Movie Watcher's Oasis Discussion Message Board Forum

Movie Discussion Boards => Pretentious Elitist Snob Discussion => Topic started by: Tut on September 05, 2016, 02:43:35 am

Title: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on September 05, 2016, 02:43:35 am
Alright you little shits, take your seats. Whether you signed up for this class at Tut University (http://trollfightersoasis.createaforum.com/trollfighters-consensus/welcome-to-tut-university!/) or not, you're going to have to suffer through it. It's $50 a class, so let's get those wallets out, eh? Chop-chop! My time is valuable to me!

The required reading for this course is John Tyler's Spider-Man 3 Review ($335, hardbound). I expect you will all have a copy in your possession by Friday, or else you will automatically fail the class. You must bring this textbook to class every day. Tut University is not responsible for any spinal injury resulting from carrying the review in your backpack. Also, make sure you get the 9th edition, with John's fully updated opinion on the movie. No, the 8th will not suffice. The review changes every six months or so.

With that out of the way, let's begin.

Lesson #1: The Humor of Juxtaposition

Juxtaposition is a literary/comedic device in which two different things are combined or compared, with a contrasting result. A fine example of this is the scene in The Big Lebowski in which The Dude wanders into the wealthy Jeff Lebowski's home. The subsequent face-off between a hippie slacker and the tightly-wound "Big" Lebowski is the source of much of the scene's humor.

But here's the thing. Juxtaposition is a very surface-level form of humor. It usually functions best as the setup for the joke, not as the joke itself. When utilizing juxtaposition in a film, you need something else going on. Something subtler. In The Big Lebowski, the scene I referenced just now is funny mainly due to the dialogue between the two characters, as well as Jeff Bridges' impeccable mannerisms and inflection. The dialogue flows naturally, one funny comment leads to another, and before you know it the movie has built a hilarious series of jokes off of a simple premise.

Now compare that to this.

(https://media.giphy.com/media/zxf6g67Kq8zgQ/giphy.gif)

We can't all be The Big Lebowski, that's for sure. I certainly don't hold every comedy film to that standard. But (call me crazy) pretty much any line would have worked more or less the same for this scene in Deadpool. The humor here-- the shallow, shallow humor-- derives from the fact that this superhero is saying something you wouldn't typically expect him to say in this scene.

That's it. That's the joke.

Why not "Did I forget to feed the cat?" How about "Damn, did I just lose my keys?" Plug in any run-of-the-mill mundane activity to that joke, and you'll have essentially the same result. This is not intelligent screenwriting, people. There is no setup and payoff to this joke. It represents everything awful about Marvel's tenuous grasp on the concept of "humor." It is just a single, stupid line, meaningless, pointless, devoid of any creativity, and given the green light because Marvel knows they're making movies for idiots. Needless to say, this doesn't hold a candle to The Big Lebowski (few things do), but on a broader scale, it's insulting to discerning viewers, and it's insulting to screenwriters who actually take the time to set up well-crafted jokes. Sometimes writers put thought into their humor. Shocking, I know. Anyway, let's look at another example, because Deadpool is certainly not the only culprit here.

(https://i.imgur.com/ekZ2wSx.gif)

Ah, yes. One of the worst lines of dialogue from one of the worst films of all time. This line was written with one audience in mind, folks-- halfwits from Tumblr like Dom Cobb who would instantly turn it into a meme. If you're starting to notice a trend developing here, then good for you for seeing the light. Marvel relies heavily on the humor of juxtaposition in their movies-- far too heavily for it to be successful every time. This particular scene in Thor is apparently funny because a Norse god is sitting in a coffee shop somewhere in rural America. Again, that's all the joke is. No setup. No payoff. Just the antics of a Marvel character being stuck in an unusual situation.

"But Professor Tutweiller," you say, "That can't be right. All of Marvel's movies can't rely solely on juxtaposing kooky characters in contrasting situations!"

Or can they?

(https://media.giphy.com/media/wTUr3J4G4BPEI/giphy.gif)

Oh wait...

(https://31.media.tumblr.com/36d8877744c05dea808d377e2531f9d8/tumblr_nhseu0hMpp1qzco77o1_500.gif)

Uh... yeah...

(https://media.giphy.com/media/Epop7hce9CeYw/giphy.gif)

You see now what I'm getting at. Screenwriting 101, ladies and gents. Don't talk down to your audience. But Marvel does that in spades. And why wouldn't they? They have no reason to shake up the formula now. Take a funny character and put him in a serious situation. Take a serious character and put him in a funny situation. Take funny and serious characters and mix them together to see what crazy, hilarious things they'll say to one another! Oh, Marvel! What a wacky, crazy, silly goofball bunch of contrasting characters you've created!

On a very basic level, these films are the embodiment of laziness.

Class dismissed. We shall reconvene soon. Homework: Read chapter one of John Tyler's Spider-Man 3 review (pages 1-65 in your textbooks) and write a two-page analysis of it. I'll collect it on Tuesday.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Crohn's Boy on September 05, 2016, 07:30:13 am
I can't be here on Tuesday.  I...uh...am gonna have malaria by that day.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Kale Pasta on September 05, 2016, 09:45:29 am
Huh, interesting analysis. I'd argue though that most of Marvel's humor is basically one-liners (generally given to us by Ironman) but there's certainly truth to what you're saying. However, I'd also say there's an intrinsic difference between the two examples you used- the scene in Deadpool relies on him saying something the audience doesn't expect, whereas the humor in the Thor scene is predicated on him doing something out of place in a real life scenario that the characters in the scene don't think he'll do. May seem like a small thing but I think it's a relevant distinction.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Flounder Prefers Browntown on September 05, 2016, 10:20:07 am
The one thing about humor is that it's completely subjective. You may find something funny that I personally don't and I may find something funny that you personally don't. Deadpool and the MCU certainly fall into the latter category. I could explain why that is, but if I did, I would be plagiarizing Paasche and I'd be resurrecting pathetic days that I've given up on.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Flounder Prefers Browntown on September 05, 2016, 10:23:31 am
The humor in the Thor scene is predicated on him doing something out of place in a real life scenario that the characters in the scene don't think he'll do.
There's also Thor trying to get used to his new, unfamiliar surroundings, seeing as he's in a certainly familiar fish out of water scenario, and that adds to the humor in the scene.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: cupcake on September 05, 2016, 10:35:42 am
Just teach us what's on the test.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on September 05, 2016, 01:04:44 pm
Huh, interesting analysis. I'd argue though that most of Marvel's humor is basically one-liners (generally given to us by Ironman) but there's certainly truth to what you're saying. However, I'd also say there's an intrinsic difference between the two examples you used- the scene in Deadpool relies on him saying something the audience doesn't expect, whereas the humor in the Thor scene is predicated on him doing something out of place in a real life scenario that the characters in the scene don't think he'll do. May seem like a small thing but I think it's a relevant distinction.

Raynor seemed curious as to why he couldn't remember specific jokes from Deadpool, so I thought I'd lead off with this. The jokes are not memorable because they do not come naturally from the dialogue or the situations. They're non-sequiturs. And while there is a slight distinction you can make between these two examples, I think it's somewhat negligible. Regardless of the way the characters in the scene are reacting, the humor still comes from a similar place, and it's the audience's reaction that counts at the end of the day. This is a major reason why these films are funny in the moment, but once you leave the theater, you start to realize you've been had. Humor may be subjective, but I know lazy writing when I see it.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on September 05, 2016, 01:09:41 pm
The humor in the Thor scene is predicated on him doing something out of place in a real life scenario that the characters in the scene don't think he'll do.
There's also Thor trying to get used to his new, unfamiliar surroundings, seeing as he's in a certainly familiar fish out of water scenario, and that adds to the humor in the scene.

Pssssssst... juxtaposition...
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Robert Neville on September 05, 2016, 02:13:05 pm
Wait, is that literally all there was to that stove line? I mean, I haven't bothered to watch the film, but I thought he at least had the decency to say it after something big had blown up, or something. Yeah...

Btw, Diego will probably be pleased to hear that my friends in the academy generally dislike Marvel, including Deadpool, and one hates them all with a passion (though he's also strongly pro-LOTR, and we had a relatively heated argument over merits of Hobbit movies relative to the first Narnia.) They also all disliked the Farce Awakens, which actually seems to be the general sentiment in Russia. Notably, my brother also disliked both Force Awakens and especially Deadpool, which is somewhat weird, as that means he puts them below Independence Day: Resurgence, first Now You See Me, and Suicide Squad, among others.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Robert Neville on September 05, 2016, 02:21:09 pm
I think you should also note that Thor 2 generally had very little of this type of humour from what I remember, and its jokes generally had context, yet it's usually considered to be worse than the first one (which I still haven't bothered to see, and so can't reasonably compare.)
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Charles Longboat Jr. on September 05, 2016, 02:23:15 pm
I think you should also note that Thor 2 generally had very little of this type of humour from what I remember, and its jokes generally had context, yet it's usually considered to be worse than the first one (which I still haven't bothered to see, and so can't reasonably compare.)
I don't remember much from either, but I think the reason Thor 2 is regarded as worse is due to its almost non-existent villain and a generally stakeless, uninspired plot.

Yeah, the first one might have those too (I don't intend on rewatching many of these superhero movies for a while), but The Dark World has them to a more notable degree, I would assume.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Robert Neville on September 05, 2016, 02:50:39 pm
I think you should also note that Thor 2 generally had very little of this type of humour from what I remember, and its jokes generally had context, yet it's usually considered to be worse than the first one (which I still haven't bothered to see, and so can't reasonably compare.)
I don't remember much from either, but I think the reason Thor 2 is regarded as worse is due to its almost non-existent villain and a generally stakeless, uninspired plot.

Yeah, the first one might have those too (I don't intend on rewatching many of these superhero movies for a while), but The Dark World has them to a more notable degree, I would assume.

Honestly, I think those are mainly the problems if you had any particular investment in it and such. I didn't, and so to me, it kinda hovers at 5 or 6, because to me, at least, the bad parts often came across as so bad, it's good. I was always smiling whenever the film tried to claim that purple swirly bullshit thing could wipe out the whole universe (or whatever it was supposed to do), for instance, and the bit that I remember the most was actually a minor one where Heimdall, I think, says that he can't see Jane even though he watches over everybody in the whole Nine Realms. I thought it was really funny because of how badly this clashed with the general anti spy agency, anti-surveillance themes of other Marvel movies. The half-insane scientist guy was also a highlight.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on September 05, 2016, 04:17:23 pm
Wait, is that literally all there was to that stove line? I mean, I haven't bothered to watch the film, but I thought he at least had the decency to say it after something big had blown up, or something. Yeah...

It's quite shocking, isn't it? And you know, if that line had come after a big explosion, that might have been funnier. Maybe you should write for Marvel, Neville.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Catbus! on September 05, 2016, 04:46:40 pm
Shiiiiiittt. Did I forget to formulate a response?
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on September 05, 2016, 09:49:01 pm
Students, assemble! Are you ready for another wonderful lesson at the Tutweiller Institute of Higher Learning? No? Well, deal with it! You're here whether you like it or not!

Lesson #2: "Acting."

Alright, look. I'm not a moron (at least I don't think I am). I don't expect superhero movies to feature tour de forces of acting. If these kinds of films can reduce an actor like Marlon Brando to a half-drunk talking crystal, my expectations will be sufficiently lowered. All I'm looking for in a superhero movie when it comes to acting is general competence, and the ability to make laughable dialogue like "I work alone" and "[Name of villain] is putting the [McGuffin plot device] in the blue laser beam" sound natural. Sometimes, this is asking a lot. But you know what? A lot of the time, the actors succeed in doing this. Sometimes there's even a standout performance, like Hugh Jackman as Wolverine. If you asked me what my first complaint was with any given Marvel movie, the acting would not likely be at the top of the list.

But this class isn't "Why Marvel movies are bad." This class is called "Why Marvel is Destroying America." So when I see performances like Chris Evans' turn as Captain America in Civil War being lauded by moviegoers and critics, I start to get a little annoyed. In any Avengers movie, the lead performances can be characterized as serviceable at best. At worst, they're a bunch of overpaid Hollywood actors/actresses with big pecs and boobs (respectively) who phone it in at every turn, collect a paycheck, and flash toothy smiles at Comic-Con panels.

You do not want to know how many times I've asked people who their favorite actors are and they've responded with "Robert Downey Jr," "Chris Hemsworth," or "Scarlett Johansson." And when asked which movies they like these actors from, well, let me just say that nobody responds with Chaplin, Rush, and Lost in Translation. People like these actors because they know their faces and they know their names. They see them all the time on billboards and magazine covers. They pay attention to their personal lives. And none of this would be happening if it weren't for the exposure these actors get from Marvel movies.

At some point, we crossed the line between actual acting and filming rich, attractive people party onscreen for our amusement. And I think that line was somewhere around Avengers: Age of Ultron, when we were treated to an elaborate cocktail party the characters threw in their little superhero penthouse.

(https://i.imgur.com/JWofbGE.png)

I hate to make the comparison, but it's the Adam Sandler/Grown Ups conundrum. Watching actors have a good time doesn't always translate into the audience having a good time too. But the Avengers movies seem to have successfully conned people in this regard. It's like watching an episode of Friends.  Maybe there are a couple of laughs. Maybe the performances aren't terrible. But the Avengers films, just like Friends, have a major problem. The characters are shallow. Sorry, it's true. No amount of artistically bankrupt banter and clinking champagne glasses will cure the movie of this.

You want to know why Marvel is destroying America? It's the same reason why the Kardashians are. If you ever get the feeling that religion is dying off, think again-- it's being replaced by a completely different cult. The cult of celebrity.

Now, I'm writing this for you guys. The Oasis users. I don't feel the need to explain to you that Chris Evans is no Jimmy Stewart. If this was a conversation with Dom Cobb, I might go more in-depth here. But let's leave it at this-- even though I like RDJ, Scarlett Johansson, Mark Ruffalo, and many other actors and actresses who have appeared in Marvel's films, you simply cannot hold these performances up as some sort of pinnacle of acting. Some of these people have turned in good performances outside of Marvel, but the ones who haven't are likely not very good actors (looking at you, Hemsworth). Portraying an action figure and portraying a human being are two entirely different things. And you'd be surprised by how many people don't understand that.

So when people call Tom Hiddleston a "great actor," just ignore everything else they say. They are dullards. Their experience with movies amounts to watching the six or so superhero films that come out every year. Yes, my friends-- Marvel is destroying America. Because when my generation-- the Dom Cobb generation-- grows up and fills the positions of film critics and Academy members, I guarantee you that it won't be long before The Avengers ends up on AFI's Top 100 List. And what a dark, dark day that will be.

And this isn't to say that there aren't some truly godawful performances in these movies... we'll get to that later.

Class dismissed. Remember, books by Friday, homework a week from tomorrow.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: $+/\|_¡|\| on September 05, 2016, 10:05:45 pm
Question...

Why isn't this class called, "Why DC is Destroying America"?

Don't you hate more DC films than Marvel?
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Charles Longboat Jr. on September 05, 2016, 10:07:34 pm
Question...

Why isn't this class called, "Why DC is Destroying America"?

Don't you hate more DC films than Marvel?
Marvel has the critical and financial edge, and presents more of a threat in terms of indoctrinating the sheeple. Opinions on DC films are split down the middle.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: cupcake on September 05, 2016, 10:10:31 pm
Question...

Why isn't this class called, "Why DC is Destroying America"?

Don't you hate more DC films than Marvel?
Marvel has the critical and financial edge, and presents more of a threat in terms of indoctrinating the sheeple. Opinions on DC films are.split.down the middle.

Your mom was split down the middle last night.

Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on September 05, 2016, 10:16:03 pm
Question...

Why isn't this class called, "Why DC is Destroying America"?

Don't you hate more DC films than Marvel?

Kashmir has it right. Besides, for me to say DC is destroying America, I would have to take it seriously. To discuss DC's impact on pop culture requires believing that it has had an impact in the first place.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: cupcake on September 05, 2016, 10:18:54 pm
This class is pointless.  If you want a quality education, join the Cutler Institute of Phallic Imagery today.

(http://www.blindbild.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/berlin-altes-museum-phallus.jpg)

Homo-Erectus
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: $+/\|_¡|\| on September 05, 2016, 10:20:40 pm
Question...

Why isn't this class called, "Why DC is Destroying America"?

Don't you hate more DC films than Marvel?

Kashmir has it right. Besides, for me to say DC is destroying America, I would have to take it seriously. To discuss DC's impact on pop culture requires believing that it has had an impact in the first place.
I hope you're not serious about that last part...
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: cupcake on September 05, 2016, 10:25:34 pm
Question...

Why isn't this class called, "Why DC is Destroying America"?

Don't you hate more DC films than Marvel?

Kashmir has it right. Besides, for me to say DC is destroying America, I would have to take it seriously. To discuss DC's impact on pop culture requires believing that it has had an impact in the first place.
I hope you're not serious about that last part...

Danny, ignore him.  He's just mad because he doesn't know a thing about those super-secretive DC theories you have.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: PORG on September 05, 2016, 10:28:04 pm
Danny....
(http://40.media.tumblr.com/4d830789d71eb44d81172b968ac5b9bc/tumblr_inline_nzfevykxev1rg0x34_500.jpg)
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Charles Longboat Jr. on September 05, 2016, 10:29:32 pm
Danny....
(http://40.media.tumblr.com/4d830789d71eb44d81172b968ac5b9bc/tumblr_inline_nzfevykxev1rg0x34_500.jpg)
Are you trying to avert what could be another epic Tutweiller/Oh standoff?
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on September 05, 2016, 10:59:46 pm
Question...

Why isn't this class called, "Why DC is Destroying America"?

Don't you hate more DC films than Marvel?

Kashmir has it right. Besides, for me to say DC is destroying America, I would have to take it seriously. To discuss DC's impact on pop culture requires believing that it has had an impact in the first place.
I hope you're not serious about that last part...

I'm talking about the DCEU. Not The Dark Knight. Not their comics. Not Superman as a character. The only thing of relevance in this discussion about Marvel is the movies they are currently making, so the same applies to DC. And if you really think that Suicide Squad or Man of Steel will be remembered fondly-- or remembered at all-- after a few years have passed, buddy, I got some news for you.

Also, is anyone reading my mini-essays? Be honest, guys.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: cupcake on September 05, 2016, 11:04:13 pm
Question...

Why isn't this class called, "Why DC is Destroying America"?

Don't you hate more DC films than Marvel?

Kashmir has it right. Besides, for me to say DC is destroying America, I would have to take it seriously. To discuss DC's impact on pop culture requires believing that it has had an impact in the first place.
I hope you're not serious about that last part...

I'm talking about the DCEU. Not The Dark Knight. Not their comics. Not Superman as a character. The only thing of relevance in this discussion about Marvel is the movies they are currently making, so the same applies to DC. And if you really think that Suicide Squad or The-Film-That-Must-Not-Be-Named will be remembered fondly-- or remembered at all-- after a few years have passed, buddy, I got some news for you.

Also, is anyone reading my mini-essays? Be honest, guys.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5pRYuI3etc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5pRYuI3etc)
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Jim Raynor Remastered on September 05, 2016, 11:05:06 pm
Question...

Why isn't this class called, "Why DC is Destroying America"?

Don't you hate more DC films than Marvel?

Kashmir has it right. Besides, for me to say DC is destroying America, I would have to take it seriously. To discuss DC's impact on pop culture requires believing that it has had an impact in the first place.
I hope you're not serious about that last part...
Also, is anyone reading my mini-essays? Be honest, guys.
I do...
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: $+/\|_¡|\| on September 05, 2016, 11:10:36 pm
Question...

Why isn't this class called, "Why DC is Destroying America"?

Don't you hate more DC films than Marvel?

Kashmir has it right. Besides, for me to say DC is destroying America, I would have to take it seriously. To discuss DC's impact on pop culture requires believing that it has had an impact in the first place.
I hope you're not serious about that last part...

I'm talking about the DCEU. Not The Dark Knight. Not their comics. Not Superman as a character. The only thing of relevance in this discussion about Marvel is the movies they are currently making, so the same applies to DC. And if you really think that Suicide Squad or The-Film-That-Must-Not-Be-Named will be remembered fondly-- or remembered at all-- after a few years have passed, buddy, I got some news for you.

Also, is anyone reading my mini-essays? Be honest, guys.
tru
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: $+/\|_¡|\| on September 05, 2016, 11:11:06 pm
Also, I read your mini-essays.

There's truth in what you say. Kinda depressing actually.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Jim Raynor Remastered on September 05, 2016, 11:25:46 pm
The Avengers making its way to the AFI Top 100 is highly unlikely. People's taste changes as time goes by and experienced new things or something else becomes popular. Not to say that the critics of the AFI Top 100 are absolute geniuses, for instance, Michael Goi, one of these highly regarded critics; directed Megan is Missing, one of the most pretentious, and frankly, worst films I've ever had the displeasure of seeing.

And regarding the acting, yeah. Age of Ultron was pretty unremarkable in that department, along with many others which I will not bother covering since this dead horse is nothing more than beef jerky after all that beating.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: cupcake on September 05, 2016, 11:35:26 pm
I want to see ricky jacking off
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on September 05, 2016, 11:39:28 pm
The Avengers making its way to the AFI Top 100 is highly unlikely. People's taste changes as time goes by and experienced new things or something else becomes popular. Not to say that the critics of the AFI Top 100 are absolute geniuses, for instance, Michael Goi, one of these highly regarded critics; directed Megan is Missing, one of the most pretentious, and frankly, worst films I've ever had the displeasure of seeing.

