commitment to representation going forward" and all of that stuff.

[neatoman]

Banning an entire movie for one gay kiss is odd, can't they just cut that scene out of the movie? You'd be cutting what...30 seconds and have the rest of the 2 hour movie just fine?

It's like how when R rated movies used to air on normal television, they would simply cut the nude scenes but show the rest of the movie so it could be aired. I don't know why they don't do the same thing here.

Well, like I said, it could have been done rather easily but it would cut down the runtime. While you could probably edit the husband out and depict Phastos as a single father, it is still quite a bit trickier than the lesbians in TROS who weren't even really characters, all you needed there was to cut the kiss out and nobody would be the wiser.

How do I explain this... Phastos is very clearly in a relationship with this man but as I remember it, there aren't that many shots where you see both of them standing next to each other. That and I don't think the husband is directly adressed that much either. It is doable from what I can tell, you can probably edit the husband out but doing so might cut the movie down by five minutes or more, and it might require additional sound mixing to make sure the edits aren't obvious.

I'm guessing it was deemed just a little too hard to edit? I don't think it would be, if anything it seems almost like it was designed to be edited down, though it does push the limit somewhat for that whole "let's make it easy to censor" angle. It's not like movies haven't been much more mercilessly censored before, so I don't quite know what to say here.

[Andrew NDB]

Apparently, the Powers That Be in those countries asked Disney to simply cut those scenes out, and Disney simply refused. TPTB told Disney "We won't screen the movie in our country, then," and Disney said That's Fine.

Look for Disney to chest-thump about it soon. "We put our principles over our profits because the scene was THAT important to our commitment to representation going forward" and all of that stuff.

In a way that's good. Disney/Marvel ceasing kowtowing creatively to say, China, is what I've been clamoring for for years. It's unfortunate that the only reason they are willing to stop is because of LGBTQ stuff but hey, whatever.

[Galactus]

The entire movie is woke $#!( with nearly every character being race-swapped, gender-swapped, orientation-swapped, or even physically-challenged swapped (Makkari is deaf in this movie for some reason). Why would anyone take what you wrote above and go straight to "well if you meant the gay couple"... :lol: WTF people!??!?! :lol::lol::lol:

"Well you know, this whole movie is an assault on the traditional elements of the source material, and literally every character is conformist to the religion of neo-hate, but if you meant the gay people when you mentioned "diversity".... :lol::lol::lol:

Well yeah but you know man... it did well in Korea, and it still has the American-zombie audience to siphon dollars from, and you know... neatoman said that there were quite a lot of people in his theater so, you know.... let's continue to be toxically-phony-positive about this one for no conceivable reason.

The truth is that on paper this movie will be financially fine by somebody's twisting of the metrics. Nowadays it's somehow a success to say that a movie will have a bigger gross than Black Widow, another woke $#( flick. It's toxic positivity for personal psychology xyz instead of having the fortitude to deal with the world as it comes.

When this movie was announced even by the standards of Marvel taking obscure properties and turning them into box office hits this was seen as something of a gamble.

Then when the critical reviews came out and they were iffy everyone who could generate clicks and make money out of stoking outrage at movies being 'woke' and 'SJW' got bigots creaming their pants that this was going to lose money and be the end of the MCU.

So yes it's very significant if this makes a decent amount of money particularly during a pandemic. I say this as someone who is reading all the spoilers and thinking this all sounds like something I wont like that much.

I'm telling you guys, this Thanos gauntlet of diversity is popping up everywhere, like a wall of armor against any possible criticism. Star Trek: Discovery has it (multi-racial bridge crew, now complete with a cripple), Walking Dead has it (multi-racial main cast, complete with a deaf lady), Fear the Walking Dead has it (multi-racial cast, complete with a cripple), the MCU now has it obviously by borrowing Walking Dead's deaf lady, and Star Trek: Strange New Worlds will have it (multi-racial cast, plus an actual blind guy).

A Star Trek show having a multi-racial cast and blind character???

https://img.apmcdn.org/5a5804a42abb9798e1ec0babbf1f876440f8c2c7/widescreen/3e1525-20160907-star-trek-next-generation.jpg

That'll never work.

[Leo656]

All I can see is Crusher's cheekbones and Troi's hooters, everything else in that picture is a blur.

[CyberCubed]

Star Trek has been woke for decades before people even knew what woke was.

[Andrew NDB]

A Star Trek show having a multi-racial cast and blind character???

https://img.apmcdn.org/5a5804a42abb9798e1ec0babbf1f876440f8c2c7/widescreen/3e1525-20160907-star-trek-next-generation.jpg

That'll never work.

