Marvel's The Eternals

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by Leo656

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

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

[ProphetofGanja]

Originally Posted by IMJ

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?"

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

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by ProphetofGanja

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

[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!"

[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-mar...mixed-reviews/

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

"All time low."

https://nextshark.com/chloe-zhao-mar...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]

Originally Posted by Jester

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Originally Posted by Jester

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]

Originally Posted by Leo656

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.

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

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]

Originally Posted by Galactus

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]

Originally Posted by Galactus

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]

Originally Posted by Coola Yagami

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.