Only time will tell. For now, let's just say I have very little hope.

Also, I read your mini-essays.

There's truth in what you say. Kinda depressing actually.

Good to know that I'm not just going crazy here.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Flounder Prefers Browntown on September 05, 2016, 11:42:01 pm
The only thing of relevance in this discussion about Marvel is the movies they are currently making, so the same applies to DC.
So why is Deadpool being discussed alongside the MCU films when Deadpool doesn't even take place in the same universe?
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: cupcake on September 05, 2016, 11:42:58 pm
The only thing of relevance in this discussion about Marvel is the movies they are currently making, so the same applies to DC.
So why is Deadpool being discussed alongside the MCU films when Deadpool doesn't even take place in the same universe?



OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on September 05, 2016, 11:49:48 pm
The only thing of relevance in this discussion about Marvel is the movies they are currently making, so the same applies to DC.
So why is Deadpool being discussed alongside the MCU films when Deadpool doesn't even take place in the same universe?



OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH(etc)

Did John actually write that? Lol...

Also, permission to clip this comment a bit?
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: cupcake on September 05, 2016, 11:53:20 pm
The only thing of relevance in this discussion about Marvel is the movies they are currently making, so the same applies to DC.
So why is Deadpool being discussed alongside the MCU films when Deadpool doesn't even take place in the same universe?



OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH(etc)

Did John actually write that? Lol...

Also, permission to clip this comment a bit?

DENIED SIT DOWN!
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: cupcake on September 05, 2016, 11:54:33 pm
But you can
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Kale Pasta on September 05, 2016, 11:58:00 pm
Question...

Why isn't this class called, "Why DC is Destroying America"?

Don't you hate more DC films than Marvel?

Kashmir has it right. Besides, for me to say DC is destroying America, I would have to take it seriously. To discuss DC's impact on pop culture requires believing that it has had an impact in the first place.
I hope you're not serious about that last part...

I'm talking about the DCEU. Not The Dark Knight. Not their comics. Not Superman as a character. The only thing of relevance in this discussion about Marvel is the movies they are currently making, so the same applies to DC. And if you really think that Suicide Squad or The-Film-That-Must-Not-Be-Named will be remembered fondly-- or remembered at all-- after a few years have passed, buddy, I got some news for you.

Also, is anyone reading my mini-essays? Be honest, guys.
I've been reading everything! I was going to respond to something about Deadpool but I forgot. Basically I was gonna defend the movie for having some memorable meta humor that didn't fall on the "Shit, did I leave the stove on" spectrum. Maybe something else too but the format is too fucky for me to post anything more right now.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on September 06, 2016, 12:01:00 am
I've been reading everything! I was going to respond to something about Deadpool but I forgot. Basically I was gonna defend the movie for having some memorable meta humor that didn't fall on the "Shit, did I leave the stove on" spectrum. Maybe something else too but the format is too fucky for me to post anything more right now.

Thanks for reading. Also, Cutler graciously allowed me to edit his comment (while maintaining its comedic integrity), so feel free to post.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Kale Pasta on September 06, 2016, 12:09:12 am
I've been reading everything! I was going to respond to something about Deadpool but I forgot. Basically I was gonna defend the movie for having some memorable meta humor that didn't fall on the "Shit, did I leave the stove on" spectrum. Maybe something else too but the format is too fucky for me to post anything more right now.

Thanks for reading. Also, Cutler graciously allowed me to edit his comment (while maintaining its comedic integrity), so feel free to post.
Haha, thanks to both you and Cutler for that. Past me giving Deadpool some credit, I was just going to say that while I agree that Marvel is not even close to the pinnacle of acting, it's also not horrible. I think the problem is more that many of the characters just don't have much personality. Shockingly, the best performance is given by Robert Downey Jr. whose character actually has personality. No matter how much Marvel is recycling their act now, I'll still always love the first Iron Man. Also, action films generally tend not to have as many character moments so it's not even completely the writers' fault. They're pretty much forced into writing a shit load of action in these movies, that's what sells the tickets after all.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on September 06, 2016, 12:23:21 am
I've been reading everything! I was going to respond to something about Deadpool but I forgot. Basically I was gonna defend the movie for having some memorable meta humor that didn't fall on the "Shit, did I leave the stove on" spectrum. Maybe something else too but the format is too fucky for me to post anything more right now.

Thanks for reading. Also, Cutler graciously allowed me to edit his comment (while maintaining its comedic integrity), so feel free to post.
Haha, thanks to both you and Cutler for that. Past me giving Deadpool some credit, I was just going to say that while I agree that Marvel is not even close to the pinnacle of acting, it's also not horrible. I think the problem is more that many of the characters just don't have much personality. Shockingly, the best performance is given by Robert Downey Jr. whose character actually has personality. No matter how much Marvel is recycling their act now, I'll still always love the first Iron Man. Also, action films generally tend not to have as many character moments so it's not even completely the writers' fault. They're pretty much forced into writing a shit load of action in these movies, that's what sells the tickets after all.

If these films weren't having the impact they do, I wouldn't care this much. But again, the point of this class is to detail why I, personally, think Marvel is destroying American film culture (and maybe culture in general). When people-- kids and adults alike-- think that these performances are worthy of any recognition, something is wrong. The characters are written poorly and the actors simply don't care enough to try to elevate the material.

There are action movies that have had good performances, Paasche. I'd even name the first Iron Man among them. But the vast majority of Marvel's output is trash when it comes to acting. As for the action itself... well... I'll cover that somewhat in the next installment.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on September 06, 2016, 01:27:03 am
Welcome back to another scintillating class at The Diego Tutweiller School For Kids Who Can't Read Good (And Want To Learn To Do Other Stuff Good Too). Today we'll be examining a slightly more controversial topic than we've looked at so far in this class. This might be where the line between "fact" and "opinion" begins to blur, but you fine fellows have stuck with me this far, so I say let's dive right in. Brace yourself for...

Lesson #3: The So-Good-It's-Bad Effect

Now, I know what you're thinking. "So good it's bad? Diego, have you lost your fucking mind?" But bear with me. When I say "so good it's bad," I don't mean that the product is genuinely good. I mean that in an effort to make their movies cool, the writers crammed in so many things that they overloaded their story. Maybe some of the concepts here were genuinely good. Maybe they had potential. But when they're tossed together in one big mess, they lose whatever good qualities they may have had.

Consider, for a minute, the cast of characters in the Avengers movies.

(http://s3.amazonaws.com/kidzworld_photo/images/2012425/df8486d5-9620-4561-9b56-075474d6fd63/gallery_tmb_avengersb2.jpg)

Let's ignore the fact that they're superheroes for a second and focus on what they really are. Who are the Avengers? Well, let's see...

We've got a Norse God. A man in a futuristic suit of armor that can fly. A man who can turn into a big green monster. A Russian assassin. A sharpshooter. A man who was literally frozen in time before being thawed and brought back in the 21st century. A witch. The incredible shrinking Paul Rudd. The list goes on.

The question I pose to you is... what ties these characters together? They have no shared origin. They have no common backstory. There's a loosely constructed plot device centered around a McGuffin called the "tesseract," but its effects on the story have been so drastically inconsistent, it's clearly just a plot device to explain these people's origins. The truth is, nothing ties these characters together, save for the fact that they've appeared in comic books alongside one another and audiences know them from that.

So imagine that those comics never existed. Imagine that Marvel is a nonentity. And imagine that you're a Hollywood producer and someone walks up to you and pitches you a movie with the cast of characters I just listed above.

You'd think they were an idiot.

Now, Marvel has attempted to circumvent this sensory overload by establishing their characters one by one in individual films. More power to them. The end result, I'm sad to say, remains the same. While movies like Captain America and Iron Man function rather well on their own, once these characters are all united in one two-and-a-half-hour film, everything falls apart. There are just too many things going on. "So good it's bad," I might say. It's like watching a movie made by a six-year-old who changes the narrative based on which action figures are within his immediate vicinity. Nazis? Sure! Aliens? Who cares! Dinosaurs? Well, we haven't gotten there yet, but never say never!

This is compounded by how incredibly successful these films have been. Marvel knows they've got a cash cow on their hands, and in order to keep milking it, they can't kill any characters off-- especially not fan favorites like Iron Man. So as they keep releasing films about individual characters' origin stories, and then move them into the big ol' Avengers films, the cast becomes increasingly cluttered. Nothing makes sense. All of these people are running around with nebulous backstories and nonsensical superpowers, and it becomes (pardon my French) a total clusterfuck. I thought we'd reached peak character density with Age of Ultron's introduction of Vision, Scarlet Witch, and Quicksilver, but Civil War proved me wrong by adding Spider-Man, Ant-Man, and Black Panther to the mix. It's overwhelming.

You may be wondering by this point why I've spent so much time criticizing the MCU and not, for instance, the X-Men films. Well, that's because the X-Men franchise, like it or not, is a far more intelligent series of films. All of the characters may have different, weird superpowers, but at least they all stem from what is more or less a common origin: mutation. At least an explanation is attempted. We aren't seeing any magic Nazi-alien-dinosaurs in those films any time soon, I promise you that. But when it comes to the Avengers films, these characters are so integrated into the cultural mainstream that you barely even realize that the films include both Nazis and aliens. What other film franchise can lay claim to such a monumental accomplishment in the field of overstimulation?

(https://67.media.tumblr.com/eccddef2ad623180f1ccf91b90bb6617/tumblr_o0k5ie9IKu1rdqbfro1_500.gif)

Oh... oh God, I'm gonna be sick... *huuuuuurk*

So how, then, has Marvel so expertly saturated their films with what can only be described as a plethora of nonsense? The answer is simple: comic books. These characters have been previously established in comics, so audiences and critics alike fail to even consider the fundamental questions I'm asking in this thread. They write it off as a simple adaptation of the source material, and don't bother to ask whether the source material is intelligently written or not. Sorry comic book fans, but I hold movies to a slightly higher standard than I do comics. Things like Harry Potter and John Carter (and yes, The Avengers) might work in print, but when translated to the big screen... it just... doesn't... work.

Based off of the name of this class, your logical question now should be "Diego, that's all well and good, but how is this destroying American culture?" Well, this now ties into what will be a recurring theme in these little mini-essays: restraint. I'm starting to think that Marvel may have killed the concepts of buildup and climax in blockbusters-- and if they're not dead, they're certainly in a coma. By using its comics as a platform to jump into film from, Marvel has successfully circumvented the very concept of "restraint" in filmmaking. And it never ceases to amaze me how unaware people are of this plain and simple fact. But hey, apparently so long as the movies are "faithful to the source material," anything goes! ... Even if that source material is fucking stupid. If you need any further evidence that superhero fatigue is a real thing, look no further than this. (http://i1142.photobucket.com/albums/n607/Super001Dude/Marvel%20Logos/marvellogos1-1.png)

It's a sight to behold, isn't it? These writers were so preoccupied with asking whether or not they could that they never stopped to ask if they should. You can deny it all you want, but in a few years' time, the proof will be self-evident. Marvel has murdered restraint. They can film an anthropomorphic raccoon and his buddy the talking tree, and nobody gives a crap. Oh, what am I saying? That's such a hilarious juxtaposition!

When filmmakers can do unlimited things with CGI and budgets, they show no restraint. That is a simple fact. Don't believe me? Ask George Lucas. These films will become more cluttered, more overstuffed, louder and more colorful, until finally people will be showing up at theaters and slapping down eight bucks just to watch two hours of nonstop fight sequences.

Oh wait... that already happened. It's called The Hobbit Part III.

Class dismissed.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: $+/\|_¡|\| on September 06, 2016, 02:08:07 am
lol ok.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on September 06, 2016, 02:10:31 am
lol ok.

I'm trying to do a scientific analysis here, so if you have a problem with my conclusions, please say so.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: $+/\|_¡|\| on September 06, 2016, 02:11:46 am
lol ok.

I'm trying to do a scientific analysis here, so if you have a problem with my conclusions, please say so.
I have no problem. You have a valid point, but I just think you're being a bit overdramatic and dogmatic about it.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: $+/\|_¡|\| on September 06, 2016, 02:20:26 am
I must say though, I think it'd be ridiculously fascinating to see you expose these analysis' (analsyi?) to the general public, see how they react. Especially some people I personally know.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on September 06, 2016, 02:21:25 am
lol ok.

I'm trying to do a scientific analysis here, so if you have a problem with my conclusions, please say so.
I have no problem. You have a valid point, but I just think you're being a bit overdramatic and dogmatic about it.

It's true, I've been known to overdramatize things, but if it helps, I do honestly believe that we're headed toward some sort of cultural calamity, so I'm not exaggerating from my perspective. Now, I was expecting you to say that this lesson could be interpreted as an argument against superhero anthologies in general, which it very well might be. Still, that's not the case I'm trying to make. This is an assassination of Marvel and Marvel only.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on September 06, 2016, 02:26:25 am
I must say though, I think it'd be ridiculously fascinating to see you expose these analysis' (analsyi?) to the general public, see how they react. Especially some people I personally know.

The goal I have in mind here is to construct an argument against these films that no reasonable person could deny the validity of. Granted, that's a high bar. Might be impossible. But dammit, I'm gonna try.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: $+/\|_¡|\| on September 06, 2016, 02:27:05 am
lol ok.

I'm trying to do a scientific analysis here, so if you have a problem with my conclusions, please say so.
I have no problem. You have a valid point, but I just think you're being a bit overdramatic and dogmatic about it.

It's true, I've been known to overdramatize things, but if it helps, I do honestly believe that we're headed toward some sort of cultural calamity, so I'm not exaggerating from my perspective. Now, I was expecting you to say that this lesson could be interpreted as an argument against superhero anthologies in general, which it very well might be. Still, that's not the case I'm trying to make. This is an assassination of Marvel and Marvel only.
Really though, this is an argument against all things superhero and comic book. I mean, if you're complaining about restraint and such, they're all guilty parties. Simple as that. You've acknowledged that there are exceptions, but, the whole pantheon of this specific culture, is built around stuff that you hate and eviscerate in your analysis. I don't have a problem with this. I acknowledge it.

I just have a different attitude when it comes to all this.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: $+/\|_¡|\| on September 06, 2016, 02:27:56 am
I must say though, I think it'd be ridiculously fascinating to see you expose these analysis' (analsyi?) to the general public, see how they react. Especially some people I personally know.

The goal I have in mind here is to construct an argument against these films that no reasonable person could deny the validity of. Granted, that's a high bar. Might be impossible. But dammit, I'm gonna try.
So... You're basically trying to prove everyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong?
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on September 06, 2016, 02:34:05 am
I must say though, I think it'd be ridiculously fascinating to see you expose these analysis' (analsyi?) to the general public, see how they react. Especially some people I personally know.

The goal I have in mind here is to construct an argument against these films that no reasonable person could deny the validity of. Granted, that's a high bar. Might be impossible. But dammit, I'm gonna try.
So... You're basically trying to prove everyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong?

Not wrong per se. I just want some recognition of these legitimate points from people who actually like these films. Dommy made me angry because he wouldn't even hear arguments against superhero movies. Right and wrong are not the issues here. But these movies are so ridiculously popular these days, any criticism of them is met with derision. I want to show people that there are perfectly valid arguments against these films and the impact they've had on society.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: PORG on September 06, 2016, 03:17:27 am
It must be so stressful to be Diego. I can't imagine worrying about Marvel films to such a degree. Oh well, it's certainly interesting to read.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on September 06, 2016, 11:31:32 am
Deep down... you all know I'm right.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Kale Pasta on September 06, 2016, 12:34:27 pm
I must say though, I think it'd be ridiculously fascinating to see you expose these analysis' (analsyi?) to the general public, see how they react. Especially some people I personally know.

The goal I have in mind here is to construct an argument against these films that no reasonable person could deny the validity of. Granted, that's a high bar. Might be impossible. But dammit, I'm gonna try.
So... You're basically trying to prove everyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong?

Not wrong per se. I just want some recognition of these legitimate points from people who actually like these films. Dommy made me angry because he wouldn't even hear arguments against superhero movies. Right and wrong are not the issues here. But these movies are so ridiculously popular these days, any criticism of them is met with derision. I want to show people that there are perfectly valid arguments against these films and the impact they've had on society.
I mean, I agree with a fair amount of your critiques (although I tend to enjoy these movies as action fluff) I just don't agree with your premise. People have been making noise about the end of culture since culture has existed. Hell, people probably said the same thing about Star Wars 40 years ago. Marvel movies may not be great films but they're entertaining and people enjoy them. While I won't lie and deny that some of the adoration I've seen for these movies isn't over the top to an insane degree, at the same time I understand why people looking for action entertainment would be really into these movies. I think it's just hard to remember sometimes that not everyone watches movies with the same critical eye that people on here have. Most people just watch movies to have a good time in those two hours they're in the theater.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Flounder Prefers Browntown on September 06, 2016, 02:22:43 pm
The only thing of relevance in this discussion about Marvel is the movies they are currently making, so the same applies to DC.
So why is Deadpool being discussed alongside the MCU films when Deadpool doesn't even take place in the same universe?
OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH(etc)
Did John actually write that? Lol...
Wow, my wording of that sentence was a horror show of awful. I was trying to get across that when you're talking about Deadpool alongside the MCU films, it ended up giving me the feeling that you believe Deadpool took place in the same universe as the MCU, when it doesn't since it takes place in the new X-Men continuity that was created in Days of Future Past.

If all of this comes across as stupid, I apologize and will politely shut up in regards to this matter.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Flounder Prefers Browntown on September 06, 2016, 02:28:44 pm
Btw, I voted for Classical Literature (I was hoping Why Man of Steel is the Worst Movie Ever Made would be on there).
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on September 06, 2016, 06:15:29 pm
I mean, I agree with a fair amount of your critiques (although I tend to enjoy these movies as action fluff) I just don't agree with your premise. People have been making noise about the end of culture since culture has existed. Hell, people probably said the same thing about Star Wars 40 years ago. Marvel movies may not be great films but they're entertaining and people enjoy them. While I won't lie and deny that some of the adoration I've seen for these movies isn't over the top to an insane degree, at the same time I understand why people looking for action entertainment would be really into these movies. I think it's just hard to remember sometimes that not everyone watches movies with the same critical eye that people on here have. Most people just watch movies to have a good time in those two hours they're in the theater.

Yeah, that's fair. People have been crying wolf about this kind of thing for a long, long time now, so I don't expect everyone to agree with me on how big the repercussions of this could potentially be. I will say this, though-- the difference between the overall quality of big-budget films and the amount of money they take in has never been this disproportionate before. Over the past sixteen years, blockbuster filmmaking has gone through a remarkably negative transformation. And with regards to your last sentence... I'd argue that most people are idiots.

Wow, my wording of that sentence was a horror show of awful. I was trying to get across that when you're talking about Deadpool alongside the MCU films, it ended up giving me the feeling that you believe Deadpool took place in the same universe as the MCU, when it doesn't since it takes place in the new X-Men continuity that was created in Days of Future Past.

If all of this comes across as stupid, I apologize and will politely shut up in regards to this matter.

No, I understand what you're saying. But I'm not thinking in terms of "cinematic universes" here so much as I'm considering the broader category of franchises that Marvel is currently churning out. That includes the MCU, the X-Men films, and maybe the Amazing Spider-Man movies (though it seems we're not getting another one of those again, thank God, so I may just ignore them). The title of this thread is in the present-tense, remember, so I'm not going to go back and pick apart something like the 1990 Captain America. I've set myself a statue of limitations here. While I no longer need to really care about something like Affleck's Daredevil due to its slow slide into irrelevance, I am definitely going to be attacking Deadpool-- the highest-grossing R-rated film ever, which came out this year.

You might end up noticing, though, that this is primarily directed towards the MCU and not the X-Men films (excluding Deadpool)... as will be evidenced by the next installment.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: James Wan on September 06, 2016, 06:17:20 pm
horror show

Ooh, spooky!
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on September 06, 2016, 09:13:36 pm
Are y'all ready? Buckle up for another class at Tutweiller's School for Gifted Youngsters! Hey, that joke was actually relevant this time. Because our next lesson is called...

Lesson #4: Thematically Bland & Artistically Gross

All right, by now you're probably wondering "Diego, this thread is supposed to be an attack on Marvel in general. When are you gonna go after those X-Men movies you make fun of so often?" Well, you know what? Never. Never, at least, on the level that I deride the MCU. That's because the X-Men films have something these crap-ass Thor movies don't: A theme.

I love that the X-Men franchise is relevant to this thread. I mean, technically Marvel is still making X-Men movies. Sure, they're nothing like the ones they were making back in the early 2000s, but this year's double-punch of Deadpool and X-Men: Apocalypse proves that this franchise ain't dead yet. Sure, it's been poisoned and polluted by the same shallow humor, overstuffed stories, and poor acting that have filled the Avengers movies since their beginning, but the concepts are still there. Which means that X-Men, X2, and all the rest are fair game.

You won't see me attack them though. I may crap on The Last Stand and First Class fairly often, but as dumb as those films are, they're completely outperformed in the stupidity department by the MCU. Because generally, the X-Men movies are about something. Sure, you've got your Origins: Wolverine thrown in with the mix, but for the first two movies at least, this franchise tried to make a statement. People have called the X-Men movies a metaphor for gay rights, but to me they have an overarching theme of acceptance in general. Our main characters are being persecuted, and their two leaders have distinct ideologies that come from (dare I say it?) understandable perspectives. Is it a little obvious sometimes? Well, yeah. No shit. But effort was put in to make these movies mean something, and it overall works rather well. Among their many accomplishments, the X-Men movies show that even "bad guys" can be sympathetic.