Except that wasn't a blind actor, they didn't wave it around everywhere and never at any point did they attempt to use that as some kind of shield. Because they didn't need to. They had good writers telling good stories.

Star Trek has been woke for decades before people even knew what woke was.

People say that, usually in defense of STD and STP, but that's not really true. The "there's a utopia on Earth that has evolved past money" was uttered maybe 3 times in the whole franchise and never really dwelled on. For every one episode about a transgender alien's rights or something, there are hundreds of episodes about not that.

[IMJ]

So yes it's very significant if this makes a decent amount of money particularly during a pandemic.

And here you are making a statement that doesn't even remotely address what I said or the point I made. Literally not at all. This is more BS Dromer rebuttal designed for someone to read it in passing and agree with you. And you know what? I do agree that it would be significant. But your point isn't even remotely on the same page as what I said about the profits and people making any benchmark to call it a success. Your reply is either completely lacking in comprehension or it's a phony straw man reply.

A Star Trek show having a multi-racial cast and blind character???

That'll never work.

As usual you are making complete straw man arguments. Pointing a finger in one direction of misintent or otherwise correlating two things together that are out of context.

Diversity in Star Trek TNG worked because it didn't put diversity "first" and it still followed the formula that made Star Trek successful. And everybody loved it, my entire family included. Star Trek TNG wasn't part of the hostile takeover that we've seen in this generation of push, and it wasn't over the top in ways that betrayed the source material for an agenda. The end. :roll:

You point fingers to the basest of out-of-context examples and try to invent points bud, but you never address them in honesty. Somewhere you learned to argue in rebuttal to be on top over the sheep who stutter and stammer, but never learned to address the truth or the real topic at hand.

People say that, usually in defense of STD and STP, but that's not really true. The "there's a utopia on Earth that has evolved past money" was uttered maybe 3 times in the whole franchise and never really dwelled on. For every one episode about a transgender alien's rights or something, there are hundreds of episodes about not that.

Exactly. Star Trek's castings also were not by political pandering or in correlation to a movement of dishonesty and violence. And yet those castings came from a liberal mindset. More evidence as to how the left doesn't exist in honesty anymore and instead only exists now in personal vengeance over some life-anger of their own. Or existing, as I pointed out above, as an attempt for people to try to make their mark even when they reply in lack of comprehension to a discussion. Basically the comprehension-challenged and emotionally driven have homogenized completely on the left.

[ZariusTwo]

The audience appreciation score on RT is quite high at the moment, standing at 86% compared to the 51% critical reception.

I'm cynical enough to think this might be the work of brand loyalists simply giving the movie high marks to spite that score, in the same manner people review bomb otherwise more positively received MCU entries. Of course, it's only bad when 'they' do it.

[ZariusTwo]

rofl, the Eternals critic score gets lower and lower, and the 'audience appreciation' score stays in the high 86% and hasn't moved from that position for the last 48 hours...so obvious the high percentage is fake

[Andrew NDB]

rofl, the Eternals critic score gets lower and lower, and the 'audience appreciation' score stays in the high 86% and hasn't moved from that position for the last 48 hours...so obvious the high percentage is fake

"Audience appreciation" is easily manipulatable. There just isn't any reason for TPTB to do that... unless the Critic score is super low, too. Which it is, in this case.

[Leo656]

My only solid takeaways from all of this, while keeping the big picture in mind, has more to do with the critics themselves than anything. I don't plan to see the movie so what's in it doesn't affect me, nor does its success.

But what we can ascertain for a fact is that critics still push back hard against any super-hero movie that isn't sufficiently "popcorn" enough, and they also don't have the patience for long movies anymore, despite more and more comic book movies going over two hours for a long time now.

I mean they loved all the other movies this lady made and seem specifically hung up on this one not being "zippy" enough and "too long" for what a super-hero movie is "supposed to be". That's what I've consistently noticed.

It's amazing how much "Supposed To" matters when a person (or group) gets it into their head that one way of doing things is automatically Right and going outside of that formula is automatically Wrong. Pretty unfair if you ask me.

Like maybe the movie sucks and maybe it doesn't, I'll never know. I just think it's pretty crummy that all these years later and unless it's deliberate Oscar bait like "Joker" a super-hero movie will get raked over the coals by critics for going past two hours and not having enough dick jokes.

[Andrew NDB]

I just read that the voice that talks to Kit Harrington at the end is supposed to be Blade.

[IMJ]

I just read that the voice that talks to Kit Harrington at the end is supposed to be Blade.

I'm really curious to see if this new iteration of Blade can hold a candle to Snipes' flicks. They had diminishing returns across all three, but as a whole they were pretty solid.

[Andrew NDB]

I'm really curious to see if this new iteration of Blade can hold a candle to Snipes' flicks. They had diminishing returns across all three, but as a whole they were pretty solid.

If they go the PG-13 route -- and nowhere have they said that they aren't -- with Blade then it'll already be dead to me. There is no good Blade movie to be made in PG-13 that isn't just a pale shadow of the Snipes ones. And like, the guy is a good actor (though generally pretty deadpan) but I'm not sure the new Blade has anywhere the same level of charisma of Snipes so there's already that working against it.

And I can already hear the defenders now. "You can get away with a LOT these days in PG-13! It'll be fine!" or "It's just him killing vampires, you can mostly do that in PG-13!"

Yeah, f*** off with that. A vampire movie with no blood, basically like the Twilight movies? A Blade that can only say one F word (and I doubt they'd even allow that)? No way.

[AquaParade]

Blade movie definitely needs blood, but I'm not convinced it needs swear words.

There's a chance its rated R and they put it on Hulu, given Deadpool 3 seems to be headed that way.

Does make me wonder what kind of blood they can get away with in a pg-13 vampire movie though.

[Leo656]

Could be because I'm from Jersey, where every third or fourth word is "f*ck", but while the logical part of my brain understands it I'm always taken out of things whenever I see a show or a movie where people can't curse. Watching people jump through hoops to avoid saying what they would logically say in certain situations is like suddenly being able to see the wires making someone fly. Just rips me right out of it.

Like even on the more tame side of things, whenever I see a grown man say something like "Let's kick their butts!" instead of "asses". Drives me nuts. Grown men do not say "butts"! Like it always just feels patronizing even though I get why they feel like they "have" to do that kinda stuff.

I mean, I think most people swear. Most parents I know swear in front of their kids. Why is it still a big deal to swear? It's fun, and it gets the f*cking point across more emphatically.

[AquaParade]

Just never felt necessary to me. It's different when you have someone reaching for it with "let's kick their butts!", but I never would think it's necessary to have specific exclamations in a movie either.

I can think of all types of highly effective violent, intense, scary, or thrilling films that don't have that word in it, so I'm struggling to think of a reason it's needed.

[Leo656]

Do you live in the Northeast? Just curious.

Where I'm at it's pretty essential. Like you can tell who "ain't from 'round here" by how much or how little they swear. But I don't know how far that extends to in any direction.

[CyberCubed]

For those who saw the movie how much focus does the "gay kiss" actually have? Like is the camera actually focused on the two males and they kiss with the same screentime heterosexual kisses usually get in movies? I'm just wondering how "gay" it is because people I know are seeing the movie this weekend and I don't think they know there's a gay kiss in it.

I just want to know what level of gay it is.

[Leo656]

Don't panic if it twitches when you see it, Cubed. You don't control that, it's involuntary. Doesn't necessarily mean anything, in and of itself.

[Coola Yagami]

For those who saw the movie how much focus does the "gay kiss" actually have? Like is the camera actually focused on the two males and they kiss with the same screentime heterosexual kisses usually get in movies? I'm just wondering how "gay" it is because people I know are seeing the movie this weekend and I don't think they know there's a gay kiss in it.

I just want to know what level of gay it is.

You.... actually know people? Like.... in real life?

[Xav]

For those who saw the movie how much focus does the "gay kiss" actually have? Like is the camera actually focused on the two males and they kiss with the same screentime heterosexual kisses usually get in movies? I'm just wondering how "gay" it is because people I know are seeing the movie this weekend and I don't think they know there's a gay kiss in it.

I just want to know what level of gay it is.It's on Youtube just search for "Phastos Gay Kissing Scene ".

[IMJ]

Just never felt necessary to me. It's different when you have someone reaching for it with "let's kick their butts!", but I never would think it's necessary to have specific exclamations in a movie either.

I can think of all types of highly effective violent, intense, scary, or thrilling films that don't have that word in it, so I'm struggling to think of a reason it's needed.

Sure. I mean I think that particular tonality - how they use swearing - is prescribed by the Universe of the movie and the content and nature of the story. This is why the swearing in Star Trek Picard was so awful and out of place for the environment, yet it worked incredibly well and with humor in Star Trek IV back in the 80's.

A character like Blade dropping an F bomb and having an aggressive social edge just fits more than any kind of alacrity and elaborate language.