What's the moral of the story in Thor: The Dark World again?

Yeah... right. To aid in our understanding of this, I've devised a little chart of how meaningful Marvel films are from a thematic perspective. Before anyone freaks out, this is not some sort of indicator of objective quality. This is just my attempt to logically analyze the value of the themes present in this handful of superhero films. Even someone who loves Thor 2 probably couldn't deny the validity of this. Let's have a look.

(https://i.imgur.com/OENwSiS.png)

Things to notice:

- Thor 2, Disney's Marvel's The Avengers: Age of the Return of Ultron, and TASM 2 are on the far left end of the spectrum, signifying a lack of thematic weight. I recognize that these are movies, and it's not like I can assign numerical values to the quality of their themes, but unless I'm missing something... they have none. Neville might try arguing something with regards to TASM 2, but he'll undoubtedly be reading too much into it. Age of Ultron does attempt something with regards to the dangers of technology, but it fails more miserably than Transcendence at the end. Besides, no movie with the line "Ultron cleared out. Used the internet as an escape hatch" can or should be taken seriously. As for Thor 2... lol.

- I gave Deadpool some credit, probably more than it deserves, for supposedly trying to mock the MCU. It's not like the studio behind both this and the MCU is going to offer up anything more than surface-level criticisms of their own movies, so yeah, needless to say it doesn't succeed.

- Though I dislike The Winter Soldier, I gave it the benefit of the doubt (again, undeservedly). It tackles a few modern issues that elevate it above typical Marvel fare. The end result is still bad for a variety of reasons, but we won't get into that here. I'm trying to look at these as objectively as possible from a thematic perspective only.

- The original Iron Man is a good movie. And unsurprisingly, it's got a little more going on to it than explosions and aliens. I remember very vividly the moment where a bomb lands next to RDJ, literally with his name on it. Hey, a bit of situational irony! That's something you don't typically get in superhero films. It works. Credit where credit is due.

- The X-Men movies, like I said, are among the most thematically strong of Marvel's output. Don't know if I need to explain this further. The Last Stand actually adds some interesting things to the discussion, namely the inclusion of the "cure," but altogether it's weighed down by Ratner's love for things that go boom. The rather intelligent message of the first two movies takes a backseat to action in the third installment.

- Lastly, we have Raimi's Spider-Man films. Personally, I think these are Marvel's best movies, and it's no coincidence that they also land on the far right end of the spectrum (see the correlation I'm getting at here?). "With great power comes great responsibility" is so entrenched in our culture nowadays, we sort of forget how brilliant a line it is. Not to go full Neville, but Christ, it's practically a political argument for interventionism. The theme is then continued in Spider-Man 2, when Parker is carried over the heads of the train passengers after saving their lives. Does TASM 2 have anything close to that, thematically or even from a visual perspective? I really don't think so.

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-abuLV51Tlpk/Uak_NOWBXxI/AAAAAAAADGI/FUfdx4Ax5Ec/s1600/Spider_Man_2_train.jpg)

Zack Snyder wishes he could construct a scene like this...

What I'm getting at here is that for discerning moviegoers, sometimes flashy action ain't enough. Sometimes you need a little meat to your movie. But Marvel's starting to give up on that concept, as you can see by the chronology of the movies on my handy little graph. Slowly, they're moving away from anything that's challenging thematically. Thor 2 might be the current low, but how long before they've beaten it? Probably not long. Even fan favorites like Guardians of the Galaxy don't have much going on in the "using your brain" department. What's the message of that movie? "Teamwork = Good?" Damn, I haven't seen such a radical stance since Kingsmen dared to attack the wildly popular Westboro Baptist Church!

A movie doesn't need to have a strong theme to be successful. A lot of my favorite movies aren't particularly complex thematically. But it helps. Especially when your movies end up catering to the lowest common denominator without it. It's not like the X-Men movies were some kind of intellectual treatise on the persecution of homosexuals, masked by layer after layer of metaphors. They were kinda obvious. But they did mean something. So if you ever walk out of a movie like Age of Ultron or Civil War wondering what that empty feeling in the pit of your stomach is, it might be due to this. The MCU had promise at one point, but it has devolved into film after film of vapid action, devoid of purpose, without rhyme or reason, serving up the visuals while paying only the bare minimum attention to the themes and plot that drive them.

The only message your corporate masters at Marvel want to give you now is this:

(http://ih0.redbubble.net/image.116166481.2704/sticker,220x200-pad,220x200,ffffff.u2.jpg)

See you next class.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: cupcake on September 06, 2016, 09:28:09 pm
Captain America Civil War attempts to have political statement, despite how hypocritical and idiotic it was.  That's something at least.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Kale Pasta on September 06, 2016, 09:45:39 pm
I appreciate Diego's praise for the Raimi movies. I love that trilogy.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on September 07, 2016, 12:11:20 am
I appreciate Diego's praise for the Raimi movies. I love that trilogy.

One of the many, many reasons why I hate Man of Steel stems from my enjoyment of those films. On the one hand, you've got "With great power comes great responsibility." That's a perfect line. Then in the other, we've got "What was I supposed to do, just let them die?" "Maybe." The callousness and the indecisiveness always struck me as shocking in that scene. That could have been a compelling father-and-son moment, much in the vein of Uncle Ben and Peter. But it completely undercuts it with his waffling stance, which comes across as a passive endorsement of child murder through negligence and apathy. What a contrast that is.

If I were to include DC in these essays, I'd have to make a new chart with MOS all the way at the far left and Age of Ultron in the middle. It's not that Man of Steel doesn't have a message-- it's that it has a bad one.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Flounder Prefers Browntown on September 07, 2016, 12:52:24 am
I agree that "With great power comes great responsibility" is a great moral.

But here's my issue with it: Peter Parker doesn't learn the moral by himself nor does he learn it as a hero. He's given this moral on a silver platter by Uncle Ben before he gets killed. Handing the audience the moral of the film at the beginning doesn't enrich the experience. It merely cheapens it. Another problem I have with the moral is that it's shoved down our throats repeatedly throughout the trilogy. The audience should be made to learn the moral, not have it handed to them.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on September 07, 2016, 12:58:01 am
I agree that "With great power comes great responsibility" is a great moral.

But here's my issue with it: Peter Parker doesn't learn the moral by himself nor does he learn it as a hero. He's given this moral on a silver platter by Uncle Ben before he gets killed. Handing the audience the moral of the film at the beginning doesn't enrich the experience. It merely cheapens it. Another problem I have with the moral is that it's shoved down our throats repeatedly throughout the trilogy. The audience should be made to learn the moral, not have it handed to them.

Are you actually going cold on the Raimi trilogy, John? Jesus...

I'd say Peter learns the moral himself pretty well when, through inaction, he causes his uncle to die. That's just me though.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Flounder Prefers Browntown on September 07, 2016, 01:00:12 am
Are you actually going cold on the Raimi trilogy, John? Jesus...
No, don't get me wrong, I like the trilo-- er, I like the first two Spider-Man films (admittedly, the first not as much as others, but still).
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: PORG on September 07, 2016, 04:07:32 am
Raimi's Spider-Man movies always bring a smile to my face. Glad Diego appreciated their depth (same goes for X-Men and The Winter Soldier).
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on September 07, 2016, 11:29:13 am
The lack of pushback I'm getting from these tells me one of two things:

A) I have successfully convinced you guys that Marvel is ass and you have no arguments to the contrary.
B) You all already know this stuff, and you just don't care.

The former is unlikely and the latter is depressing.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Gold Jeffblum on September 07, 2016, 12:26:28 pm
Can't even look at ah the train scene still without getting feelings.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Kale Pasta on September 07, 2016, 03:25:43 pm
The lack of pushback I'm getting from these tells me one of two things:

A) I have successfully convinced you guys that Marvel is ass and you have no arguments to the contrary.
B) You all already know this stuff, and you just don't care.

The former is unlikely and the latter is depressing.
I think the essence of it is that you're extremely critical of these movies for having little depth. At least for me, that doesn't indicate any reason why the movies are destroying the country. It's why I don't love them, but I also find at least some of them to be enjoyable as fun spectacle. Basically, what you're saying is mostly true (although I don't think there's really anything wrong with the acting) but, to me, it doesn't matter on the scale that you suggest.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: cupcake on September 07, 2016, 03:53:06 pm
I agree that "With great power comes great responsibility" is a great moral.

But here's my issue with it: Peter Parker doesn't learn the moral by himself nor does he learn it as a hero. He's given this moral on a silver platter by Uncle Ben before he gets killed. Handing the audience the moral of the film at the beginning doesn't enrich the experience. It merely cheapens it. Another problem I have with the moral is that it's shoved down our throats repeatedly throughout the trilogy. The audience should be made to learn the moral, not have it handed to them.

Actually, you retard, if you paid any attention to the film, Peter ignores the moral at first, but comes to realize at the end that he must live with it.  Ben Parker's death was a result of Peter ignoring his responsibilities.  Even after Ben's death, Peter still ignores his words and tries to go after a temporary alternative: revenge.  He ends up getting his wish (not really), but he still feels burdened by everything.  The police still hate him.  He's in an increasingly awful financial situation.  And worst of all, his Uncle is dead.  He doesn't come to accept this truth until the end when Green Goblin drops Mary Jane and a trolley filled with children in what I call 'the most powerful shot in any superhero film to date'.  We see both Mary Jane and the trolley through Spider-Man's eyes.  It is in fact an actual representation of what Peter wants (Mary Jane) and what Peter needs (the trolley) and by saving both he's bought on the idea that he can do both. 

This is what essentially causes the main conflict in the sequel.  Peter, again, is burdened by all the responsibility with being Spider-Man that he ends up realizing that he cannot have both slices of the cake.  He has to choose between what's best for him (his education, his love life, etc.) and what's best for society (being Spider-Man).  And he drops all of his responsibilities and the film cuts back to his conversation with Uncle Ben, only for Peter to not accept "with great power comes great responsibility" and leaves.  He has bought his own temporary happiness, only to realize the harm he is causing indirectly by not being Spider-Man.  Something that TASM 2 completely failed at was showcasing Parker's responses to tragedies occurring around him.  Dozens of cops died in the opening of TASM 2 and Parker just laughs it off.  Peter, in Spider-Man 2, is visibly shaken when, after the fire scene, he realizes someone was trapped on a different floor and died.  He knew that Spider-Man would have saved everyone, but Peter cannot.  And that's why Spider-Man 2 is in a league of its own when talking superhero films.  Peter is a character at the purest form of conflict that isn't solved at the end of the film.  Name one character from the MCU who suffers from an internal conflict based on accepting who they are?  Not one exists.

And still, the audience is not meant to learn the moral.  The character of Parker is.

And even Spider-Man 3 has a lot to say on Parker, but we all know John will start crying and writing another 50-page 'review' on why it's bad.  Simply put, John... you are about as basic when it comes to film criticism as it comes.  You throw on this blanket statements that could be applied to any film, yet when someone actually inspects what you write, they realize how phony your entire argument is.  And that's not meant to hurt... it's just the truth. 
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Robert Neville on September 07, 2016, 04:20:51 pm
The lack of pushback I'm getting from these tells me one of two things:

A) I have successfully convinced you guys that Marvel is ass and you have no arguments to the contrary.
B) You all already know this stuff, and you just don't care.

The former is unlikely and the latter is depressing.
I think the essence of it is that you're extremely critical of these movies for having little depth. At least for me, that doesn't indicate any reason why the movies are destroying the country. It's why I don't love them, but I also find at least some of them to be enjoyable as fun spectacle. Basically, what you're saying is mostly true (although I don't think there's really anything wrong with the acting) but, to me, it doesn't matter on the scale that you suggest.
The lack of pushback I'm getting from these tells me one of two things:

A) I have successfully convinced you guys that Marvel is ass and you have no arguments to the contrary.
B) You all already know this stuff, and you just don't care.

The former is unlikely and the latter is depressing.
I think the essence of it is that you're extremely critical of these movies for having little depth. At least for me, that doesn't indicate any reason why the movies are destroying the country. It's why I don't love them, but I also find at least some of them to be enjoyable as fun spectacle. Basically, what you're saying is mostly true (although I don't think there's really anything wrong with the acting) but, to me, it doesn't matter on the scale that you suggest.

I think the more important part is that Diego either misunderstands the role of blockbusters in the system, or has imposed the notions of progress onto them, which were largely alien to them, and remain so today. The former is simple: they're to appeal to the widest paying audience denominator available. This is what condemns them to limited (if even present) character arcs and the inability to thematically address thought-provoking subject with any depth, as that would inevitably turn off audience members. This means that they cannot be truly good (my opinions of GotG aside), but it also means that they cannot go too far in other directions either. The very fact that people like Dommy are deluded into thinking Marvel stories are good, for instance, means that Marvel will never abandon them completely in favour of "two hours of fight scenes", as that would cause the scales to fall off the eyes of even people like him. So, they're well-produced mediocrity, one that is perfectly calibrated to stay that way.

Now, though, we are getting, to the second, truly interesting part: Was it ever that different? Or is the only thing that changed is the significantly improved level of production control and standardisation (achieved largely thanks to advances in audience data management on one hand, and the superior availability of capable CGI on the other), which is what keeps MCU together, and I would say the only thing that is a genuine qualitative change in comparison to the older films and their production methods.

Yeah, that's fair. People have been crying wolf about this kind of thing for a long, long time now, so I don't expect everyone to agree with me on how big the repercussions of this could potentially be. I will say this, though-- the difference between the overall quality of big-budget films and the amount of money they take in has never been this disproportionate before. Over the past sixteen years, blockbuster filmmaking has gone through a remarkably negative transformation.

And this, to me, is the heart of the matter, alive and pulsing with the lifeblood of subjectivity and controversy. To me, this fine course here, while well-structured and absolutely solid, is merely a prelude, one that might earn your university's keep and broaden the perspective of your students, but nevertheless shouldn't keep you, Professor Tutweiller, from doing a PhD on the thesis I've bolded above; the only change I would suggest is to broaden the timeframe, at least to the 80's, and maybe even all the way to the post-war era. It is the true work we are all waiting for.

In the meantime, let's just look at some contradictory preliminary data that'll need to be investigated. "Last sixteen years" places you at the dawn of the new millennium and hence lets the 90's movies off the hook. Well, in a lucky coincidence, I just caught the tail end of one of those on TV. It was Air Force One, and it looked pretty much like what I expected. Tell me, Diego, can you really say that it was any more inspired, had any more depth and the genuine desire to say something that any one of the number of Marvel movies? I really don't think you can, for it is very much a high-concept blockbuster of the same breed: they took a few "cool" things and then they threw them together along with a bunch of painful cliches, all to keep the people happily paying for the "privilege" of seeing it in the theaters. The main change now is that comic book storylines became the go-to ready-made concepts for studio execs to adapt.

This is just one example of what you'll have to look at and analyse, for, in order to truly prove what you claim, you need to look at not just blockbusters people remember from these times, but, you know, all of them, and while forgotten flops may be safely forgotten, I say it's entirely fair to watch whatever films at the time made money, perhaps even plenty of it, and then were promptly forgotten and are rarely brought up, if only to be mocked. One example, here, are the original Planet of the Apes sequels, which basically nobody seems to like now . Another will involve the James Bond movies - if there ever was a franchise that turned its soullessness and being craven to commercial interests into an artform, its key selling point, it's this one. Going ever further back, how about all the "Invasions of Green Men from Mars" and whatever other crap-titled sci-fi was made in the 50's? Since, you know, some of those were legitimate blockbusters of the time - there's no way anybody would've even thought to suggest retitling Back to the Future to "Space Man from Pluto" if that wasn't the case.

So, you wanted some considered pushback, and I think you got it. I also think actually doing that might well be your masterpiece. Something that will be your equivalent of Bechdel Test. Something that will make you and the group here famous. Something that will actually warrant creating a separate site and not just floating an idea before forgetting about it all a week later.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: cupcake on September 07, 2016, 04:23:47 pm

In the meantime, let's just look at some contradictory preliminary data that'll need to be investigated. "Last sixteen years" places you at the dawn of the new millennium and hence lets the 90's movies off the hook. Well, in a lucky coincidence, I just caught the tail end of one of those on TV. It was Air Force One, and it looked pretty much like what I expected. Tell me, Diego, can you really say that it was any more inspired, had any more depth and the genuine desire to say something that any one of the number of Marvel movies? I really don't think you can, for it is very much a high-concept blockbuster of the same breed: they took a few "cool" things and then they threw them together along with a bunch of painful cliches, all to keep the people happily paying for the "privilege" of seeing it in the theaters. The main change now is that comic book storylines became the go-to ready-made concepts for studio execs to adapt.

(https://media.giphy.com/media/HOLg8oBAAvVBu/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on September 07, 2016, 04:52:54 pm

Actually, you retard, if you paid any attention to the film, Peter ignores the moral at first, but comes to realize at the end that he must live with it.  Ben Parker's death was a result of Peter ignoring his responsibilities.  Even after Ben's death, Peter still ignores his words and tries to go after a temporary alternative: revenge.  He ends up getting his wish (not really), but he still feels burdened by everything.  The police still hate him.  He's in an increasingly awful financial situation.  And worst of all, his Uncle is dead.  He doesn't come to accept this truth until the end when Green Goblin drops Mary Jane and a trolley filled with children in what I call 'the most powerful shot in any superhero film to date'.  We see both Mary Jane and the trolley through Spider-Man's eyes.  It is in fact an actual representation of what Peter wants (Mary Jane) and what Peter needs (the trolley) and by saving both he's bought on the idea that he can do both. 

This is what essentially causes the main conflict in the sequel.  Peter, again, is burdened by all the responsibility with being Spider-Man that he ends up realizing that he cannot have both slices of the cake.  He has to choose between what's best for him (his education, his love life, etc.) and what's best for society (being Spider-Man).  And he drops all of his responsibilities and the film cuts back to his conversation with Uncle Ben, only for Peter to not accept "with great power comes great responsibility" and leaves.  He has bought his own temporary happiness, only to realize the harm he is causing indirectly by not being Spider-Man.  Something that TASM 2 completely failed at was showcasing Parker's responses to tragedies occurring around him.  Dozens of cops died in the opening of TASM 2 and Parker just laughs it off.  Peter, in Spider-Man 2, is visibly shaken when, after the fire scene, he realizes someone was trapped on a different floor and died.  He knew that Spider-Man would have saved everyone, but Peter cannot.  And that's why Spider-Man 2 is in a league of its own when talking superhero films.  Peter is a character at the purest form of conflict that isn't solved at the end of the film.  Name one character from the MCU who suffers from an internal conflict based on accepting who they are?  Not one exists.

And still, the audience is not meant to learn the moral.  The character of Parker is.

And even Spider-Man 3 has a lot to say on Parker, but we all know John will start crying and writing another 50-page 'review' on why it's bad.  Simply put, John... you are about as basic when it comes to film criticism as it comes.  You throw on this blanket statements that could be applied to any film, yet when someone actually inspects what you write, they realize how phony your entire argument is.  And that's not meant to hurt... it's just the truth.

Absolute wreckage.

I think the more important part is that Diego either misunderstands the role of blockbusters in the system, or has imposed the notions of progress onto them, which were largely alien to them, and remain so today. The former is simple: they're to appeal to the widest paying audience denominator available. This is what condemns them to limited (if even present) character arcs and the inability to thematically address thought-provoking subject with any depth, as that would inevitably turn off audience members. This means that they cannot be truly good (my opinions of GotG aside), but it also means that they cannot go too far in other directions either. The very fact that people like Dommy are deluded into thinking Marvel stories are good, for instance, means that Marvel will never abandon them completely in favour of "two hours of fight scenes", as that would cause the scales to fall off the eyes of even people like him. So, they're well-produced mediocrity, one that is perfectly calibrated to stay that way.

Now, though, we are getting, to the second, truly interesting part: Was it ever that different? Or is the only thing that changed is the significantly improved level of production control and standardisation (achieved largely thanks to advances in audience data management on one hand, and the superior availability of capable CGI on the other), which is what keeps MCU together, and I would say the only thing that is a genuine qualitative change in comparison to the older films and their production methods.

Yeah, that's fair. People have been crying wolf about this kind of thing for a long, long time now, so I don't expect everyone to agree with me on how big the repercussions of this could potentially be. I will say this, though-- the difference between the overall quality of big-budget films and the amount of money they take in has never been this disproportionate before. Over the past sixteen years, blockbuster filmmaking has gone through a remarkably negative transformation.

And this, to me, is the heart of the matter, alive and pulsing with the lifeblood of subjectivity and controversy. To me, this fine course here, while well-structured and absolutely solid, is merely a prelude, one that might earn your university's keep and broaden the perspective of your students, but nevertheless shouldn't keep you, Professor Tutweiller, from doing a PhD on the thesis I've bolded above; the only change I would suggest is to broaden the timeframe, at least to the 80's, and maybe even all the way to the post-war era. It is the true work we are all waiting for.

In the meantime, let's just look at some contradictory preliminary data that'll need to be investigated. "Last sixteen years" places you at the dawn of the new millennium and hence lets the 90's movies off the hook. Well, in a lucky coincidence, I just caught the tail end of one of those on TV. It was Air Force One, and it looked pretty much like what I expected. Tell me, Diego, can you really say that it was any more inspired, had any more depth and the genuine desire to say something that any one of the number of Marvel movies? I really don't think you can, for it is very much a high-concept blockbuster of the same breed: they took a few "cool" things and then they threw them together along with a bunch of painful cliches, all to keep the people happily paying for the "privilege" of seeing it in the theaters. The main change now is that comic book storylines became the go-to ready-made concepts for studio execs to adapt.