It's not that a "dark and scary" flick should use swear words, but rather does that "dark and scary" flick live in a world where that makes sense. It's like Top Dollar's crew in The Crow - to PG-13 that crew down to one expletive each takes away from what they were portraying. The same logic is also why Wolverine's one-liner to Magneto works so well in the first X-Men flick - it has poignancy because it stood out from the rest of the film and was a like a dialog-semitruck suddenly appearing from Wolverine.

[AquaParade]

Leo, I am a west coast softie. Not really, but yeah.

IMJ, the crew from the Crow is a good example. You want those guys to come off as nasty and deranged, and the language helps sell that. Still not sure it’s required for a Blade movie, but I can see what you mean there.

[neatoman]

For those who saw the movie how much focus does the "gay kiss" actually have? Like is the camera actually focused on the two males and they kiss with the same screentime heterosexual kisses usually get in movies? I'm just wondering how "gay" it is because people I know are seeing the movie this weekend and I don't think they know there's a gay kiss in it.

I just want to know what level of gay it is.

I explained this in earlier posts but fine.

Phastos is not revealed to be gay until the group reunites with him in modern day, Phastos is also the second to last person to rejoin the group so it does not come up until fairly late in the second act. Phastos share very few shots directly with his husband and more emphasis is put on their son than the husband. They kiss once in one of the few shots where they both appear.

I think they were aiming for making it seem like it is important without being too hard to edit out for certain countries. Of course, the movie got banned in the middle-east, so they might have failed to make it easy to censor.

[CyberCubed]

Well here it is:

mI72D-vXmLQ

I admit I got a little nervous clicking this even if it was only 9 seconds long. Still a little too passionate for my tastes. Especially since both actors look like masculine men.

I mean I can handle gay scenes as long as it's not *too* gay. I mean there's gay, and then there's "gay gay" if you catch my drift.

If I ever watch this movie when it is on streaming I guess I can power through it.

[Coola Yagami]

Well here it is:

mI72D-vXmLQ

I admit I got a little nervous clicking this even if it was only 9 seconds long. Still a little too passionate for my tastes. Especially since both actors look like masculine men.

I mean I can handle gay scenes as long as it's not *too* gay. I mean there's gay, and then there's "gay gay" if you catch my drift.

If I ever watch this movie when it is on streaming I guess I can power through it.

I..... I think I need new underwear.....

[ZariusTwo]

‘Eternals’ Seeing Possible $70M+ Opening Weekend: Why This Is A Wake Up Call For The MCU

https://deadline.com/2021/11/eternals-opening-weekend-box-office-1234868870/

[IMJ]

It's no big deal. There are gay people on Earth. I don't care about the content, but as usual I care about the straw man behind it, the forced nonsense and the fact that people are making the argument that this is what we need in our comic book movies. It's all nonsense. Don't pay for woke $#!(.

You guys need to see where this is going and act accordingly. Look - there was a period where comic book movies strayed from the source material and did so because of Hollywood-producer head-math about audience psychology. There are a ton of examples where this is the case and the movie sucked and was hated. It's like how the original scripting for Iron Man that featured Tom Cruise was supposed to have him in a plexi-glass helmet so that you could "see Tom's face". That's ridiculous.

And that's where we are at. Marvel has jumped the shark for agenda.

And the only people left who are championing this stuff are those buried in toxic-positivity who need to be part of "something" in life like an "event film".

NEEDY MOVIE GOER SAYS, SPEAKING LIKE SOCIOPATHIC DRONE EMULATING HUMAN JOY & USING ODDLY FORMAL LANGUAGE REGARDING A COMIC BOOK MOVIE:
"This was a great film! I am going for my second 'viewing' this evening to enjoy it once again, and to make myself a part of this fictional-event! What a journey this movie has been!"

:trolleye::trolleye: GTFOH

[ZariusTwo]

Hollywood Reporter has an article up about the movie's divisiveness, and make mention that even Kirby's original series faced critical backlash from readers at the time

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/eternals-marvel-rotten-tomatoes-score-1235043681/

[neatoman]

Hollywood Reporter has an article up about the movie's divisiveness, and make mention that even Kirby's original series faced critical backlash from readers at the time

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/eternals-marvel-rotten-tomatoes-score-1235043681/

Uh-huh, and what is even the point of bringing up the initial response to the comic?

Even at the already low bar set by the MCU and virtually all other live-action adaptations of American comic books, this thing was very loosely adapted. The origin and nature of the Eternals/Deviants are different, their purpose is different, what the Celestials want earth for is different, the motives of the characters are different, etc, etc, etc.

The only aspects that remained are that the Celestials created the Eternals/Deviants and they inspired human myths, that's it. While that mythology aspect of the comic might be what made it controversial back then, it's not really the problem with this movie. The problem with this movie is that it is boring, contradicts the series it is part of in several ways and overall feels like an alien's attempt to make a movie. (And yes, I know trying to claim the Eternals were the inspiration for the Greek gods in the comics made no sense either, not saying it was perfect.)

[Andrew NDB]

So the ending. This is a stealth Galactus/F4 thing. But not really. By removing the Celestial from Earth guess what will happen? Galactus' pact with the Celestials will be voided insofar as Earth is concerned. i.e., it's open season for Galactus to go after it.

[IMJ]

Uh-huh, and what is even the point of bringing up the initial response to the comic?

Even at the already low bar set by the MCU and virtually all other live-action adaptations of American comic books, this thing was very loosely adapted. The origin and nature of the Eternals/Deviants are different, their purpose is different, what the Celestials want earth for is different, the motives of the characters are different, etc, etc, etc.

The only aspects that remained are that the Celestials created the Eternals/Deviants and they inspired human myths, that's it. While that mythology aspect of the comic might be what made it controversial back then, it's not really the problem with this movie. The problem with this movie is that it is boring, contradicts the series it is part of in several ways and overall feels like an alien's attempt to make a movie. (And yes, I know trying to claim the Eternals were the inspiration for the Greek gods in the comics made no sense either, not saying it was perfect.)

I was going to say the same thing. Another straw man from a shill internet writer, and here we are linking to him. :roll:

But for sure that libtard writer is counting on whatever part of the peasant-thinker population he can to simply follow the context cues that he is laying out signaling to those peasants who won't think that "the backlash is normal and happened for the same comic" as if to normalize it when in fact it's two different things completely.

[Leo656]

So apparently, this movie has an "audience score" of B, thus "officially" making it the "worst" MCU movie, because audiences being exit-polled give pretty much anything an A and a movie getting anything below B+ is pretty much equal to an F.

Don't even get me started on THAT logic, but whatever, that's how it works and that's where we're at.

As expected/predicted, articles are being written about how and why this is the case. The reason given? Stop me if you've heard this one before: "Racism and Sexism". "People don't want women - especially women of color - to direct these types of movies." That is the official narrative. As "proof", they illustrate how all of the director's other movies were highly-acclaimed by fans and critics. They also point out how "Birds of Prey" bombed, and how THAT movie ALSO had a woman of color as a director, and cites that as the sole reason for its failure (ignoring the fact that it was pretty much a piece of sh*t). Some articles also cite how that Ava woman had her New Gods movie canceled out from under her as more "proof" of the "Fanboys don't want women of color to do super-hero movies" thesis.

Now, good for these people going to such great lengths to read between the lines and in turn explain to all of us what is "really" going on here. But I don't actually think that's the case at all.

As more is being written about it, I definitely am seeing more and more people compare it to something Snyder may have done. I can't speak to that, having not seen this, but I hear them. And I think that in their zeal to make everything about racism and sexism, the people writing these articles are willfully turning a blind eye to what the truth is. Because if you take the time to read what people are really saying about why this movie underwhelmed them, they speak plain: "I go to see MCU movies for a fun romp, and this movie is not that."

It appears that like Snyder's DC films, this movie is too self-serious and "artsy-fartsy" for the more casual mainstream audience. Now, there IS an audience for that type of super-hero movie, obviously, but the people who generally go to see MCU movies LIKE the whole "formula". They don't like to see it deviated from. They don't want navel-gazing, they just want "fun" above all.

I'm not casting any indictments about that, I'm just saying, that it is what it is. If you ask them, they tell you.

It also sounds like this movie has tons of problems on a script level, but again, most people aren't citing that as a reason they didn't like it (neatoman did, I'm just saying in general). Most people are just like, "This doesn't feel like an MCU movie to me."

Why can't that be the narrative, since it's the truth? I mean granted, it sets a horrible precedent going forward if any MCU movie without a certain quota of fart jokes gets a "bad" rating from both audiences and critics. BUT, at least "These people simply prefer cotton candy movies over more self-serious ones" is TRUE, and not some sinister made-up "They just hate women of color and don't want them to succeed in this space" phony-baloney nonsense.

Side Note: Can anyone float me an example of a movie that got an "audience score" of F? I'm just curious; since anything below a B+ is more or less "the same thing" as an F when it comes to that stuff, I'm morbidly curious to know what kind of movie would get an actual F score from audiences.