This is just one example of what you'll have to look at and analyse, for, in order to truly prove what you claim, you need to look at not just blockbusters people remember from these times, but, you know, all of them, and while forgotten flops may be safely forgotten, I say it's entirely fair to watch whatever films at the time made money, perhaps even plenty of it, and then were promptly forgotten and are rarely brought up, if only to be mocked. One example, here, are the original Planet of the Apes sequels, which basically nobody seems to like now . Another will involve the James Bond movies - if there ever was a franchise that turned its soullessness and being craven to commercial interests into an artform, its key selling point, it's this one. Going ever further back, how about all the "Invasions of Green Men from Mars" and whatever other crap-titled sci-fi was made in the 50's? Since, you know, some of those were legitimate blockbusters of the time - there's no way anybody would've even thought to suggest retitling Back to the Future to "Space Man from Pluto" if that wasn't the case.

So, you wanted some considered pushback, and I think you got it. I also think actually doing that might well be your masterpiece. Something that will be your equivalent of Bechdel Test. Something that will make you and the group here famous. Something that will actually warrant creating a separate site and not just floating an idea before forgetting about it all a week later.

I'm glad you're enjoying the class, Neville. But listen here-- this is an ongoing project I'm working on. These essays are minor parts of an overarching thesis: That Marvel is harming American film culture. If you don't think I've covered that enough thus far, be advised, I will delve into that as soon as I've finished picking apart these films on a structural level. I think it's important for me to look first at how sparse the movies are from thematic, stylistic, and artistic perspectives before starting to address the effect Marvel has had on filmmaking in general.

However, I'll run the risk of repeating myself later on in order to respond to this comment of yours. I'm not comparing these movies to the sci-fi crap of the 50s because those were not "blockbusters" in the modern definition. I'm comparing them to the golden age of blockbuster filmmaking-- The Terminator, Jaws, Robocop, etc. Do you really think those movies could be released today and still be as successful as they were originally? Granted, that's an oversimplification that doesn't factor in any number of variables, but I still don't think that in the modern film climate, we will see another movie like Robocop get made-- and if it were made, Marvel audiences would think it was boring and stupid.

What I'm getting at here is that Marvel has destroyed two key things that contribute to quality films being made-- audience's attention spans and restraint. If you're okay with that, I probably won't be able to convince you of my thesis. But I don't think anyone on here is going to be okay with that. I think it's an objective detriment to filmmaking.

Also, forgive me if I truly laughed out loud at your feeble attempt to reference Air Force One as some kind of disastrous piece of brainwashing moviemaking. Not because I love the movie or anything (I don't), but because you admitted you haven't even seen the whole thing. Nice try. Did Paasche hack your account?
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on September 07, 2016, 04:54:38 pm
Wait, did I just waste my time writing a serious response to a defender of TASM 2? God dammit, why do I bother with this stuff?
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: JohnBot on September 07, 2016, 05:01:47 pm
Can't even look at ah the train scene still without getting feelings.

Feelings? What... are... feelings...?
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Gold Jeffblum on September 07, 2016, 05:19:51 pm
Can't even look at ah the train scene still without getting feelings.

Feelings? What... are... feelings...?
Things I ah never had the entire 2016 summer blockbuster season. :(
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: cupcake on September 07, 2016, 05:23:02 pm
Wait, did I just waste my time writing a serious response to a defender of TASM 2? God dammit, why do I bother with this stuff?

We love movies that have awful ratings... where's the social utility in that?  Maybe subjectivity means something more - something we can't yet understand. Maybe it's some evidence, some artifact of a higher dimension that we can't consciously perceive. I'm drawn across the universe to a movie that has a blue potato and a troll doll as its villians. Subjectivity is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends dimensions of time and space. Maybe we should trust that, even if we can't understand it. Alright, Paasche. Yes. The tiniest possibility of shutting up The Amazing Spider-Man 2 haters again excites me. That doesn't mean I'm wrong.

-Dr. Robert Neville
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Crohn's Boy on September 07, 2016, 06:09:33 pm
Can't even look at ah the train scene still without getting feelings.

Feelings? What... are... feelings...?
Things I ah never had the entire 2016 summer blockbuster season. :(

I cried during Nine Lives because I realized I was watching a movie where Kevin Spacey stars as a talking cat.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Gold Jeffblum on September 07, 2016, 06:14:57 pm
Can't even look at ah the train scene still without getting feelings.

Feelings? What... are... feelings...?
Things I ah never had the entire 2016 summer blockbuster season. :(

I cried during Nine Lives because I realized I was watching a movie where Kevin Spacey stars as a talking cat.
Check that... forgot about ah Finding Dory. The scene of ah baby Dory lost in the vast ocean reminded me what "feelings" were.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on September 07, 2016, 06:17:29 pm
Can't even look at ah the train scene still without getting feelings.

Feelings? What... are... feelings...?
Things I ah never had the entire 2016 summer blockbuster season. :(

I cried during Nine Lives because I realized I was watching a movie where Kevin Spacey stars as a talking cat.
Check that... forgot about ah Finding Dory. The scene of ah baby Dory lost in the vast ocean reminded me what "feelings" were.

Agreed wholeheartedly. I was just about to bring that up before you posted this.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on September 07, 2016, 07:52:40 pm
All right, Neville wants me to talk a little more about this thread's general premise, so although I think that's a little premature given that this course ain't even half-over yet, I'm gonna go over that a bit in this installment. So far I've taken a look at this franchise's fundamental misunderstanding of humor, its mediocre performances, its overstuffed stories, and its lack of themes or morals. Now it's time to move on to the visual aspects of these movies in a lesson I'm going to call...

Lesson #5: It's So Dense; Every Image Has So Much Going On

You should be impressed that I made it this far in my class before making a Mr. Plinkett reference, but given the general structure of these essays (and the comparisons I'm going to make in this installment), it could not be put off any longer. For those of you who don't watch RedLetterMedia regularly, this lesson's titular quote is attributed to Rick McCallum, one of the producers for the Star Wars prequels. That quote has become a meme of sorts due to Mike Stoklasa's reviews of the prequels, and it really exemplifies how little the people who made those movies understand what constitutes good visuals. You don't need "So Much Going On" in every single frame of the movie. You don't need to assault the audience with endless barrages of computer-generated crap like this. (http://www.electric-shadows.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Bad-Star-Wars-prequel-CGI.jpg) Prequel deriders know that if you render an entire movie in a fucking computer, the product is going to come out looking sterile and ugly. Hell, the url for that image says "Bad Star Wars prequel CGI." People hate those stupid-ass prequels because of things like the image above. They just look fake.

So why is it that when confronted by Marvel movies, those same people will say "Well, they're just action movies. They're only supposed to be fun, nothing more." Excuse me? I may be a soulless asshole, but where's the fun in this?

(https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/7h8ytOjxSqBz-BML4vwRyp_KtHI=/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3598692/2015-03-04_13_51_48.0.0.gif)

Oh dear God! Stop! Please stop! Mercy!

Now, if humor is the most subjective thing there is to criticize in movies, action is a close second. I know we're not going to reach some kind of consensus on what constitutes good and bad action. But I also knew we weren't going to reach a consensus when I wrote the first lesson in this thread, regarding the humor of juxtaposition. So the point of my argument here isn't necessarily that this action scene from Lee Daniels' Marvel's Disney's The Avengers: Rise of the Return of the Dark of the Moon is objectively bad. My point is that, just like Marvel's use of humor, it's objectively lazy.

I find that the more things a movie has to throw at you to hold your attention, the less it actually succeeds in doing so. That might not be true in every case, but it's a good baseline to start from. You don't need an explosion or a robot in every corner of the frame for every second of the movie's climax. Sometimes you need things to calm down for a minute. You can use these quiet moments to build tension, to establish how the characters are feeling in this moment of peril-- any number of things. Constructing action is an art. It takes skill, just like any other kind of filmmaking. And contrary to popular belief, there are good and bad ways to do it. Not all action is just "fun."

The human eye can only keep track of so many things. That's why intelligent filmmakers will use subtle cues to direct your attention toward the part of the frame they want you to look at. And when I say "intelligent filmmakers," I don't mean Stanley Kubrick or David Fincher-- it would be unfair to compare a Marvel movie to their filmmaking. No, I'm just talking about people who can pull off successful action sequences. Sam Raimi. James Cameron. John Woo. Hell, even Zack Snyder manages the occasional well-thought-out camera angle from time to time. Do you see how low we've sunk here? I'm being forced to compliment Zack Snyder in order to make my point. Sweet Jesus, it's like we're in the bizarro world here.

Sticking CGI garbage in every corner of the screen, like in that godforsaken scene above, is a way of purposely preventing the viewer from focusing on any particular thing that's happening in the movie. This is my problem with any of those "montage" sequences in Marvel's fights, and it's definitely not just Age of Ultron that does this. Civil War, TASM 2, The Avengers, Iron Man 3, and Thor are all perfect examples of Marvel falling back onto cluttered, incomprehensible visuals at one point or another in order to distract from their movie's soulless, blackened core.

(http://stuarte.co/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Iron-Man-and-Captain-America-Fight-Scene.gif)

When you take this kind of lazy action and compare to to even the worst fight scenes by those directors I mentioned earlier (excluding The Hack), it just doesn't hold up. You can throw however many video-game visuals and computer-generated crap in my face you want, but I'm not gonna enjoy it. I'd compare it to constructing a painting. Great painters know how to divide up their paintings to direct the viewer's attention to certain things, using their understanding of geometry and how the human eye works as guides. They don't turn every available inch of the canvas into utter chaos. That's how you end up with a painting that looks like a big fat meaningless blob.

Sound familiar? (Epilepsy trigger warning)

(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/198gpsnhfe5t1gif/original.gif)

That's it! I'm gonna throw up! Stop the ride, I wanna get off!

Why is this hurting American filmmaking, and to a broader extent, American culture? Well, this is the problem with CGI. One of the reasons I love Star Trek: TOS is because it represents art from adversity. Given minimal budgets and almost no opportunity for astounding special effects, Star Trek managed to create a wonderful space adventure packed with fleshed-out characters, intelligent writing, humor that actually involves setup and payoff, and worthy morals/themes. The restrictions were built into the show fundamentally, and given what they had to work with, it's fair to say that everyone involved contributed to an absolute masterpiece.

Fast-forward now to the Age of Marvel. I'm sorry, but when you can create anything you want on a computer and slap it onscreen, it hurts your art. It all comes back to restraint, something Marvel has not bothered to demonstrate they're capable of since they made Iron Man in 2008. The overall trend is downwards, people. These movies are getting increasingly chaotic, jumbled, and colorful. From a fanboy's perspective, that's a good thing. From the perspective of even a mildly critical moviegoer... it most certainly is not.

And on a deeper level, these films appeal directly to the audience's Id. The desire to see nonstop explosions and robot-punching stems from a childlike need for instant gratification. If you watch a movie and want to see a lot of things go boom, you only want the plot to be fleshed-out enough in order to move the film from one action scene to the next. Movies like Age of Ultron are made to appeal to people's basest instincts. Herd 'em into the theater, stuff 'em with popcorn, show 'em pretty things, herd 'em out, and mop up afterwards. I've said it before and I'll say it again: No one should like these movies but not the Transformers films. There's a "two sides, same coin" saying that comes to mind.

I know that this constant fueling of the most primitive parts of people's minds hurts their attention spans. That's not up for discussion. My thesis here is that when people's attention spans decrease, movies get worse.

If you think I'm wrong, consider this: The fact that people enjoy these movies so much only encourages the filmmakers to strip down the plot and story further. I don't think there's a single scene in Age of Ultron that isn't either an action sequence or obvious plot-pushing. So if you want to research this a little, rewatch the Raimi Spider-Man films. There are a few charming scenes in those movies between Peter and his landlord's daughter that serve to give neither exposition nor explosions. They're just quiet little moments between real humans that make the movie's world feel real. They make us care about our main character because they show him engaging in normal human activities-- not just talking technobabble and punching aliens. In short, those little details from the best superhero movies bring an emotional investment into the movie that no amount of computers and boom-booms can possibly replicate.

Now tell me if there's anything like that in Age of Dulltron.

Class dismissed.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: $+/\|_¡|\| on September 07, 2016, 08:31:05 pm
Honestly, I don't see how this complaints applies to Civil War.

That movie had some awesome, non-team of humans versus CGI armies action sequences.

And it wasn't a ton of crap thrown on the screen, it was actual hand to hand combat, humans fighting humans. The same can be said for The Winter Soldier.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on September 07, 2016, 09:06:46 pm
Honestly, I don't see how this complaints applies to Civil War.

That movie had some awesome, non-team of humans versus CGI armies action sequences.

And it wasn't a ton of crap thrown on the screen, it was actual hand to hand combat, humans fighting humans. The same can be said for The Winter Soldier.

Do you mean shrinking man fighting witch fighting Russian sleeper cell agent fighting African stereotype fighting human/arachnid hybrid fighting billionaire fighting two token black dudes fighting brainwashed Nazi assassin fighting Dr. Manhattan rip-off fighting Jeremy Renner?
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: The One Who Lurks on September 08, 2016, 01:29:43 am
Now tell me if there's anything like that in Age of Dulltron.

The party scene comes to mind.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on September 08, 2016, 01:35:21 am
Now tell me if there's anything like that in Age of Dulltron.

The party scene comes to mind.

You mean the party scene I compared to Keeping Up With the Kardashians in lesson #2? Let me walk you through the thought process behind that scene:

"We need a love story. Let's have Scarlett Johansson fall in love with Bruce Banner for no reason. We need a cool location for when Ultron starts blowing things up. Let's stick that scene in the penthouse. We need a Stan Lee cameo. Let's stick him in there too. Most importantly, we need a few easy-to-write jokes to cram in the movie in order to trick the audience into thinking it has a soul. I've got it! Let's merge all of these things together into one scene so we don't have to waste people's time with too much boring character stuff before we can get to the robot-punching! Brilliant!"

Edit: Actually, it's moot anyway. The question was about whether we got to see our main characters engage in relatable human activities at any point. Cocktail parties with your superhero and supermodel friends don't count. I was expecting someone to bring up Hawkeye's story in the movie, which would have fit the bill here if it wasn't such an obvious response to people's complaints about how little he had to do in the previous films. Kinda funny, honestly.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: PORG on September 08, 2016, 03:56:11 am
Age of Ultron gets worse the more I think about it. Really dreading giving it a rewatch.

Guardians of the Galaxy is forever awesome, though. Can't convert me on that one.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on September 08, 2016, 11:41:36 am
Also, Neville, sorry if I was a dick on the last page. I guess Cutler got me all riled up after his utter destruction of John.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: cupcake on September 08, 2016, 12:05:01 pm
Also, Neville, sorry if I was a dick on the last page. I guess Cutler got me all riled up after his utter destruction of John.

I feel bad for calling John a retard.  I still stand by what I say, but I feel like I should've been more civil with my response
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Robert Neville on September 08, 2016, 04:05:04 pm
Also, Neville, sorry if I was a dick on the last page. I guess Cutler got me all riled up after his utter destruction of John.

That's fine. And I brought up Air Force One simply because it happened to be on recently and I thought it made for a good example of what the rule, rather than exception, was for the blockbusters at the time. I knew that since I haven't seen it in full, I couldn't give it a rating, and so I didn't, and unlike Paasche.


However, I'll run the risk of repeating myself later on in order to respond to this comment of yours. I'm not comparing these movies to the sci-fi crap of the 50s because those were not "blockbusters" in the modern definition. I'm comparing them to the golden age of blockbuster filmmaking-- The Terminator, Jaws, Robocop, etc. Do you really think those movies could be released today and still be as successful as they were originally? Granted, that's an oversimplification that doesn't factor in any number of variables, but I still don't think that in the modern film climate, we will see another movie like Robocop get made-- and if it were made, Marvel audiences would think it was boring and stupid.

What I'm getting at here is that Marvel has destroyed two key things that contribute to quality films being made-- audience's attention spans and restraint. If you're okay with that, I probably won't be able to convince you of my thesis. But I don't think anyone on here is going to be okay with that. I think it's an objective detriment to filmmaking.

Well, here's something important, though. None of the three (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=terminator.htm) bolded (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=jaws.htm) examples (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=robocop.htm)actually had anything like what we would call a modern blockbuster budget, even if we double, or perhaps triple, them to account for the inflation. Moreover, out of the three, only Jaws had what we would now call blockbuster-level returns. (As an example, here are the grosses of first Star Wars (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=starwars4.htm). More to the point, perhaps, here's a mediocre Bond film (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=octopussy.htm) easily outgrossing both Robocop and Terminator with the domestic box office.) What this shows, I think, is that a lot of what you call "golden age of blockbuster filmaking" wasn't actually that successful at the time, either. It was cultural memory that let some of these films be remembered for longer (and in Terminator's case, a far less restrained, and far more commercially successful, (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=terminator2.htm) sequel to truly cement its place in cinematic history) while the Bond films of the time, say,are rarely watched and now only thought of as a passing chunk of cinematic history. I think the same will happen to MCU in 20 years' time, while people will actually be looking back and think that Edge of Tomorrow was the true example of what 2014 filmaking was about. It might be a little optimistic, but I would say the preliminary historical data leans in that direction.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on September 08, 2016, 06:35:16 pm
Well, here's something important, though. None of the three (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=terminator.htm) bolded (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=jaws.htm) examples (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=robocop.htm)actually had anything like what we would call a modern blockbuster budget, even if we double, or perhaps triple, them to account for the inflation. Moreover, out of the three, only Jaws had what we would now call blockbuster-level returns. (As an example, here are the grosses of first Star Wars (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=starwars4.htm). More to the point, perhaps, here's a mediocre Bond film (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=octopussy.htm) easily outgrossing both Robocop and Terminator with the domestic box office.) What this shows, I think, is that a lot of what you call "golden age of blockbuster filmaking" wasn't actually that successful at the time, either. It was cultural memory that let some of these films be remembered for longer (and in Terminator's case, a far less restrained, and far more commercially successful, (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=terminator2.htm) sequel to truly cement its place in cinematic history) while the Bond films of the time, say,are rarely watched and now only thought of as a passing chunk of cinematic history. I think the same will happen to MCU in 20 years' time, while people will actually be looking back and think that Edge of Tomorrow was the true example of what 2014 filmaking was about. It might be a little optimistic, but I would say the preliminary historical data leans in that direction.

All true. I will say this, though-- my negative feelings about the state of blockbuster filmmaking have been amplified greatly by the output this year. It depends on how you define "blockbuster," but I think that by most estimations I've seen 13 "blockbuster" films this year. Of those, only one reached the positive end of the spectrum for me, and that was Finding Dory (I don't know if we should really call a kid's animated movie a blockbuster given the wildly different demographic it's appealing to as opposed to, say, 13 Hours). I definitely felt that we were on a downward trend in previous years, but never has it seemed so bad as it does in 2016. You can call it an outlier, maybe. I just call it the logical continuation of the direction I think action/adventure movies are going in.

The thing is, bad blockbusters have always existed, but I've never gotten the sense that they actually pushed quality blockbusters out of the mainstream. Sure, maybe Octopussy was stupid, but great movies like Scarface were still able to make money in the climate of the era. Hell, the very next year saw the release of Ghostbusters. But when I see the list of "movies to look forward to" over the next three years, and literally everything is either a sequel, prequel, remake, or reboot, yeah, I get a little depressed. You can make comparisons to the 80s and 90s all you want, but the truth is that the emergence of franchises like Transformers and the MCU is simply unprecedented. Never before have we seen such a dearth of originality in blockbuster filmmaking. And I know a lot of people agree with me.

Edge of Tomorrow does make me a little optimistic. Maybe we're just in a slump right now. But again, this class isn't called "Marvel WILL destroy America." It's "Marvel is destroyING America." It's just an analysis of the path we're going down. Things could change. My dire predictions may not all turn out to be accurate. But I still stand by my pessimistic worldview.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Crohn's Boy on September 08, 2016, 06:54:12 pm
2014 was a pretty great year for summer blockbusters, tbh.  Aside from the obvious outliers like TASM 2, Trans4mers, and TMNT, we got great stuff like Neighbors, Godzilla, Days of Future Past, Edge of Tomorrow, 22 Jump Street, How to Train Your Dragon 2 (which I heard good things about but haven't seen), Dawn of the Planet of the Rise of the War of the Planet of the Apes, and Guardians of the Galaxy.  This is also in addition to all of the smaller films like Boyhood.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on September 08, 2016, 07:09:03 pm
2014 was a pretty great year for summer blockbusters, tbh.  Aside from the obvious outliers like TASM 2, Trans4mers, and TMNT, we got great stuff like Neighbors, Godzilla, Days of Future Past, Edge of Tomorrow, 22 Jump Street, How to Train Your Dragon 2 (which I heard good things about but haven't seen), Dawn of the Planet of the Rise of the War of the Planet of the Apes, and Guardians of the Galaxy.  This is also in addition to all of the smaller films like Boyhood.

I tend to not count things like 22 Jump Street and Neighbors when talking "blockbusters." They may have made a lot of money, but they have almost no cultural impact in the long run. Even if Neighbors was some kind of cinematic masterpiece (I haven't seen it, but I doubt that it was), it did nothing to stem the tide of the Marvel phenomenon.