[IMJ]

So apparently, this movie has an "audience score" of B, thus "officially" making it the "worst" MCU movie, because audiences being exit-polled give pretty much anything an A and a movie getting anything below B+ is pretty much equal to an F.

Don't even get me started on THAT logic, but whatever, that's how it works and that's where we're at.

As expected/predicted, articles are being written about how and why this is the case. The reason given? Stop me if you've heard this one before: "Racism and Sexism". "People don't want women - especially women of color - to direct these types of movies." That is the official narrative. As "proof", they illustrate how all of the director's other movies were highly-acclaimed by fans and critics. They also point out how "Birds of Prey" bombed, and how THAT movie ALSO had a woman of color as a director, and cites that as the sole reason for its failure (ignoring the fact that it was pretty much a piece of sh*t). Some articles also cite how that Ava woman had her New Gods movie canceled out from under her as more "proof" of the "Fanboys don't want women of color to do super-hero movies" thesis.

Now, good for these people going to such great lengths to read between the lines and in turn explain to all of us what is "really" going on here. But I don't actually think that's the case at all.

As more is being written about it, I definitely am seeing more and more people compare it to something Snyder may have done. I can't speak to that, having not seen this, but I hear them. And I think that in their zeal to make everything about racism and sexism, the people writing these articles are willfully turning a blind eye to what the truth is. Because if you take the time to read what people are really saying about why this movie underwhelmed them, they speak plain: "I go to see MCU movies for a fun romp, and this movie is not that."

It appears that like Snyder's DC films, this movie is too self-serious and "artsy-fartsy" for the more casual mainstream audience. Now, there IS an audience for that type of super-hero movie, obviously, but the people who generally go to see MCU movies LIKE the whole "formula". They don't like to see it deviated from. They don't want navel-gazing, they just want "fun" above all.

I'm not casting any indictments about that, I'm just saying, that it is what it is. If you ask them, they tell you.

It also sounds like this movie has tons of problems on a script level, but again, most people aren't citing that as a reason they didn't like it (neatoman did, I'm just saying in general). Most people are just like, "This doesn't feel like an MCU movie to me."

Why can't that be the narrative, since it's the truth? I mean granted, it sets a horrible precedent going forward if any MCU movie without a certain quota of fart jokes gets a "bad" rating from both audiences and critics. BUT, at least "These people simply prefer cotton candy movies over more self-serious ones" is TRUE, and not some sinister made-up "They just hate women of color and don't want them to succeed in this space" phony-baloney nonsense.

Side Note: Can anyone float me an example of a movie that got an "audience score" of F? I'm just curious; since anything below a B+ is more or less "the same thing" as an F when it comes to that stuff, I'm morbidly curious to know what kind of movie would get an actual F score from audiences.


There is so much BS in review scores across the board that the real solution is to look at two things and two things only - Box office haul and hindsight reviews. Everyone claimed they loved Iron Man 3 coming out of the theater. Look at that movie now.

Aggregate reviewers - basically manipulated willingly by studio access
Theater pollers - impacted by recency bias and also basically by toxic positivity and societal expectations of "politeness".
Even the immediate box office is biased. Dumb people will claim that some movie is "soaring" to 70 million! or something like that, but when the dust settles it brings in 200 million in the U.S. which is nothing nowadays.

I'm telling you, the two closest metrics we have for true public sentiment are final box office takes and then what people say about the movie months after it's release when they aren't afraid to buck the perceived trend that something was "great".

Fact. There are a LOT of tribal-cowards out there who will boost positivity about anything simply to not be targeted for the truth. It's literally reciprocating causation of $#!( people. The people who do it will also attack anyone outside their tribe-mindset so as to appear part of the tribe. It's literally much of the reason people will come out of a movie acting excited and then later, when it's safe will tell you that it wasn't that great and eventually diminish down to "it sucked". Societal cowardice literally translates into improved movie scores, it's insane.

[Leo656]

I personally don't even put anything into box office, quite frankly. Almost every single Transformers movie cracked a billion, thus proving that people will pay to sit through any godawful piece of sh*t so long as they get to sit in the air conditioning for two hours in July.

And of course, the flipside of that, which is some movies don't do great box office but make tons of money (sometimes equal or even greater amounts as the box office) on disc and streaming and whatever. So I don't even think box office tells any kind of story other than what mood people were collectively in on that specific day.