Aside from that, I notice that all of these movies aside from Neighbors-- even quality films like Edge of Tomorrow and Godzilla-- are based on previously established properties. Let's be fair and remove EOT from that list though, because I don't think it follows the novel it's based on that closely, and the novel wasn't a cultural watershed anyway. Those two factors combined tell me that the filmmakers took a bit of a risk with the movie, and it paid off (at least from a critical perspective).

Let's look at the others though. An animated sequel and a stupid comedy sequel. Two Marvel properties. And two reboots/sequels to properties that had already been established decades ago. This is what I'm talking about when I say "a dearth of originality," and I'll cover it a little more in my next installment. Basically though, because Marvel can deliver crazy stories about Nazis and aliens and excuse it by saying "It's just based on the comics," it's becoming increasingly difficult for filmmakers to establish action films that can compete with Marvel in terms of appealing to the sheeple while still maintaining narrative sense. Rather than try to fight the unstoppable juggernaut of comic book movies, they instead decide to reboot and remake past properties so they can get right to the action without having to explain the premise to the audience.

Godzilla '14 avoided this for the most part. I like that movie a lot because it shows restraint. So what did people say about it? "The fuck, we only saw Godzilla for 20 minutes? That's stupid!" Uh, it's called constructing a movie, you idiots. So yeah, you can see why I'd be pessimistic.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Crohn's Boy on September 08, 2016, 07:18:52 pm
I'm still mad that Tomorrowland got panned and flopped.  It was an original movie that I thought was very good, but no one saw it.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Kale Pasta on September 08, 2016, 08:15:34 pm
Also, Neville, sorry if I was a dick on the last page. I guess Cutler got me all riled up after his utter destruction of John.
I knew that since I haven't seen it in full, I couldn't give it a rating, and so I didn't, and unlike Paasche.
Oh fuck you. Well, not really you specifically but everyone who keeps falsifying that story. All I said was that it was worse than one of my five favorite movies ever. I didn't give a rating, everyone just keeps saying that to make the whole thing sound worse.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on September 08, 2016, 08:28:26 pm
Also, Neville, sorry if I was a dick on the last page. I guess Cutler got me all riled up after his utter destruction of John.
I knew that since I haven't seen it in full, I couldn't give it a rating, and so I didn't, and unlike Paasche.
Oh fuck you. Well, not really you specifically but everyone who keeps falsifying that story. All I said was that it was worse than one of my five favorite movies ever. I didn't give a rating, everyone just keeps saying that to make the whole thing sound worse.

Hey Paasche, can I still give Suicide Squad a score even if I haven't seen all ten cuts of it?
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Kale Pasta on September 08, 2016, 10:10:17 pm
Also, Neville, sorry if I was a dick on the last page. I guess Cutler got me all riled up after his utter destruction of John.
I knew that since I haven't seen it in full, I couldn't give it a rating, and so I didn't, and unlike Paasche.
Oh fuck you. Well, not really you specifically but everyone who keeps falsifying that story. All I said was that it was worse than one of my five favorite movies ever. I didn't give a rating, everyone just keeps saying that to make the whole thing sound worse.

Hey Paasche, can I still give Suicide Squad a score even if I haven't seen all ten cuts of it?
Yes?
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Charles Longboat Jr. on September 08, 2016, 10:14:32 pm
I'm still mad that Tomorrowland got panned and flopped.  It was an original movie that I thought was very good, but no one saw it.
Part of the reason it bombed was because of its mediocrity. The word of mouth hurt it in this case.

While I didn't love the movie, I will say it didn't deserve to bomb as badly as it did.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Jim Raynor Remastered on September 08, 2016, 10:58:59 pm
Although the effects of the Marvel formula in the industry of cinema are rather evident, we gotta take in consideration that such enterprise is constantly evolving in its stakes. Gone were the days of practical effects when CGI came aboard with hits such as Jurassic Park and T2 showing off the gimmick, and the industry, realizing that they stumbled upon a goldmine like they always do, started pumping out anything remotely close to a coherent movie. The mid 90's were plagued by shitty disaster films that their only purpose was to show off the effects and accomplish nothing else. Same could be said about the blockbusters all the way to the mid 2000's, with clear exceptions such as MIB or Sam Raimi's Spider-Man Trilogy (the Renaissance of superhero movies). The point I'm trying to make is that the trends are constantly changing to see what sticks or not. Look at the reboots from this year, for example. Ben-Hur flopped on opening day and Ghostbusters is probably not going to hit a breakout point in its box office. The logical point to go now is what the next hit will be. Look around, Age of Ultron didn't managed to outdo its predecessor in box office gains, and in the future people will mostly likely get sick of Marvel and move on, probably the best examples of this is in another medium, video games, with the CoD series. Three of its games managed to be the highest grossing openings in day one in history, also consecutively, but guess what? People got sick of the franchise because it played it very safely and every installment since has even less opening gross than the last one.

Also, Diego, if this is a supposed thesis of yours, theory, essay or whatever the fuck is this; it needs more proof about the impact of these movies have in the general public, or in this case, audience. A sampling would be a great start and maybe getting into the micro-economy stuff is also worth considering.
(^That last bit may be a bit unnecessary, but I don't care. I'm off to bed, have an economy test for tomorrow morning)
(P.S. Kisses in all the pinky parts for Cutler for reminding of how great the original Spider-Man trilogy was. Definitely gotta give it a rewatch in the future)
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on September 08, 2016, 11:37:23 pm
Although the effects of the Marvel formula in the industry of cinema are rather evident, we gotta take in consideration that such enterprise is constantly evolving in its stakes. Gone were the days of practical effects when CGI came aboard with hits such as Jurassic Park and T2 showing off the gimmick, and the industry, realizing that they stumbled upon a goldmine like they always do, started pumping out anything remotely close to a coherent movie. The mid 90's were plagued by shitty disaster films that their only purpose was to show off the effects and accomplish nothing else. Same could be said about the blockbusters all the way to the mid 2000's, with clear exceptions such as MIB or Sam Raimi's Spider-Man Trilogy (the Renaissance of superhero movies). The point I'm trying to make is that the trends are constantly changing to see what sticks or not. Look at the reboots from this year, for example. Ben-Hur flopped on opening day and Ghostbusters is probably not going to hit a breakout point in its box office. The logical point to go now is what the next hit will be. Look around, Age of Ultron didn't managed to outdo its predecessor in box office gains, and in the future people will mostly likely get sick of Marvel and move on, probably the best examples of this is in another medium, video games, with the CoD series. Three of its games managed to be the highest grossing openings in day one in history, also consecutively, but guess what? People got sick of the franchise because it played it very safely and every installment since has even less opening gross than the last one.

Also, Diego, if this is a supposed thesis of yours, theory, essay or whatever the fuck is this; it needs more proof about the impact of these movies have in the general public, or in this case, audience. A sampling would be a great start and maybe getting into the micro-economy stuff is also worth considering.

Like I said, I'm not saying my predictions for the future of movies will come true. I'm just saying that this is the trend we're on right now. I know things change. I'm hoping they will. But from what I know about the history of filmmaking, it's never been this bad before.

(P.S. Kisses in all the pinky parts for Cutler for reminding of how great the original Spider-Man trilogy was. Definitely gotta give it a rewatch in the future)

Wat.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Jim Raynor Remastered on September 08, 2016, 11:43:14 pm
(P.S. Kisses in all the pinky parts for Cutler for reminding of how great the original Spider-Man trilogy was. Definitely gotta give it a rewatch in the future)

Wat.
A fatal combination of a cold, academic stress, and midnight deliriousness.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Robert Neville on September 09, 2016, 02:00:57 am
Basically though, because Marvel can deliver crazy stories about Nazis and aliens and excuse it by saying "It's just based on the comics," it's becoming increasingly difficult for filmmakers to establish action films that can compete with Marvel in terms of appealing to the sheeple while still maintaining narrative sense. Rather than try to fight the unstoppable juggernaut of comic book movies, they instead decide to reboot and remake past properties so they can get right to the action without having to explain the premise to the audience.

That approach has been increasingly failing, though. Sure, last year, it did deliver enormous (probably undeserved) windfall with Jurassic World, critical gain with Fury Road, and both with the Farce Awakens (which shouldn't count, really, since it's the same company, after all, and in many ways, it's an example of Marvelisation done really badly). This year, though... I already posted a detailed comment on Fudgeknuckle a while ago, showing that, Jason Bourne aside, basically every single non-comic-book would-be blockbuster this year has failed commercially, or was barely profitable (ID: Resurgence, Warcraft before better accounting). Meanwhile, you know how well 10 Cloverfield Lane had fared relative to its tiny budget. Sure, it's not an action film and it IS based on a past property, but I would say its an important step forward. Another break-out like that (and/or some more recycled blockbusters like Pan or Legend of Tarzan flopping) and we should see a wider-scale shift towards lower-budget films. Given that I think I've already shown a film like Robocop would probably not cost much more than 35 million today, that would hardly be a bad thing. (I realise I've duplicated what Raynor's said in his comment somewhat, but well, the better to make a point.)


I'm still mad that Tomorrowland got panned and flopped.  It was an original movie that I thought was very good, but no one saw it.

I still fondly remember putting it down as the film I looked forward to the least at the start of last year, and getting some heat for it from Milito and few others here. Then, of course, it failed just like how I predicted it would.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on September 09, 2016, 05:40:35 am
All right, there seems to be a little antsiness around here regarding the thesis of this thread. I'll make this very clear-- each of these essays only works as a part of a whole. I'm trying to build up to directly addressing the main theme of this thread, and I'm trying to exercise-- what's the word?-- restraint. Sure, I'd love to jump right into the next couple installments, but I'm trying to build my case piece by piece here. And I'm still discussing the thread's theme in the concluding paragraphs of each of these essays, so just be patient. We're not even close to being done with this yet.

Also, you should all have your textbooks by now. Remember to do your reading of John's Spider-Man 3 review. There'll be a quiz on who the key grips are for every Marvel movie later, so I'd recommend boning up on John's other reviews as well.

Anyway, so far I've taken a look at Marvel's humor, its acting, its stories, its themes, and its visuals. Now we're on to the sixth and final of these attacks at the foundation of these films. After all, before I can discuss how detrimental these movies are to your fragile, eggshell-like brains, I must first establish that they are indeed absolute excrement. So hang in there. It's time for...

Lesson #6: Characters Vs Caricatures

I'm going to approach this chapter in our voyage through Marvel's filmography from a psychological perspective. Let's assume conventional theories are accurate, and that there are three kinds of personality traits: The primary, the secondary, and the cardinal.

Primary traits are numerous and pronounced in any person. "Honorable," "Stable," "Neurotic," etc. These are the things you'd notice most in others, and they're also the things you'd likely use to describe yourself. They're the kinds of traits you'd start with when trying to write a character. They can range from the positive (Noble) to the negative (Addictive personality), but they're a good way of establishing a baseline for your character. They tell you how this character would act and react in certain situations, they help you write their dialogue, and most importantly, they allow you to get inside the head of this person you've created. Like I said, they're baselines, and you build off of them. Well-written characters have these traits.

Secondary traits are a little more complicated. Just because you have a primary trait doesn't mean you can't have an opposite, contradictory secondary trait. After all, humans are complex creatures. We've got a little bit of everything within us. So if someone describes themselves as generous, odds are they can also be a bit selfish from time to time. Secondary traits usually rear their heads only in specific situations, like when you're frustrated or depressed. But here's the issue-- in the world of screenwriting, secondary traits are often ignored, because the audience will see them as contradictory to the character's primary traits, and therefore view the character as inconsistent. Never mind the fact that humans are, almost by definition, inconsistent-- that just doesn't jive with the world of movies.

And honestly, that's fine. A lot of movies exclude secondary traits entirely and are successful nonetheless. These traits require a little more development than you can get out of your average two-hour film. That's why TV characters often feel a little more fleshed-out. Jim from The Office makes his fair share of mistakes, but we've gotten to know him over the course of a few seasons, so we're okay with it. Another good example would be Walter White, who is the absolute embodiment of contradictory character traits. But we're talking film, so let's set secondary traits aside for now.

Lastly, we have cardinal traits. Or rather, cardinal trait, because supposedly every person has only one. This isn't a real thing, to be honest. It applies more to archetypes and legends than it does to actual human beings. A cardinal trait is supposedly a singular trait that accounts for every action a person takes, so you can see why it wouldn't apply to basically anyone. Examples of this might be Jesus or Gandhi, who are typically described as "Selfless," as if that one word encapsulates who they were as human beings. Well, guess what? They were people too. And they were a lot more complex than just one word. You can't build an entire character off of one single personality trait... can you?

(http://filmmakeriq.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Captain-America2.jpg)

Oops.

I've mentioned Marvel's extreme laziness in previous lessons, but at this point, I've got to come out and say it-- the lack of effort Marvel puts into writing their characters is utterly insulting to the viewer. When your character can be completely narrowed down to one single adjective, it does two things. Firstly, it makes them really easy to write for (so that's a plus for Marvel). I mean, if you're trying to figure out what a character is going to do or say in a scene, all you really have to do at that point is consult your one-word description. And secondly, it takes out all suspense for the audience in trying to determine what the character is going to do next. It's always obvious. It's always foreshadowed. We always know the exact same beats the character, and by extension, the movie, is going to hit. So why bother?

Captain America is loyal. That's it. He's loyal to his country. He's loyal to the military. He's loyal to his girlfriend even after she gets all old and crusty. I thought we might see a different side of him in Civil War-- maybe a primary or even a secondary personality trait surfacing-- but Marvel successfully dodged that bullet by deciding that the conflict would be Cap's loyalty to his good buddy Bucky. After all, adding in another character trait at this point would just be too much work.

If right now you're thinking "Diego, you're criticizing these movies too harshly," well, you know where you can stick it. Plenty of superhero movies are able to give their characters flaws and arcs. Spider-Man in the Raimi films is a bit selfish at the beginning, honestly. But he learns to get past that. Magneto and Professor X are stubborn as can be in the first X-Men film, but they manage to work together in the second. They're complicated people, each with an understandable perspective. I'd even put Iron Man on this list, and it could be argued that as the main character of the MCU films, it's his depth that matters, not Craptain America's. But see, his arc was more or less completed in the first Iron Man movie. He's made five film appearances since then, and in each of them, his personality has become increasingly ancillary to the plot. Now it's just a matter of how little time Marvel can devote to character development in order to make room for the 'splosions.

(http://img.cinemablend.com/cb/8/e/5/3/6/6/8e5366e2cac149d2c4e0cf68fbb83093862b41b1e66d3b8b8c4169ec8222107f.jpg)

Holy crap... a character arc in a superhero movie! I'm shocked! Shocked, I say! Yeah, TDKR has it over Marvel's output in terms of character development by quite a bit. So stuff it with all that "It's just a superhero movie" crap. No one cares. I'm not asking for much here. I just want a little more to these characters than "Noble," "Loyal," "Snarky," and "Smart." I don't see this as judging these movies too harshly... or even harshly at all. I'm asking for the absolute bare minimum in at least a couple of the six categories I've discussed thus far. And Marvel has not met that minimum in any of them.

Again, we come to the question... how is this destroying American cinema? Well, look. As much time as I've spent watching movies, I don't call myself an expert. Feel free to refute this point if you want. But the way I see it, at no other point in filmmaking history has the reigning box office franchise been so consistently dismal when it comes to performing in these six categories. Even the stupidest blockbuster movies like Independence Day managed to give us intelligently filmed action and above-average performances. I swear to God, I'm looking at the list of highest-grossing films by year on Wikipedia, and before 1998's Armageddon, I can't find a single movie that displays the levels of laziness and incompetence that are commonplace in any typical MCU film. This trend started around the turn of the century, and if Marvel didn't start it, they're certainly continuing it.

I'm not saying Marvel's movies are objectively bad. You can enjoy whatever Adam Sandler/Michael Bay crap you want. But from an impartial standpoint, the films by those two fine fellows, as well as the films Marvel makes, are objectively lazy and uncreative. I'm serious here. There is no way the committees of corporate stooges who come up with this crap could possibly be called "artists." There is no way the actors who spend 80% of their time jumping around in front of green-screens could possibly be considered masters of their craft. There is no way that these crap-ass movies add up to more than the sum of their cringeworthy, unstimulating, and repetitive parts.

And you know what's worse? You all know I'm right.

Throughout this thread, the biggest pushback I've gotten has come not from people refuting my points with regards to action, story, and humor-- but from Neville wanting to discuss how and why I think these films are "Destroying America." And there's the rub, my friends. When a bunch of smart-aleck movie buffs like you guys don't take issue with any particular point I'm making, I know I'm on to something. Audiences know these movies are stupid. They just don't care. And among the wide, wide number of reasons as to why Marvel is ruining filmmaking, that one is key. They're making all of us-- even the Movie Watchers Oasis-- apathetic.

See you next class.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on September 09, 2016, 10:14:52 pm
Excellent rebuttal, Shockwave. I spent 45 minutes writing that, but your "Old" rating absolutely destroyed my argument.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Charles Longboat Jr. on September 10, 2016, 11:06:05 am
It probably helps your case that I'm not particularly feeling the need to rewatch many of the MCU films (though several of them have a shot at falling into negative territory if I ever do).
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on November 26, 2016, 08:49:43 pm
Okay, I was going to give up on this due to a lack of enthusiasm, but I can't help it. I must finish what I have started. In this installment, I'm going to be getting a little more into the central thesis of this thread. Tell me if I succeed or not in articulating my perspective. But I think this is important. So without further ado...


Lesson #7: Originality is Fucking Dead and it's all your goddamn fault

So far, we've covered Marvel's laziness in their humor, their bland and emotionless acting, and their overreliance on absolute buttfucking maelstroms of CGI carnage. Now, this is all some pretty basic stuff, and I think most people are aware of these issues even if they like Marvel movies. At least... most people on this site are. In the real world, I'm not so sure.

What I'm saying is that these are just my problems with the movies. And to some audiences, even these pretty damning complaints could be written off as unimportant. Believe me, there are a lot more problems I could get into with these films, but that would require getting needlessly superficial. The big blue laser in the sky, the generic villains, and the repetitive formula really never bothered me as much as the basic structural flaws these movies have from perspectives such as humor and theme. Once Marvel fixes their foundation, they can work their way up to solving the more obvious, surface-level problems that even their dullard fans are capable of noticing.

However, I'm not discussing any of that. While it's disheartening to me to know that Marvel fans are aware of all those plot and story issues but don't care, my main problem with these movies is what they're doing to original filmmaking. They're killing it. Slowly. Painfully. Mercilessly. They're not the only ones responsible. But they're certainly a major, if not the major, contributor to the trend.

Though everyone might disagree as to the cause, I’m sure you’re all aware of the fact that Hollywood is churning out a lot of franchise films these days. As of right now, 17 of the 20 highest-grossing films of all time are reboots, sequels, or spin-offs of existing franchises. Of those remaining three, two are getting sequels soon. The last one is Titanic. In 2016, 13 of the 15 highest-grossing films domestically thus far are either remakes or sequels.

I could ask why this is happening, but I know why. Studios know that they can bank on franchises for a quick paycheck. Everyone knows that. My question is, if everyone says they want to see original films, why don’t they see them? Why do they instead continue to see every godforsaken remake, reboot, and rehash belched out into theaters? Well, the answer to that question is the core concept of this thread. It’s laziness-- not on the part of the studios this time, but on the part of the audiences themselves. Sure, you could say that these movies only continue to be made because studios understand branding, and they know a cash cow when they see one. But I think the issue is far more rooted in human nature than we all understand.

People like what’s familiar. They like what they understand. They like cheering while their favorite characters show up onscreen yet another time. But most importantly, they hate having to figure out a new storyline on the spot. And this, everyone, is why films based on existing properties are so successful. If audiences have the choice between seeing a loose jumble of Nazi alien monsters fighting one another, or seeing a film with an actual coherent focus that requires them to think for a little bit to understand what’s going on, odds are they’ll pick the former nine times out of ten.

The thing is, original movies can no longer offer up the sheer level of ADHD visuals that Marvel movies can. There’s no way to start off a franchise that unites Norse gods, supersoldiers, Russian assassins, and big green monsters coherently unless you base it on an existing property. And any new franchise that tries to establish itself will be unable to compete with films that have already established their storylines through other media, and can therefore devote less time to plot and more time to punching. Studios know this, which is why they’ve been dredging the darkest depths of crappy novels and comic books in order to convert people’s desire for the familiar into a steady stream of cash.

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/11/fa/fa/11fafab347eba1808dca8dbf30e036d1.jpg)

Sound familiar?

Let’s summarize what we’ve got so far here. Firstly, we’ve got a franchise of films-- Marvel movies-- that have become so expansive and inclusive that they encompass nearly every action/sci-fi movie trope. Secondly, we’ve got audiences who want to see all those tropes, but are limited to viewing only a certain number of movies a year, and who don’t want to put in the effort to wrap their minds around original storylines. And thirdly, we’ve got the studios, who understand all of this perfectly, but who have no incentive to do something about the status quo because it directly benefits them.

This is why none of this will change-- because Marvel’s movies bank off of two very reliable human traits: Greed and laziness. They know that when their audiences are presented with the option of either paying to see a movie about aliens, a movie about Nazis, a movie about men in metal suits, and a movie about interdimensional beings or seeing all that in one movie for a fourth of the price, they’ll inevitably take the lazy way out. They also know that people hate it when a movie spends time establishing the world it takes place in. They want to jump right into the action and immediately understand what’s going on. In short, they want Captain America: Civil War.

The reason why Marvel is destroying America is because it is playing to our worst traits as a people. Say what you will about the dumb action/sci-fi movies of the 80s, but at least they made a point to set up original storylines and universes. They required, at bare minimum, a little bit of thought. But even Marvel’s “original” movies are based off of comic books, books that many of the audience members have already read. These movies are popular not only because they’re filled with action, but also because a very minimal amount of thought is required to understand what’s happening in them. They are a perfect union of critical acclaim, overwhelming action, and generic mass appeal.

The most common excuse for any idiotic moment in a Marvel movie is “Well, that’s what it was like in the comics.” If you’ve ever said those words, honestly, you have no business criticizing films. You’ve been successfully conned by Marvel into accepting the status quo. Comic book movies have slowly morphed the entire blockbuster film industry into a blended mass of self-referential garbage. What about the original sci-fi films out there that don’t have a built-in fanbase, a recognizable logo, and decades of pulp comic lore backing them up? They don’t stand a chance.

So please, for the love of God, stop seeing these movies in theaters. The laziness that I'm describing here has permeated every aspect of American culture, and I'm starting to truly fear what we'll become if artists, writers, and filmmakers keep putting less and less effort into their undertakings. Why do you think Twilight and Dubstep are popular? It's because we, as a culture, have started to reward laziness with acclaim. It needs to stop. It's turning us all into idiots.

I'll leave this off here because I've gone on long enough. Feel free to ask me some questions, because this is a very messy subject and there are a lot of facets to it (not all of which I've covered in this installment). In conclusion, there are three major things to take away from this lesson, which I shall summarize in what I call Tut's Laws of Originality.

Law the First: The majority of moviegoers prefer seeing familiar characters and storylines rather than trying to wrap their heads around new ones. When given the choice, they will gravitate toward films that are based off of preexisting media.

Law the Second: Assuming that Law the First is accurate, this puts the owners of the aforementioned preexisting media (such as Marvel) at a massive advantage when competing for ticket dollars against original films.

Law the Third: Assuming that both Law the First and Law the Second are accurate, studios that identify this trend quickly and obtain rights to said preexisting media also gain an advantage, as they now have the ability to create film franchises that rely increasingly on visual effects instead of world-building and screenwriting.

So there it is. That's a big chunk of my thesis right there. I mainly resurrected this thread because sometime soon, I'll be seeing Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, and I want to make a similar series of posts about Harry Potter and its not-insignificant impact on the laziness of filmmaking. The two go more hand-in-hand than you might think...
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on November 26, 2016, 08:51:15 pm
This is no longer a mini-essay...
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Kale Pasta on November 27, 2016, 08:39:48 pm
You know Diego, I enjoy most Marvel films but I have to agree with a lot of what you said. I will add (sort of) one idea though, which is that a large part of the appeal of Marvel comes from the fact that when people watch these movies, they know what they're going to get. It's not simply laziness though, it's that since the Marvel formula is so established, the audience really knows what they're getting. If you really like the Marvel formula, why not see the film, since there's very little risk of not enjoying it. I'd honestly say that this logic is pretty sound from the perspective of an average moviegoer who just wants to be entertained. That's a little bit sad to me, but if it's sad then it's the sad truth: Most people just want to be entertained when the go to the movies and Marvel films represent the single most surefire way of making sure that entertainment is provided.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: cupcake on November 27, 2016, 10:07:00 pm
You know Diego, I enjoy most Marvel films but I have to agree with a lot of what you said. I will add (sort of) one idea though, which is that a large part of the appeal of Marvel comes from the fact that when people watch these movies, they know what they're going to get. It's not simply laziness though, it's that since the Marvel formula is so established, the audience really knows what they're getting. If you really like the Marvel formula, why not see the film, since there's very little risk of not enjoying it. I'd honestly say that this logic is pretty sound from the perspective of an average moviegoer who just wants to be entertained. That's a little bit sad to me, but if it's sad then it's the sad truth: Most people just want to be entertained when the go to the movies and Marvel films represent the single most surefire way of making sure that entertainment is provided.

Isn't the entire point of watching a film to be entertained, though?  I mean, I view movies as a recreation.  Yeah, I used to be all explosive when discussing movies, but in the end, it's just a moving picture.  Far more important cultural exhibitions exist, like WWE pre-Chris Benoit death.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on November 27, 2016, 10:39:32 pm
You know Diego, I enjoy most Marvel films but I have to agree with a lot of what you said. I will add (sort of) one idea though, which is that a large part of the appeal of Marvel comes from the fact that when people watch these movies, they know what they're going to get. It's not simply laziness though, it's that since the Marvel formula is so established, the audience really knows what they're getting. If you really like the Marvel formula, why not see the film, since there's very little risk of not enjoying it. I'd honestly say that this logic is pretty sound from the perspective of an average moviegoer who just wants to be entertained. That's a little bit sad to me, but if it's sad then it's the sad truth: Most people just want to be entertained when the go to the movies and Marvel films represent the single most surefire way of making sure that entertainment is provided.

Yes. It's the same reason why all white male pop singers these days sound exactly the same. They've all gravitated towards a similar sound because they know audiences like it, and their love of the familiar does not encourage original thinking. Rather, it incentivizes conformity. Now, I wouldn't say that this is harming small indie drama films (yet) for the same reason that the opening of a McDonald's doesn't hurt business at a French bistro. The client bases of the two aren't similar enough for the impact to be felt. But when it comes to sci-fi/action movies (which I do love), I think the effect is becoming very pronounced. I can't even remember the last original light sci-fi movie that was actually good (this doesn't include things like Arrival or Interstellar, which don't have the same tone as the Avengers films at all).

The franchises are aging, but no new ones are cropping up to take their place. We'll be getting our eighth Star Wars film this year, but when was the last time an original sci-fi franchise got started? I guess it was back in 2009 with Avatar... sad.

Isn't the entire point of watching a film to be entertained, though?  I mean, I view movies as a recreation.  Yeah, I used to be all explosive when discussing movies, but in the end, it's just a moving picture.  Far more important cultural exhibitions exist, like WWE pre-Chris Benoit death.

If I thought that The Great Laziness was restricted solely to film, I might not be this worried about it. But I think it's begun to permeate many aspects of our culture... namely politics.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tho Master Fie on November 28, 2016, 12:35:58 am
Civil War was an absolute seagull of a film.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: cupcake on November 28, 2016, 12:38:27 am
Civil War was an absolute seagull of a film.

I had to go back and read that review after this comment.  I can't stop smiling.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Flounder Prefers Browntown on November 28, 2016, 07:01:55 am
Civil War was an absolute seagull of a film.
You know this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albatross_(metaphor)) is what I meant when I said Albatross, right?
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Kale Pasta on November 28, 2016, 10:47:19 am
You know Diego, I enjoy most Marvel films but I have to agree with a lot of what you said. I will add (sort of) one idea though, which is that a large part of the appeal of Marvel comes from the fact that when people watch these movies, they know what they're going to get. It's not simply laziness though, it's that since the Marvel formula is so established, the audience really knows what they're getting. If you really like the Marvel formula, why not see the film, since there's very little risk of not enjoying it. I'd honestly say that this logic is pretty sound from the perspective of an average moviegoer who just wants to be entertained. That's a little bit sad to me, but if it's sad then it's the sad truth: Most people just want to be entertained when the go to the movies and Marvel films represent the single most surefire way of making sure that entertainment is provided.

Yes. It's the same reason why all white male pop singers these days sound exactly the same. They've all gravitated towards a similar sound because they know audiences like it, and their love of the familiar does not encourage original thinking. Rather, it incentivizes conformity. Now, I wouldn't say that this is harming small indie drama films (yet) for the same reason that the opening of a McDonald's doesn't hurt business at a French bistro. The client bases of the two aren't similar enough for the impact to be felt. But when it comes to sci-fi/action movies (which I do love), I think the effect is becoming very pronounced. I can't even remember the last original light sci-fi movie that was actually good (this doesn't include things like Arrival or Interstellar, which don't have the same tone as the Avengers films at all).

The franchises are aging, but no new ones are cropping up to take their place. We'll be getting our eighth Star Wars film this year, but when was the last time an original sci-fi franchise got started? I guess it was back in 2009 with Avatar... sad.
I agree with you for the most part here. Personally, I think the films that are being harmed by the Marvel explosion (creativity wise) are the tentpoles, which (if original at all) often appear to be made only to start a new franchise, nevermind the fact that most tentpoles are sequels anyway. That mainly applies, naturally, to action and sci-fi films, since those tend to be the big budget films that make bank. Also, as you said, the Oscar-y movies, the indies etc. don't really appear to be changed thus far, since films like Manchester by the Sea have such different target audiences from Marvel films. Personally, what that shows is that cinema isn't dead or anything like that, but the originality of blockbusters certainly appears to be in decline, to some extent.

Also, just wanted to add that Nolan is a light in the darkness, with big budget (not to mention good) films like Inception and Interstellar that didn't have any intention of starting a franchise. You go, Chris.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: cupcake on November 28, 2016, 11:44:23 am
Civil War was an absolute seagull of a film.
You know this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albatross_(metaphor)) is what I meant when I said Albatross, right?

What a pelican of a comment.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on November 28, 2016, 05:24:42 pm
Civil War was an absolute seagull of a film.
You know this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albatross_(metaphor)) is what I meant when I said Albatross, right?

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/d3/4e/28/d34e283efce9577e12972e9091f70682.jpg)

I agree with you for the most part here. Personally, I think the films that are being harmed by the Marvel explosion (creativity wise) are the tentpoles, which (if original at all) often appear to be made only to start a new franchise, nevermind the fact that most tentpoles are sequels anyway. That mainly applies, naturally, to action and sci-fi films, since those tend to be the big budget films that make bank. Also, as you said, the Oscar-y movies, the indies etc. don't really appear to be changed thus far, since films like Manchester by the Sea have such different target audiences from Marvel films. Personally, what that shows is that cinema isn't dead or anything like that, but the originality of blockbusters certainly appears to be in decline, to some extent.

Also, just wanted to add that Nolan is a light in the darkness, with big budget (not to mention good) films like Inception and Interstellar that didn't have any intention of starting a franchise. You go, Chris.

To be fair... Nolan did direct one of the biggest superhero franchises of all time, so I'd hold off on exempting him from blame entirely. Still, like Joss Whedon (who created the wonderful original sci-fi series I referenced above), he's proven himself perfectly capable of creating original movies, which is more than I can say for many directors. The unfortunate thing is that both of their talents were wasted on big, dumb superhero movies.

An interesting way of looking at this is to try and think of when the big original sci-fi/action franchises all got started. They were all in the 80s and 90s. When was the last time a blockbuster franchise that wasn't based on any preexisting material got started? I can only think of Avatar. Pirates of the Caribbean doesn't count (it was pretty well-branded before the movies).

Then you've got the 80s, which saw Back to the Future, Rambo, Indiana Jones, Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, Terminator, Ghostbusters, The Karate Kid, Tron, Predator, Robocop, etc. Most of these movies have been either remade or given gratuitous sequels in the past decade, but there hasn't been a new startup franchise like them in years. It's pretty pronounced.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: $+/\|_¡|\| on November 28, 2016, 05:59:29 pm
John Wick's becoming a franchise.

Kingsman too.

There was an attempt with Jupiter Ascending...
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: $+/\|_¡|\| on November 28, 2016, 06:03:25 pm
Also, Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy is arguably far from the type of superhero films you seem to despised so much.

And it's not like all franchises from the past were purely original. Rambo was based on a book.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on November 28, 2016, 06:05:19 pm
John Wick's becoming a franchise.

Kingsman too.

There was an attempt with Jupiter Ascending...

Kingsman was a comic book before it was a movie. Jupiter Ascending will never be a franchise capable of competing with Marvel. As for John Wick... I'll believe it when I see it. My money's on it getting one or two sequels of significantly lower quality, much in the vein of Taken or The Matrix, and then fizzling out without making any impact on the cultural mainstream. In order to join the greats, it would have to start a franchise that's got legs, and its $86 million box office just doesn't cut it.

Also, Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy is arguably far from the type of superhero films you seem to despised so much.

The content isn't what I'm criticizing here. Movies based on comics can be good; I'm not denying that. What I'm saying is that making a movie with Batman as the main character is inherently less of a risk than creating a whole new story from scratch. As soon as you've got Batman in the movie, you've got a guaranteed profit of like $300 million these days.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Flounder Prefers Browntown on November 28, 2016, 06:15:02 pm
Rambo was based on a book.
Die Hard too.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: $+/\|_¡|\| on November 28, 2016, 06:15:50 pm
John Wick's becoming a franchise.

Kingsman too.

There was an attempt with Jupiter Ascending...

Kingsman was a comic book before it was a movie. Jupiter Ascending will never be a franchise capable of competing with Marvel. As for John Wick... I'll believe it when I see it. My money's on it getting one or two sequels of significantly lower quality, much in the vein of Taken or The Matrix, and then fizzling out without making any impact on the cultural mainstream. In order to join the greats, it would have to start a franchise that's got legs, and its $86 million box office just doesn't cut it.

Also, Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy is arguably far from the type of superhero films you seem to despised so much.

The content isn't what I'm criticizing here. Movies based on comics can be good; I'm not denying that. What I'm saying is that making a movie with Batman as the main character is inherently less of a risk than creating a whole new story from scratch. As soon as you've got Batman in the movie, you've got a guaranteed profit of like $300 million these days.
Kingsman's comic book was obscure, not as well known as any Marvel or DC series. John Wick's already kind of made a huge impact, thanks to the Internet and social media. The Fast and Furious franchise, is relatively recent and based on no pre-existing material. It's made a huge impact and has the box office numbers to prove it. They're stupid as hell, but an entirely original IP.

I agree though that studios gravitate towards films that feature characters that already have some level of recognition.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on November 28, 2016, 06:59:38 pm
John Wick's becoming a franchise.

Kingsman too.

There was an attempt with Jupiter Ascending...

Kingsman was a comic book before it was a movie. Jupiter Ascending will never be a franchise capable of competing with Marvel. As for John Wick... I'll believe it when I see it. My money's on it getting one or two sequels of significantly lower quality, much in the vein of Taken or The Matrix, and then fizzling out without making any impact on the cultural mainstream. In order to join the greats, it would have to start a franchise that's got legs, and its $86 million box office just doesn't cut it.

Also, Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy is arguably far from the type of superhero films you seem to despised so much.

The content isn't what I'm criticizing here. Movies based on comics can be good; I'm not denying that. What I'm saying is that making a movie with Batman as the main character is inherently less of a risk than creating a whole new story from scratch. As soon as you've got Batman in the movie, you've got a guaranteed profit of like $300 million these days.
Kingsman's comic book was obscure, not as well known as any Marvel or DC series. John Wick's already kind of made a huge impact, thanks to the Internet and social media. The Fast and Furious franchise, is relatively recent and based on no pre-existing material. It's made a huge impact and has the box office numbers to prove it. They're stupid as hell, but an entirely original IP.

I agree though that studios gravitate towards films that feature characters that already have some level of recognition.

Okay, I've just made a little chart of the 20 highest-grossing films to illustrate my central thesis. Have a look:

(https://i.imgur.com/I0ByBwf.png)

A quick glance at this should give you a good idea of what I'm talking about. Generally, Hollywood is relying on increasingly old franchises to build success off of. I should note that this overlooks the fact that Titanic tells a true story, one which has been ingrained in cultural lore for over a century now. Other than that, the trend should be fairly obvious here. The vast majority of these movies were made since 2010, and a sizable number of them are based on franchises that were established over forty years before their release.

For anyone who thinks this is normal, let's look at the 20 highest-grossing films of the 1980s.

(https://i.imgur.com/jvo2X44.png)

Yeah...
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Kale Pasta on November 28, 2016, 08:14:46 pm
I agree with you for the most part here. Personally, I think the films that are being harmed by the Marvel explosion (creativity wise) are the tentpoles, which (if original at all) often appear to be made only to start a new franchise, nevermind the fact that most tentpoles are sequels anyway. That mainly applies, naturally, to action and sci-fi films, since those tend to be the big budget films that make bank. Also, as you said, the Oscar-y movies, the indies etc. don't really appear to be changed thus far, since films like Manchester by the Sea have such different target audiences from Marvel films. Personally, what that shows is that cinema isn't dead or anything like that, but the originality of blockbusters certainly appears to be in decline, to some extent.

Also, just wanted to add that Nolan is a light in the darkness, with big budget (not to mention good) films like Inception and Interstellar that didn't have any intention of starting a franchise. You go, Chris.

To be fair... Nolan did direct one of the biggest superhero franchises of all time, so I'd hold off on exempting him from blame entirely. Still, like Joss Whedon (who created the wonderful original sci-fi series I referenced above), he's proven himself perfectly capable of creating original movies, which is more than I can say for many directors. The unfortunate thing is that both of their talents were wasted on big, dumb superhero movies.

[/quote]
The Dark Knight and Batman Begins did come out before the whole Marvel movement really started though, so I feel like they're a bit separate. Plus, thematically and tonally they're completely different from the Marvel films, especially in terms of challenging the audience to a level that Marvel never will.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on November 28, 2016, 08:25:33 pm
The Dark Knight and Batman Begins did come out before the whole Marvel movement really started though, so I feel like they're a bit separate. Plus, thematically and tonally they're completely different from the Marvel films, especially in terms of challenging the audience to a level that Marvel never will.

This is all subjective. The fact of the matter is that The Dark Knight trilogy is not an original film series. It's based off of a property that was, at the time of the release of Batman Begins, 66 years old. That's a pretty wide fucking gap.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Kale Pasta on November 29, 2016, 09:52:11 am
The Dark Knight and Batman Begins did come out before the whole Marvel movement really started though, so I feel like they're a bit separate. Plus, thematically and tonally they're completely different from the Marvel films, especially in terms of challenging the audience to a level that Marvel never will.

This is all subjective. The fact of the matter is that The Dark Knight trilogy is not an original film series. It's based off of a property that was, at the time of the release of Batman Begins, 66 years old. That's a pretty wide fucking gap.
I wouldn't say it's entirely subjective, as it directly contradicts the thesis of your argument. I'm not saying that Batman is an original property by any means though.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on November 29, 2016, 11:16:43 am
The Dark Knight and Batman Begins did come out before the whole Marvel movement really started though, so I feel like they're a bit separate. Plus, thematically and tonally they're completely different from the Marvel films, especially in terms of challenging the audience to a level that Marvel never will.

This is all subjective. The fact of the matter is that The Dark Knight trilogy is not an original film series. It's based off of a property that was, at the time of the release of Batman Begins, 66 years old. That's a pretty wide fucking gap.
I wouldn't say it's entirely subjective, as it directly contradicts the thesis of your argument. I'm not saying that Batman is an original property by any means though.

The point I was making with those charts was that franchises are getting older and less original. How does Batman-- a brand that was started when FDR was president-- contradict that in any way? Hollywood is relying on increasingly ancient ideas to make money off of, and even if The Dark Knight is tonally different from Marvel's typical output, that doesn't mean it's not guilty of being unoriginal.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on November 29, 2016, 11:19:34 am
Anyway, I've got another installment here...

Lesson #8: The White Slavers at Disney

If I were elected president, the first thing I would do would be to break up corporate monopolies. When a company grows so large that it controls an entire industry, it can start churning out products of significantly lower quality, and nobody is able to take their business elsewhere, because they’ve bought out the competition. Monopolies are the enemy of a healthy economy, and most importantly, they harm innovation.

The first company I would break up would be Wal-Mart. The second would be Disney.

Disney isn’t a monopoly yet. There are still some things they don’t own (Transformers, DC Comics, and Harry Potter, to name a few). But just give them time. They shall consume every aspect of pop culture before long. The Muppets. Star Wars. Pixar. The Marvel Cinematic Universe. And, of course, the myriad of Disney cartoons that are now being made into live-action movies. If Disney were a country, it would control tens of billions of dollars worth of as-yet-untapped entertainment resources. Of the 20 highest-grossing films of all time, nine of them belong to franchises that Disney owns. What more proof do you need?

In terms of competition, Disney is eclipsed by none. They’re the biggest of the six major studios, having surpassed Warner Brothers two years in a row now (a gap that will only continue to widen as Disney starts releasing more Star Wars movies). WB, God bless ‘em, is fighting back, but their movies are so laughably terrible they can’t come close to stopping the Disney juggernaut. When Zack Snyder bankrupts them, I’m sure they’ll start selling off their properties, and only one company can afford to buy them. I’ll give you a hint: It’s not Sony. Speaking of Sony, if they keep putting out gems like Spectre and The Amazing Spider-Man 2, it won’t be long before Disney subsumes them as well.

Then we have NBC/Universal and Fox Searchlight, which rank as #3 and #4 in the studio hierarchy respectively. They’ve got some hot properties, namely Jurassic World and X-Men, but they haven’t been able to break through to Disney’s level. The last of the six is Viacom, or as I like to call it, “The Detroit of Studios.” We shall not discuss them. Aside from that... what is there? Columbia? They got bought by Coca-Cola and now they make Adam Sandler movies. Lionsgate? Once they run out of shitty YA novels to adapt, they won’t know what to do with themselves. They’re not ready to challenge the big boys. No, friends. It’s Disney’s game now.

So what’s wrong with Disney? Well, aside from the fact that it was founded by a racist old coot who hung around with anti-Semites, it also happens to have a reputation for applying a thin lacquer of sentimentality to its films in order to mask its true goal: Making truckloads of money. Now, I have nothing against capitalism. But Disney has, since its inception, trampled over original ideas and their creators, ideas which have helped prop the studio up. They even had the gall to make a film romanticizing their mistreatment of original material, calling it “Saving Mr. Banks” and making yet another buttload of cash off of it.