Put simply, with regard to this whole thing I'm just irritated that "journalists" are once again TELLING people what they mean when they say they found this movie underwhelming, rather than just listening to them. Right from the very first critics' reviews that came out, it's right there in black and white: "It's too long and too serious for a Marvel movie." Now that audiences have seen it, many say the same thing: "It's very pretty, but I don't go to MCU movies for that, I wanna ride the rollercoaster."

Why is it that so many pen-holders insist on playing the whole "What you REALLY mean is THIS" game?

I guess it might be partly because admitting that would mean admitting that most MCU movies do in fact pander to the lowest common denominator and that Scorsese was correct. But I mean, either way, it's disingenuous to ascribe racist, sexism, and other sinister motives when people say outright, "I just thought it was boring."

[Coola Yagami]

I think the thing is, no one knows or cares about the Eternals.

Same can be said about Guardians of the Galaxy but, talking tree and raccoon. And green alien babe.

Suicide Squad had Harley Quinn and for better or for worse, the Joker. Remove those two and not have Will Smith play Deadshot... now let's see who cares to see the movie.

The Eternals are boring no-name heroes played by boring no-name actors. No one asked for this. Just keep it moving with stuff like Spider-Man, Doctor Strange and Thor. No one cares about these guys.

Stop pussy-footing and bring in the X-Men already. Are you guys gonna do it or not? Do it while the MCU fans are still somewhat young, geez. I'm gonna be in my 70's by the time the MCU X-Men finally come out.

[Leo656]

Well, I mean, they have to figure out which X-Man is gonna be gay, which one is trans, and which one(s) will be race-flipped, and that's gonna take them a while yet.

Also, there's a chance they might not even call it "X-Men", because even that title is now "offensive", and lord I wish I was joking but I'm not.

So yeah, they still have a lot to figure out before they pop the cork on MCU X-Men. :lol: I have a very strong feeling that people aren't gonna be thrilled when they actually get the thing they claim to want. It's certainly not going to look the way it does in their imaginations, that much I can almost promise.

[Andrew NDB]

Well, I mean, they have to figure out which X-Man is gonna be gay, which one is trans, and which one(s) will be race-flipped, and that's gonna take them a while yet.

They know which one will be the cripple, though I bet you they're going to cast an actual cripple this time because that's what you have to do in their eyes these days. No such thing as acting anymore, only robbing roles from other races and minorities, better actor or not.

[Leo656]

Yeah, that sh*t is f*cking ridiculous.

[Coola Yagami]

Yeah, gone are the days where the best person gets the role and if they just so happen to not be white, so be it.

I don't know, I never believed one race to be superior than the other, but it kinda says something where it looks like the best people for the job just so happen to be mostly white and straight, and the only way gay gender swaps and whatever else can even get in the door is by lyin', cheatin' and stealing. They're purposely admitting they can't make it under their own merit. They're basically saying the white man is superior and to get to where they are they have to do so by dishonest means.

It's ****ed up, but all this forced diversity is kinda quietly saying so.

[Sumac]

Its basically what SJW / modern Left are about - Racism and Sexism, e.t.c. of low expectations.

SJW admit that: a) other races can't do the same things that White and Straight can do;
b) in order to achieve the same progress as White and Straight, others should do as (certain segmented of ) White and Straight tell them;

It is hilarious.

[ProphetofGanja]

well, just got done seeing it. any movie that starts off with Pink Floyd's "Time" is doing something right so I will say that at least had that much going for them. And Salma Hayek and Angelina Jolie are still so, SO fine. Hayek is like a chick you would try to date and Jolie is like your friend's super hot mom that you would risk the whole friendship for. Gilgamesh was the ultimate bro, I liked him. Jon Snow was barely in this.

[IMJ]

Yeah, gone are the days where the best person gets the role and if they just so happen to not be white, so be it.

I don't know, I never believed one race to be superior than the other, but it kinda says something where it looks like the best people for the job just so happen to be mostly white and straight, and the only way gay gender swaps and whatever else can even get in the door is by lyin', cheatin' and stealing. They're purposely admitting they can't make it under their own merit. They're basically saying the white man is superior and to get to where they are they have to do so by dishonest means.

It's ****ed up, but all this forced diversity is kinda quietly saying so.

:o:o

:teek::teek::teek:

[Andrew NDB]

So the end of Eternals could be a lead-in to Galactus.

https://www.darkhorizons.com/eternals-scribes-want-galactus-in-mcu/

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Given the appearance of two new characters at the end, it could also be a lead in to several other new additions as well.