Almost fifty years after Walt Disney made P.L. Travers cry by force-fucking sweet, sweet money out of Mary Poppins, his company bought Star Wars for an amount of money so obscene I can’t bring myself to type it. Once again, Disney executives gave someone an offer they couldn’t refuse (lots of dough), and once again, they got their grubby fingers on a franchise that they could do whatever they wanted with. You’d think that, over the years, they’d have at least put in some effort to not piss of the person whose franchise they were adapting. But you’d think wrong, because after making the sale, George Lucas described Disney’s corporate stooges as a bunch of “White Slavers.” Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

So again, Disney used its immense wealth to purchase someone’s original idea before quickly transforming it into a calculated and soulless way of generating revenue. Compared to The Force Awakens, even the computer-generated hellscapes of the prequels have heart. Disney’s robot executives put Darth Vader in their “Disney on Ice” crap, called Leia a “Disney Princess,” and stuck Mickey Mouse ears on the Death Star like an enemy flag being raised over a conquered castle.

(http://hips.htvapps.com/htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/ibmig/cms/image/wesh/25246408-25246408.jpg)

And believe me, I’m not feeling sympathetic for Lucas-- or for Travers, for that matter. They should have known what they were getting into when they got into bed with The Great Satan. But it does hurt me every time I see Disney consume another property, using its preexisting fanbase to fund its endless slew of garbage entertainment, and leeching off of people’s nostalgia to make a quick buck.

“But wait,” you say. “Disney bought Marvel in December of 2009. Why haven’t the people at Marvel expressed any sort of anger with the Disney conveyer belt of fake sentimentality?”

Heh. Well, the answer may not surprise you at all. It’s because, in short, Disney and Marvel were made for each other. This acquisition was kismet from the start. Marvel had its formula all planned out, and much like the Vichy French, I’m sure they welcomed their new corporate overlords at Disney with open arms. The people who did complain about Marvel’s soulless way of conducting film as business (Edgar Wright, for one) were out of a job. With Marvel, Pixar, and Star Wars on its leash, Disney is now closer than ever to gaining complete dominance over major film properties.

This won’t be a gradual thing, either. As the money flows in from the properties Disney currently owns, it’ll set its sights elsewhere. How long before Harry Potter falls? Or DC Comics? Or even the venerable Lord of the Rings series? I bet Disney would love to stick its Mickey Mouse ears atop Barad-dǔr. They managed to buy Marvel and Star Wars-- arguably the two most profitable franchises ever-- in the span of just a few years. I don’t mean to get all mathematical here, but what we’re looking at right now is a future of exponential growth.

What I’m trying to say is that Disney (and by extension, Marvel) is at the top of the food chain when it comes to blockbuster filmmaking these days. And if this trend continues, I don’t see anything-- barring a nuclear holocaust or a meteor impact-- slowing down the studio’s rapidly escalating dominance over audiences’ ticket dollars. The only thing that can stop them now is if everybody collectively decides not to see another Marvel or Star Wars movie.

Oh boy. I bet that’ll happen.

So what happens once Disney takes over? What happens when they’ve achieved peak saturation of the entertainment market? I honestly don’t know. There is no entity out there big enough to dismantle such a stranglehold. Disney bought Star Wars because, in part, they were the only ones with enough money to buy it. Estimates have placed the Walt Disney Company’s worth at nearly $150 billion. No, I think the far more likely scenario is that Disney will purchase every single aspect of your childhood that you hold dear, calculate exactly the right way to manipulate you into feeling nostalgic for it, and then make a new movie under that franchise’s umbrella every year until the end of time.

If we weren’t all so lazy, we’d understand this. But if we don’t care that our shoes are made in sweat shops by a bunch of Laotian pre-teens, why would we care about some dumb entertainment company buying up a bunch of properties? Well, I can’t answer that, but I’ll tell you why I care. I care because I know film shapes culture just as culture shapes film. I know that if we get big, stupid, backwards-thinking movies, we’ll get big, stupid, backwards-thinking people. People like Dom Cobb, who have had their brains so completely drenched in Disney propaganda since day one that they can’t fucking tell that they’re slowly becoming the victims of the greatest cultural hostile takeover in the history of mankind.

Much like in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, our country is being methodically conquered by a vague, numbing sense of pleasure. Those who speak out against this new regime? They’re “hipsters” and “snobs.” I might be acting overdramatically, but I do worry about these things, mainly because nobody else does. America is completely divided politically, but we seem to have reached an unsettling group consensus when it comes to entertainment: Disney is awesome. I worry that even if we get through climate change, Islamic terrorism, racial tension, bees dying at an alarming rate, and the Trump presidency, the country that emerges will be dumbed-down to the point that none of it will have been worth it. I worry that film-- the art form I love so much-- will be left a barren husk of what it once was, at the mercy of Disney’s Marvel’s DC’s Batman Vs Iron-Man: Dawn of the Age of Ultron Part II.

I worry that Marvel is destroying America.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: The One Who Lurks on November 29, 2016, 11:24:53 am
Hollywood is relying on increasingly ancient ideas to make money off of, and even if The Dark Knight is tonally different from Marvel's typical output, that doesn't mean it's not guilty of being unoriginal.

I think this is my biggest problem with your otherwise solid argument.  It feels like you're assuming a movie's unoriginal simply by virtue of it being under the banner of a pre-existing property, despite the fact that movies are fully capable of telling original stories regardless.

The Dark Knight Trilogy is a prominent example, as is the Planet of the Apes reboot series we've got going right now.  While a good chunk of the industry is indeed guilty of rehashing ideas and characters in sequels, that doesn't mean that movies are unoriginal by default simply because they use pre-existing characters, especially if they do something new with those characters.  Hell, using pre-existing properties can be a clever to trick people into accepting more original stories by using the franchise as the bait, but not the hook that keeps them there.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on November 29, 2016, 11:50:50 am
Hollywood is relying on increasingly ancient ideas to make money off of, and even if The Dark Knight is tonally different from Marvel's typical output, that doesn't mean it's not guilty of being unoriginal.

I think this is my biggest problem with your otherwise solid argument.  It feels like you're assuming a movie's unoriginal simply by virtue of it being under the banner of a pre-existing property, despite the fact that movies are fully capable of telling original stories regardless.

The Dark Knight Trilogy is a prominent example, as is the Planet of the Apes reboot series we've got going right now.  While a good chunk of the industry is indeed guilty of rehashing ideas and characters in sequels, that doesn't mean that movies are unoriginal by default simply because they use pre-existing characters, especially if they do something new with those characters.  Hell, using pre-existing properties can be a clever to trick people into accepting more original stories by using the franchise as the bait, but not the hook that keeps them there.

Well, I didn't mean to say that just because a movie is based on an existing property, it's somehow bad. I apologize if I gave you that impression, because that was not my intention. There have been good movies based off of older stories. But just look at those two charts. As far as I can tell, we're seeing more sequels and remakes right now than ever before. It's not that every movie on that list is bad (Frozen = 10/10), it's just that none of them, save for three exceptions, is by definition an original film. I understand the desire for adapting these stories, but at the same time, I can't help but feel that this sort of climate puts original movies at a serious disadvantage, simply because they don't carry with them a recognizable brand name. I mean, can you imagine a movie like Rain Man breaking through to the 20 highest-grossing films of the decade these days? It's hard to see that happening.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on December 01, 2016, 09:23:13 pm
Anyway... you guys got anything to say about the charts? The facts and figures? The indisputable proof that I am offering up?

VALIDATE me, dammit!
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Crohn's Boy on December 01, 2016, 09:26:52 pm
Anyway... you guys got anything to say about the charts? The facts and figures? The indisputable proof that I am offering up?

VALIDATE me, dammit!

I think that using the domestic chart for highest grossing films would've been better than worldwide, as the course is why Marvel is destroying America.

Btw, there's some additional original movies in there (E.T, the first Star Wars, and The Lion King).  Jurassic Park, Finding Nemo, and Passion of the Christ are also up there.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on December 01, 2016, 10:11:43 pm
I think that using the domestic chart for highest grossing films would've been better than worldwide, as the course is why Marvel is destroying America.

This is actually a good point. Looking at the top 20 highest-grossing films domestically, I see there are five films that could be called "original." They are Avatar, Titanic, Star Wars, The Lion King, and ET.

This can be interpreted a number of ways. Firstly, it's clearly a less cataclysmic set of data points than the ones I posted, no question about it. The difference might be minor, but it still means a sizable portion of the movies on that list-- 25%-- were made without their brands being established prior to their release. That's a good thing. Well, maybe not from an overall perspective (it still means 75% of the movies are remakes and sequels), but that's still up from 15% on my charts.

Dig a little deeper though, and we start seeing some problems. Of those five movies, four were released prior to 2000. The fifth, Avatar, is the highest-grossing film of all time, so it's expected that it would end up on that list. But excluding Avatar, every post-2000 movie on that list is not an original film. And again, I say that if this isn't unusual to you, you should look at the highest-grossing films of other decades. There are blockbusters mixed in there, but they were evidently not pushing comedies, dramas, and less effects-heavy films out of the running. There is a very noticeable correlation between the sequels and the years in which they were released.

The box office grosses could be attributed to inflation, but let's also remember that fewer movies were being released per year back in the 80s and 90s. Films like Star Wars had less competition for ticket dollars because there wasn't a new blockbuster coming out every Friday for six months. Knowing that, I tend to pay less attention to inflation and more attention to the fact that even in this CGI-saturated movie era, a film like Jurassic World can break out from the pack and gross $650 million in the US alone. That's quite a feat. It would be impressive if it weren't so disheartening.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Crohn's Boy on December 01, 2016, 11:10:41 pm
I'm a guy who likes to look at both sides of filmmaking from two different angles: Financially successful and quality filmmaking.  I can tell you exactly why studios make so many franchise movies: It makes them money.  This is why studios like Paramount and Sony (whose biggest franchises are Transformers and Spider-Man respectively) are struggling to maintain relevancy.  While Sony hasn't lost money this year, it's not like they made a lot of money either.  They stayed alive through small budget hits like Miracles from Heaven, Sausage Party, and Don't Breathe.  Outside of Spider-Man, Sony's franchises currently consist of trying to remake some old property (Smurfs, Jumanji, Barbie) or trying to make some weirdly experimental film (Emoji Movie, Peter Rabbit, and the aforementioned Barbie movie).

Paramount has had a terrible year.  Outside of 5 of their franchise movies flopping (Star Trek Beyond, TMNT 2, Jack Reacher 2, Ben-Hur, and Zoolander 2), even their other movies aren't performing well financially.  Arrival should do well overall, but not absolutely fantastic.  13 Hours underperformed.  Florence Foster Jenkins failed to find an audience.  Allied is gonna lose money.  Ditto for Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.  Really, their only movies that went unscathed were Arrival and 10 Cloverfield Land (which is probably their only franchise that wasn't destroyed this year).  Fences and Silence should make some dough too, but hardly enough to counter for the their flops they had.  As for their current outlook on other franchises...well...they have two sequels to 15 year old movies coming up (xXx 3 and Rings).  As we all know, it worked so well for Zoolander 2.  They have God Particle, which luckily has the Cloverfield connection, so it could perform well. Monster Trucks already took a 115M write off from the studio.  Ghost in the Shell and Baywatch could be solid performers, although that's not 100% certain just yet.  Friday the 13th should be a low budget hit.  And that's really it...and Transformers 5.

Universal, Warner, Disney, and Fox all fare a lot better in the franchises department, and all can easily acquire new franchises if they want to in the form of adapting novels, hiring a visionary director for an original project, etc.  STX is also a solidly profitable new studio, and they're already trying to make Bad Moms a franchise (with most likely mixed results).  Lionsgate should live off of Oscar pictures for a while.  Open Road will probably continue to make mid range flicks.  And that's pretty much it.

I don't know, I felt like doing some kind of mini essay about the studios and their current financial situation.  I also somehow managed to type this on an iPhone.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: $+/\|_¡|\| on December 01, 2016, 11:14:55 pm
It's a real shame Star Trek Beyond flopped.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on December 02, 2016, 01:41:40 am
I'm a guy who likes to look at both sides of filmmaking from two different angles: Financially successful and quality filmmaking.  I can tell you exactly why studios make so many franchise movies: It makes them money.  This is why studios like Paramount and Sony (whose biggest franchises are Transformers and Spider-Man respectively) are struggling to maintain relevancy.

Yep. We've filled the theaters with stupid, lazy idiots, so it makes sense that all the films nowadays are stupid and lazy. The best way to solve this problem would be for everyone to stop seeing superhero movies in theaters immediately, as I have done. I can't wait to see Sony go belly-up...
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Crohn's Boy on December 02, 2016, 07:23:13 am
I'm a guy who likes to look at both sides of filmmaking from two different angles: Financially successful and quality filmmaking.  I can tell you exactly why studios make so many franchise movies: It makes them money.  This is why studios like Paramount and Sony (whose biggest franchises are Transformers and Spider-Man respectively) are struggling to maintain relevancy.

Yep. We've filled the theaters with stupid, lazy idiots, so it makes sense that all the films nowadays are stupid and lazy. The best way to solve this problem would be for everyone to stop seeing superhero movies in theaters immediately, as I have done. I can't wait to see Sony go belly-up...

The thing is, I'm fine with these franchise movies being made so long as they're good and they're about even or even less produced than the original movies being made. It doesn't have to mean I personally like it, but if it's critically well received, then hey, it seems most people like it (as an example, Avatar was very well received but I really didn't like it). But then every now and then, you'll get something like Batman v. Superman, Independence Day 2, etc. that just shows there's still quite a lot of bad franchise movies out there.  I'd say this is one of the worst years for blockbusters in recent memory, actually, both financially and critically.  The problem doesn't lie in these films being made for me, but rather their quality.  If they stop being good (which has happened way too much this year), then no one will like them and eventually, no one will see them, which could mean a financial disaster for the studio.  And yes, audiences aren't stupid anymore.  BvS had horrendous legs because no one liked it.  What I'm trying to say is studios basically need the franchises.  Without franchises, how can they fund smaller original flicks?

As for Sony seeing its downfall, I think it wouldn't so much fall as it would devolve into a mini major.  Paramount is more likely to have a downfall.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on February 23, 2017, 01:01:34 am
I've been posting these essays on Letterboxd (https://letterboxd.com/DiegoTut/lists/) recently. I'm actually getting some generally positive responses thus far, mostly in the form of upvotes. There's one Dom Cobb wannabe, but he's the same guy I went after a couple months back for disliking Seven Samurai, so it's probably more grudge-related than anything. Still, despite the fact that he's supposedly from Cambodia, (https://letterboxd.com/neomoviebuff/) he manages to have better spelling/grammar than Brendan Sullivan, which I suppose counts for something.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Robert Neville on February 23, 2017, 06:05:56 am
As for Sony seeing its downfall, I think it wouldn't so much fall as it would devolve into a mini major.  Paramount is more likely to have a downfall.

Given that their CEO resigned recently, this was quite prescient.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: PORG on February 23, 2017, 02:16:26 pm
I have red socks, and I also have blue socks.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Crohn's Boy on February 23, 2017, 05:18:02 pm
I have red socks, and I also have blue socks.

You might be pregnant now.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Flounder Prefers Browntown on February 23, 2017, 05:20:37 pm
I have red socks, and I also have blue socks.
You might be pregnant now.
I just ate a hot dog.

Speaking of hot dogs, was that line an unintentional reference to The Happening?
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on February 25, 2017, 04:06:10 am
Since I've started posting these on Letterboxd, I've increased my follower count by about 60%. There might be something here. Anyway, I just wrote this up now, and I tried to tone down the inside references and off-color jokes now that I'm publishing it elsewhere. Have a look if you're interested:



==Lesson #9: The Changing Face of the Blockbuster==

One of the most common pieces of feedback I get about these essays is that Marvel’s films, while stupid, aren’t any different from the blockbusters of the 1970s and 80s. This false equivalency is taken straight from the playbook of modern armchair critics, who have no knowledge of film history and compensate for it by referencing older films without giving context, or simply telling white lies about how similar superhero movies are to older blockbuster films. The truth is that Marvel’s movies have almost nothing in common with films like Jaws or Jurassic Park, and anyone who perpetuates that false narrative is committing a gross oversimplification. “Hey, they both use special effects and action to entertain their audiences-- they must be the same! Also, I think Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is just like 1950s sci-fi serials, despite the fact that I’ve never seen one!”

Before I get into this, let’s talk about something I’ve touched on before in these essays: Art from adversity. Many of the world’s greatest films-- and greatest works of art in general-- were born in the face of almost insurmountable challenges. Examples of this include the Sistine Chapel, the works of Vincent van Gogh, and Star Trek: The Original Series. When an artist or a storyteller has obstacles to overcome, it adds another layer of depth to their creative process. They can incorporate the obstacle into the story, come up with an ingenious method of working around it, or just channel that frustration into their work. Even better, they can recognize it as a flaw, understand that it can’t be fixed, and work to perfect other parts of the film (such as story, dialogue, and characters) in order to compensate for it.

In this lesson, I’m going to compare Marvel’s films to a movie that is the epitome of “art from adversity”-- the first Star Wars film.

(http://www.yourprops.com/movieprops/original/yp_51a29c682ffdb4.86867558/Star-Wars-A-New-Hope-Death-Star-Miniature-Section-2.jpg)

I’m sure everyone is at least moderately familiar with the story of how Star Wars was made. Construction crews worked for months in the Tunisian desert to build the sets. Props broke, robots had to be built, and models were constructed that required intricate, precise timing. It’s a story of perseverance unlike any other that has become ingrained in filmmaking lore. And in the forty years since then, neither the Star Wars prequels nor the Disney Wars films have been able to fully replicate the unique visual appeal of the Original Trilogy-- gritty yet clean, beautiful yet harsh, realistic yet still fantastical. This style of filmmaking gave room for mistakes and improvisations, and most importantly, it encouraged creativity.

Please take a moment to compare the above image to this one:

justviral.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/green-screen-avengers.jpg

Now, I have nothing against CGI. I know that the images in Marvel’s films are lovingly rendered and hand-crafted by thousands of artisans working tirelessly in front of computer screens to churn out one miserable load of crap after another. But CGI should be used sparingly, because when you create a film in a controlled environment, the result is almost invariably sterile. Try as they might, Marvel Studios has not yet figured out how to inject the real world into their empty green-screens. Their films are monochromatic-- even their “psychedelic” films such as Doctor Strange or Guardians of the Galaxy look as if they’re made of concrete. There is no unique visual style to any of the MCU films. They look like they came off of an assembly line... because essentially, they did.

From a storytelling standpoint, blockbusters like the MCU films are even lazier than they are visually. Marvel has their stories more or less planned out for them, because when they’ve run out of ideas, all they need to do is flip through a few of their old comics to get the conveyor belts rolling again. Their comic books can basically function as storyboards for their films, and there seems to be no limit to the obscure stories they can dredge up to make a quick buck. Compare this, if you will, to George Lucas, who agonized over the decisions he made in the original Star Wars and constructed a wholly original sci-fi franchise based only loosely on various, disparate sources. Compare it to any blockbuster from the 70s or 80s, and ask yourself if this methodical, corporate style of filmmaking is in any way similar to the way directors worked in the early days of blockbusters.

You know, there was a time when making a blockbuster was a huge risk. Going as far back as the big Hollywood epics like Ben-Hur, these projects were expensive, labor-intensive, and exceptionally risky for studios. George Lucas convinced himself that Star Wars would bomb (an early sign that he had no clue what audiences wanted) and fled to Hawaii during the first premieres. And although George Lucas would later turn into a fat, bitter old man forever associated with The Phantom Menace, for a time, he did challenge himself and take risks. Unlike the films he made sitting in a chair watching people hit one another with sticks in front of a greenscreen, the original Star Wars had a heart. Marvel's films, although technically part of the "blockbuster" category, take no risks whatsoever. In fact, the studio does everything it can to actively avoid risk. And this is why their films feel repetitious. Not because of any particular recycled plot points or nitpicks, but because they simply have no reason to bring in other artistic visions, different directorial styles, or visuals that diverge from their established formula.

But most importantly, Star Wars was not just Lucas’ brainchild. It was a convergence of many different creative visions. Lucas didn’t have complete creative control over any of the films in the Original Trilogy (thank God for that), and so he had to accept input from other people. I don’t see that happening with Marvel’s films at all-- even the directors themselves seem to play second fiddle to the whims and wishes of their studio overlords. This is why Joss Whedon, who has proven himself capable of creating quality entertainment, decided to stop directing Marvel films, saying he “Couldn’t imagine doing this again” after making the enormous turd that is Age of Ultron. This is also why Edgar Wright, a director who (love him or hate him) has a unique style of humor all to his own, quit Ant-Man over creative differences. Marvel is not interested in hiring people with their own artistic visions. They want someone to sit in a director’s chair and do exactly what they tell them to do.

In short, they want someone lazy.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Crohn's Boy on February 25, 2017, 08:02:18 am
You know what would be interesting?  Getting someone like, say, Denis Villeneuve or Damien Chazelle to direct a Marvel movie where they get full creative control.  I wonder how different the end result would be from their other movies.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Charles Longboat Jr. on February 25, 2017, 11:21:59 am
Getting someone like, say, Denis Villeneuve or Damien Chazelle to direct a Marvel movie where they get full creative control
(https://itsscottsthoughts.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/cage-laugh.gif?w=300&h=150)
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Crohn's Boy on February 25, 2017, 12:22:36 pm
Getting someone like, say, Denis Villeneuve or Damien Chazelle to direct a Marvel movie where they get full creative control
(https://itsscottsthoughts.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/cage-laugh.gif?w=300&h=150)

Am I saying it's plausible?  Of course not.  However, if it were to happen, I can only imagine the dramatic tonal shift between something like, say, Avengers 2 and whatever they decide to direct.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on February 25, 2017, 01:06:31 pm
Getting someone like, say, Denis Villeneuve or Damien Chazelle to direct a Marvel movie where they get full creative control
(https://itsscottsthoughts.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/cage-laugh.gif?w=300&h=150)

Am I saying it's plausible?  Of course not.  However, if it were to happen, I can only imagine the dramatic tonal shift between something like, say, Avengers 2 and whatever they decide to direct.