The fact that Pip has been associated with Both Adam Warlock, who is already hinted at in GotG2, and Silver Surfer, Galactus and perhaps the Infinity Guardians may be possibilities for the future. Gamora was a part of that group as well, so she may join them. I'malso intrigued by the idea of tying in to Nova, the FF, and X-Factor.

[IMJ]

Curious to see if being phony, toxicly-positive, or going on about "my theater was full during my viewing" actually translates into results as supported by the wider public....

Where does this one sit on the earnings ladder now that it's a couple of weeks in? How was the second weekend Box Office as compared to the opening?

[AquaParade]

That was pretty good!

Definitely doesn’t deserve to be the lowest rated MCU movie on Rotten Tomatoes, imo.

I’ll need to watch it again, but I appreciated the visuals and I felt they balanced drama with comedy a little better than the average MCU film.


Not bad at all. I might consider owning at some point. I enjoyed it more than Black Widow and Shang-Chi.

[Leo656]

It definitely doesn't look like my cup of tea but I also wouldn't be shocked if it is indeed at least a bit better than most critics and MCU stans said it was.

The most persistent criticisms - and there were MANY criticisms, but the most overwhelming ones - were that it was "too long, boring, and self-serious for a Marvel movie. These are supposed to be fun romps, we don't want something like this."

It's like how I said in another thread, "Coke fans will NEVER be Pepsi fans." People like different things for different reasons. And people who like One Type of super-hero movie, by and large, don't like ones that are outside of their comfort zone. Sure, there's a few people - like me - who can watch either BvS or Raimi's Spider-Man depending on my mood and be just fine either way, but by and large that isn't how most people are with this genre. Some, yes, most, no.

I was interested in how this movie would go over with people simply because I wanted to see if MCU fans would have the patience/tolerance for something a bit more self-serious than what they're used to. Turns out, nah. Which retroactively explains why so many of those people hated a lot of the DC movies that were in that vein, as well. As I've always said, it's not at all that those movies were "bad", because they were not. They just weren't made for the "movies as theme park rides" type of audience. So now we see that it's pretty much a consistent thing with that audience; they simply want a fun romp every time out. When it's NOT that, it's simply a "bad super-hero movie".

I mean, maybe it IS a bad movie, I don't know. I'll never see it so I'll never know. I've just been following the cultural conversation to see what can be learned about the larger audience for comic book films. Quite a lot, as it turns out.

[AquaParade]

I had similar feelings and questions. The temperature of the reviews had me thinking this might be more up my alley.

There are some MCU movies I love, but I've been bored to near-death by just as many, and they are usually praised by critics either way. If the critics praise the good and the bad movies (imo, anyway) in the exact same way, then one of the MCU movies that actually does get some blowback is sure to be at least interesting.

I'd take it over Far From Home and I love Spider-Man.

[Leo656]

What I saw in the reviews for this movie, were a lot of the same statements I saw in reviews for "Thor: Ragnarok" from the complete opposite direction. People loved that movie, and hated this one, but in most of the reviews for either, were a ton of statements in the vein of, "Super-heroes are silly, ergo, their movies should be silly. If it's not silly, then it's automatically Bad."

Now, quite frankly, if I had the money and time, I would totally pull a "Jay and Silent Bob Strikes Back" and go door-to-door "correcting" such people in turn. Probably with a slapjack and a baseball bat.

But regardless, that's the overwhelmingly dominant opinion of the genre among critics and the mainstream "casual" audience. "Keep it stupid, Stupid. This sh*t ain't Shakespeare." It's a dumb opinion, but they're wedded to it. Personally, just like with TMNT I can't fathom why so many people who claim to "love" a thing ONLY like it if it's dumb, but whatever, there's a ton of things about people I don't fully understand. It's just things I notice.

Anyway, glad you had fun with it. Not shocked it's not as bad as people said. But "Marvel movie" + "Bollywood Dance Scene" means I'll never see it. :lol:

[Sumac]

Because, you can make silly movie fun and you can make it stupid.
Mystery solved!

[CyberCubed]

Just saw this today too, it was a bit better than I thought, but I can understand the complaints. This movie introduced like 10 new superheroes and only 3 of them got proper characterisation. The rest were bland and just defined by one trait. You don't introduce 10 superheroes in one movie and expect people to care about them all.

I did like the fights with the deviant monsters, and the overall theme that a God Celestial Being wanted to create a new life destroying the Earth by harnessing all the energy.

I liked the Superman joke in the movie, the little kid thought one of the main guys was Superman because he shot lasers from his eyes and flew in the sky. I'm surprised Disney allowed a DC reference.