I don't know about full creative control, but the Raimi Spider-Man trilogy is a good example of what happens when a director beings his own perspective to a Marvel movie. Unsurprisingly, those are Marvel's best films.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Flounder Prefers Browntown on February 25, 2017, 02:22:29 pm
I don't know about full creative control, but the Raimi Spider-Man trilogy is a good example of what happens when a director beings his own perspective to a Marvel movie.
Actually, Sam Raimi had to deal with a lot of studio interference on Spider-Man 3. Some of his original ideas included Harry Osborn conflicted between killing Peter and avenging his father, Vulture being a villain opposite Sandman and being played by Ben Kingsley, and the butler being a figment of Harry's imagination. But no, the studio and the producers shat all over his vision. They forced him to scrap Vulture and replace him with Venom (a character Raimi hates, by the way) for fan service, make Harry a straight-up bad guy, toss Gwen Stacy and her father into the film also for fan service, and get rid of the figment of imagination thing.

One of the only contributions by Sam Raimi that was left untouched in the finished product was Uncle Ben being really killed by Sandman. Unfortunately, it was a terrible contribution.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on February 25, 2017, 02:43:04 pm
I don't know about full creative control, but the Raimi Spider-Man trilogy is a good example of what happens when a director beings his own perspective to a Marvel movie.
Actually, Sam Raimi had to deal with a lot of studio interference on Spider-Man 3. Some of his original ideas included Harry Osborn conflicted between killing Peter and avenging his father, Vulture being a villain opposite Sandman and being played by Ben Kingsley, and the butler being a figment of Harry's imagination. But no, the studio and the producers shat all over his vision. They forced him to scrap Vulture and replace him with Venom (a character Raimi hates, by the way) for fan service, make Harry a straight-up bad guy, toss Gwen Stacy and her father into the film also for fan service, and get rid of the figment of imagination thing.

One of the only contributions by Sam Raimi that was left untouched in the finished product was Uncle Ben being really killed by Sandman. Unfortunately, it was a terrible contribution.

I was more talking about the unique visual appeal of the films. Still though, did Raimi have to put up with more or less interference than, say, Peyton Reed with Ant-Man? The fact that I didn't even know the guy's name before googling it says a lot about how much of the movie was really "his."
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on February 28, 2017, 03:07:47 pm
I don't know about full creative control, but the Raimi Spider-Man trilogy is a good example of what happens when a director beings his own perspective to a Marvel movie.
Actually, Sam Raimi had to deal with a lot of studio interference on Spider-Man 3. Some of his original ideas included Harry Osborn conflicted between killing Peter and avenging his father, Vulture being a villain opposite Sandman and being played by Ben Kingsley, and the butler being a figment of Harry's imagination. But no, the studio and the producers shat all over his vision. They forced him to scrap Vulture and replace him with Venom (a character Raimi hates, by the way) for fan service, make Harry a straight-up bad guy, toss Gwen Stacy and her father into the film also for fan service, and get rid of the figment of imagination thing.

One of the only contributions by Sam Raimi that was left untouched in the finished product was Uncle Ben being really killed by Sandman. Unfortunately, it was a terrible contribution.

I was more talking about the unique visual appeal of the films. Still though, did Raimi have to put up with more or less interference than, say, Peyton Reed with Ant-Man? The fact that I didn't even know the guy's name before googling it says a lot about how much of the movie was really "his."

Y'know, the more I think about this, the more I realize that I could've added a whole other paragraph to this latest essay. I mean, people call the Raimi Spider-Man films "The Raimi Spider-Man films" for a reason-- they feel like his specific artistic vision, due partly to his visual style. Does anyone ever say "Marc Webb's Amazing Spider-Man 2?" No. All these other Marvel films are Sony's, or Disney's, or Disney's Marvel's Avengers: Age of Ultron. I think that says a lot.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Crohn's Boy on February 28, 2017, 05:12:05 pm
I don't know about full creative control, but the Raimi Spider-Man trilogy is a good example of what happens when a director beings his own perspective to a Marvel movie.
Actually, Sam Raimi had to deal with a lot of studio interference on Spider-Man 3. Some of his original ideas included Harry Osborn conflicted between killing Peter and avenging his father, Vulture being a villain opposite Sandman and being played by Ben Kingsley, and the butler being a figment of Harry's imagination. But no, the studio and the producers shat all over his vision. They forced him to scrap Vulture and replace him with Venom (a character Raimi hates, by the way) for fan service, make Harry a straight-up bad guy, toss Gwen Stacy and her father into the film also for fan service, and get rid of the figment of imagination thing.

One of the only contributions by Sam Raimi that was left untouched in the finished product was Uncle Ben being really killed by Sandman. Unfortunately, it was a terrible contribution.

I was more talking about the unique visual appeal of the films. Still though, did Raimi have to put up with more or less interference than, say, Peyton Reed with Ant-Man? The fact that I didn't even know the guy's name before googling it says a lot about how much of the movie was really "his."

Y'know, the more I think about this, the more I realize that I could've added a whole other paragraph to this latest essay. I mean, people call the Raimi Spider-Man films "The Raimi Spider-Man films" for a reason-- they feel like his specific artistic vision, due partly to his visual style. Does anyone ever say "Marc Webb's Amazing Spider-Man 2?" No. All these other Marvel films are Sony's, or Disney's, or Disney's Marvel's Avengers: Age of Ultron. I think that says a lot.

I think the only ones that I could say felt like they came from the director were Iron Man, Iron Man 3 (mainly due to its humor), The Winter Soldier, and Guardians of the Galaxy.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on February 28, 2017, 06:22:51 pm
I don't know about full creative control, but the Raimi Spider-Man trilogy is a good example of what happens when a director beings his own perspective to a Marvel movie.
Actually, Sam Raimi had to deal with a lot of studio interference on Spider-Man 3. Some of his original ideas included Harry Osborn conflicted between killing Peter and avenging his father, Vulture being a villain opposite Sandman and being played by Ben Kingsley, and the butler being a figment of Harry's imagination. But no, the studio and the producers shat all over his vision. They forced him to scrap Vulture and replace him with Venom (a character Raimi hates, by the way) for fan service, make Harry a straight-up bad guy, toss Gwen Stacy and her father into the film also for fan service, and get rid of the figment of imagination thing.

One of the only contributions by Sam Raimi that was left untouched in the finished product was Uncle Ben being really killed by Sandman. Unfortunately, it was a terrible contribution.

I was more talking about the unique visual appeal of the films. Still though, did Raimi have to put up with more or less interference than, say, Peyton Reed with Ant-Man? The fact that I didn't even know the guy's name before googling it says a lot about how much of the movie was really "his."

Y'know, the more I think about this, the more I realize that I could've added a whole other paragraph to this latest essay. I mean, people call the Raimi Spider-Man films "The Raimi Spider-Man films" for a reason-- they feel like his specific artistic vision, due partly to his visual style. Does anyone ever say "Marc Webb's Amazing Spider-Man 2?" No. All these other Marvel films are Sony's, or Disney's, or Disney's Marvel's Avengers: Age of Ultron. I think that says a lot.

I think the only ones that I could say felt like they came from the director were Iron Man, Iron Man 3 (mainly due to its humor), The Winter Soldier, and Guardians of the Galaxy.

Iron Man I'll agree on. It was made before Marvel was bought by Disney, so it narrowly escaped becoming a corporate assembly-line product. However, Iron Man 3 didn't seem all that different from typical Marvel movies to me, and I would never have guessed it had been directed by Shane Black. Though the jokes are there, it's still Marvel humor, not his particular style. The Winter Soldier... I don't even know who directed that. And I'm not all that familiar with James Gunn's other films (I only saw Slither), so I won't comment on him. Though I disagree that Guardians feels any different from any other random Marvel movie.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: cupcake on February 28, 2017, 06:32:52 pm
Logan also has James Mangold's 3:10 to Yuma western style.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: cupcake on February 28, 2017, 06:37:00 pm
Also, trash on him all y'all want, but at least Michael Bay has a distinctive filmmaking style. 
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on February 28, 2017, 06:45:30 pm
Logan also has James Mangold's 3:10 to Yuma western style.

Haven't seen it yet so I can't comment. Though I suppose the X-Men films by Moody's husband would fall into this category.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Frankie on February 28, 2017, 06:52:02 pm
The Legion TV show is so incredible thus far, and that's due to Hawley's involvement as the showrunner (the guy is in charge of the Fargo TV show).

It's the complete antithesis to what Marvel has accomplished so far in cinematic entertainment. No way would this have ever come to light if it was in any other channel other than FX (seriously, FX is just an awesome channel).
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Flounder Prefers Browntown on February 28, 2017, 07:00:24 pm
I don't know about full creative control, but the Raimi Spider-Man trilogy is a good example of what happens when a director beings his own perspective to a Marvel movie.
Actually, Sam Raimi had to deal with a lot of studio interference on Spider-Man 3. Some of his original ideas included Harry Osborn conflicted between killing Peter and avenging his father, Vulture being a villain opposite Sandman and being played by Ben Kingsley, and the butler being a figment of Harry's imagination. But no, the studio and the producers shat all over his vision. They forced him to scrap Vulture and replace him with Venom (a character Raimi hates, by the way) for fan service, make Harry a straight-up bad guy, toss Gwen Stacy and her father into the film also for fan service, and get rid of the figment of imagination thing.

One of the only contributions by Sam Raimi that was left untouched in the finished product was Uncle Ben being really killed by Sandman. Unfortunately, it was a terrible contribution.
Shockwave, how is this post "Dumb"?
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on February 28, 2017, 07:42:40 pm
The Legion TV show is so incredible thus far, and that's due to Hawley's involvement as the showrunner (the guy is in charge of the Fargo TV show).

It's the complete antithesis to what Marvel has accomplished so far in cinematic entertainment. No way would this have ever come to light if it was in any other channel other than FX (seriously, FX is just an awesome channel).

I hadn't even heard this existed until you brought it up. Is this related to that movie called Legion from like 2005 or something?
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Flounder Prefers Browntown on February 28, 2017, 07:43:45 pm
The Legion TV show is so incredible thus far, and that's due to Hawley's involvement as the showrunner (the guy is in charge of the Fargo TV show).

It's the complete antithesis to what Marvel has accomplished so far in cinematic entertainment. No way would this have ever come to light if it was in any other channel other than FX (seriously, FX is just an awesome channel).

I hadn't even heard this existed until you brought it up. Is this related to that movie called Legion from like 2005 or something?
No, it's based on an X-Men character but isn't related to any of the movies.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on March 02, 2017, 10:01:35 pm
Since Kong: Skull Island seems to be a topic of discussion around here right now, I worked it into this latest essay. Some of the material here is a reiteration of things we've discussed before, but I'll post it on Letterboxd at some point in order to spread our analyses to the masses.



Lesson #10: The Rise of the Armchair Critics

Up until now, I’ve mainly been focusing on Marvel’s stylistic choices-- humor, theme, characterization, visual style, etc. Now, however, I’m going to devote a couple installments to the critical and commercial response to these films, why they’re so successful, and why that success is detrimental for both the art of filmmaking and society as a whole.

We begin this two-part journey with the rise of the internet. It’s no coincidence that the increase in internet usage across America and around the globe is correlated with the slow demise of quality blockbuster filmmaking. I’m not mistaking correlation with causation here-- the internet didn’t kill big-budget films (not singlehandedly, anyway)-- but the two are indeed related. Because for every intelligent person in the early 21st century who found his or her way to the internet to discuss film, theater, art, or politics, there were ninety-nine others who came online without a shred of critical thinking or rational debate skills.

An exaggeration? Perhaps. Feel free to visit the YouTube comments section sometime if you’re ever in doubt.

But let’s not get too expansive here. We’re focusing solely on the impact of the internet on film culture. What we see around the time of blockbusters becoming unoriginal and lazy (2000-2016) is the gradual appearance of internet movie critics, mostly on YouTube, who know nothing about film history or filmmaking as an art form. They have no understanding of screenwriting or character development, yet they have gained massive followings due to the millions of fanboys who want their opinions validated by faux-professionals. And even worse, these “critics” often accept bribes from studios, typically in the form of early screening tickets or cheap gift bags, in exchange for dishonest, overwhelmingly positive reviews. They get free stuff and the ability to release an early review, while the studios get good press. It’s a sick and twisted symbiotic relationship.

(I would like to take this opportunity to note that yes, I do understand the irony of an internet critic like myself saying that internet critics are a bunch of hacks. Perhaps when I have 910,000 followers on social media, you can accuse me of perpetuating this system of inexcusably bad film criticism. However, I would also add that I will never reach that kind of cult following, mainly because I trash the movies that these people adore.)

The vast majority of these channels are run either by Disney shills or dullards who praise every film they see as “cool,” “loyal to the source material,” or “awesometacular.” The most egregious example is ColliderVideos, a panel discussion channel that responds to every movie and upcoming project with a lemming-like consensus of enthusiasm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqLc3Hit_Fo

See what I mean? The first five minutes of this video encompasses everything there is to hate about these fake critics. Where to begin? Firstly, ‘trailer breakdowns’ in and of themselves are idiotic, because there is nothing enlightening or informative to say about the trailer other than “I thought it made the movie look cool” or “I didn’t like it.” Then there’s the cringeworthy fanboy yes-man who says “It showed a lot of cool fight scenes and it was awesome(tacular)!” And of course, there’s the misleading and inaccurate comparison to an older movie (in this case, Apocalypse Now) in order to justify their mindless positive responses AND simultaneously make it seem like they actually know something about film history. What a clever bunch of narcissistic hacks.

These internet personalities are everywhere, and as someone who loves talking about movies online, I constantly find myself exposed to their material. People whose opinions I actually respect will ask me “Who do you like more, Chris Stuckmann or Jeremy Jahns?” Whenever I go on YouTube, I’ll invariably see a WatchMojo.com video recommended to me on the sidebar. And every time a new superhero movie comes out, YouTube’s main page is inundated with reviews by Grace Randolph, the Schmoes, and those atrocious Screen Junkies creatures. Then there’s the Nostalgia Critic, who might actually be the most obnoxious person on the internet-- a significant achievement. They are all worthy of derision and contempt.

If the impact of these witless, circlejerking morons was confined only to the internet, maybe we would come out of this sorry chapter in film history relatively unscathed. But with the slow demise of print media, more and more people are turning to unprofessional, unintelligent “critics” for all their movie-reviewing needs. As a reward, they get their opinions validated, bringing them into an echo chamber of Marvel fans, Star Wars geeks, and consumerist dullards. They begin to think that everyone likes these films-- even real critics-- and that people who disagree are stuck-up snobs. They send them death threats, label them enemies of “fun,” and petition to have their websites shut down. Make no mistake, the culture of movie criticism can be every bit as divisive as American politics. The rise of the armchair critics has absolutely ruined any chance of widespread intelligent film discussion the internet may have once had.

“But Diego,” you say. “Despite all your complaints, these movies still receive critical acclaim. Why do actual film critics still hand out positive reviews to Marvel’s films if they’re objectively lazy?” Well, it’s a fair question, and there’s no single answer. Some people seem to think that Disney bribes critics-- a big accusation, and a mostly baseless one. Although studios have been caught paying for reviews before (not naming any names (http://eskipaper.com/images/sony-logo-1.jpg)), this kind of illicit activity would have to be very expansive to account for the kind of acclaim Marvel receives on sites like Rotten Tomatoes. Though this may explain some of the critical response to certain films (again, not naming names (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/32/Ghostbusters_2016_film_poster.png)), I think something far worse is happening.

It’s simple capitalism. There’s a market for movie criticism out there, because there is still a demand-- people like to discuss movies and hear other people’s thoughts on them. Professional critics know this, but they also know that they’re losing their readership to people like Jeremy Jahns and Chris Stuckmann, who provide all the wonders of movie criticism without such pesky things as “different opinions” and “actual film analysis.” And so, in an attempt to avoid alienating their readers, they have chosen to heap praise upon some of the worst films ever made-- Age of Ultron, Thor, Deadpool, and all the rest of Marvel’s ghoulish output. Even films like Man of Steel, which are so terrible they almost cease to fit the definition of “movie,” manage to get middling-to-positive reviews from critics.

Critics-- people who studied film, write about movies professionally, and know something about cinema as an art form-- actually praised Man of Steel. Let that sink in. Once you realize that, you have to come to terms with the knowledge that some of these reviewers (maybe even most of them) are not being completely honest in their opinions. There is no other conclusion to draw.

... Unless we’ve reached the point where even the critics have become too brainwashed to tell a Rogue One apart from an Edge of Tomorrow. In which case... God help us all.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: cupcake on July 21, 2017, 04:02:22 pm
Since Kong: Skull Island seems to be a topic of discussion around here right now, I worked it into this latest essay. Some of the material here is a reiteration of things we've discussed before, but I'll post it on Letterboxd at some point in order to spread our analyses to the masses.



Lesson #10: The Rise of the Armchair Critics

Up until now, I’ve mainly been focusing on Marvel’s stylistic choices-- humor, theme, characterization, visual style, etc. Now, however, I’m going to devote a couple installments to the critical and commercial response to these films, why they’re so successful, and why that success is detrimental for both the art of filmmaking and society as a whole.

We begin this two-part journey with the rise of the internet. It’s no coincidence that the increase in internet usage across America and around the globe is correlated with the slow demise of quality blockbuster filmmaking. I’m not mistaking correlation with causation here-- the internet didn’t kill big-budget films (not singlehandedly, anyway)-- but the two are indeed related. Because for every intelligent person in the early 21st century who found his or her way to the internet to discuss film, theater, art, or politics, there were ninety-nine others who came online without a shred of critical thinking or rational debate skills.

An exaggeration? Perhaps. Feel free to visit the YouTube comments section sometime if you’re ever in doubt.

But let’s not get too expansive here. We’re focusing solely on the impact of the internet on film culture. What we see around the time of blockbusters becoming unoriginal and lazy (2000-2016) is the gradual appearance of internet movie critics, mostly on YouTube, who know nothing about film history or filmmaking as an art form. They have no understanding of screenwriting or character development, yet they have gained massive followings due to the millions of fanboys who want their opinions validated by faux-professionals. And even worse, these “critics” often accept bribes from studios, typically in the form of early screening tickets or cheap gift bags, in exchange for dishonest, overwhelmingly positive reviews. They get free stuff and the ability to release an early review, while the studios get good press. It’s a sick and twisted symbiotic relationship.

(I would like to take this opportunity to note that yes, I do understand the irony of an internet critic like myself saying that internet critics are a bunch of hacks. Perhaps when I have 910,000 followers on social media, you can accuse me of perpetuating this system of inexcusably bad film criticism. However, I would also add that I will never reach that kind of cult following, mainly because I trash the movies that these people adore.)

The vast majority of these channels are run either by Disney shills or dullards who praise every film they see as “cool,” “loyal to the source material,” or “awesometacular.” The most egregious example is ColliderVideos, a panel discussion channel that responds to every movie and upcoming project with a lemming-like consensus of enthusiasm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqLc3Hit_Fo

See what I mean? The first five minutes of this video encompasses everything there is to hate about these fake critics. Where to begin? Firstly, ‘trailer breakdowns’ in and of themselves are idiotic, because there is nothing enlightening or informative to say about the trailer other than “I thought it made the movie look cool” or “I didn’t like it.” Then there’s the cringeworthy fanboy yes-man who says “It showed a lot of cool fight scenes and it was awesome(tacular)!” And of course, there’s the misleading and inaccurate comparison to an older movie (in this case, Apocalypse Now) in order to justify their mindless positive responses AND simultaneously make it seem like they actually know something about film history. What a clever bunch of narcissistic hacks.

These internet personalities are everywhere, and as someone who loves talking about movies online, I constantly find myself exposed to their material. People whose opinions I actually respect will ask me “Who do you like more, Chris Stuckmann or Jeremy Jahns?” Whenever I go on YouTube, I’ll invariably see a WatchMojo.com video recommended to me on the sidebar. And every time a new superhero movie comes out, YouTube’s main page is inundated with reviews by Grace Randolph, the Schmoes, and those atrocious Screen Junkies creatures. Then there’s the Nostalgia Critic, who might actually be the most obnoxious person on the internet-- a significant achievement. They are all worthy of derision and contempt.

If the impact of these witless, circlejerking morons was confined only to the internet, maybe we would come out of this sorry chapter in film history relatively unscathed. But with the slow demise of print media, more and more people are turning to unprofessional, unintelligent “critics” for all their movie-reviewing needs. As a reward, they get their opinions validated, bringing them into an echo chamber of Marvel fans, Star Wars geeks, and consumerist dullards. They begin to think that everyone likes these films-- even real critics-- and that people who disagree are stuck-up snobs. They send them death threats, label them enemies of “fun,” and petition to have their websites shut down. Make no mistake, the culture of movie criticism can be every bit as divisive as American politics. The rise of the armchair critics has absolutely ruined any chance of widespread intelligent film discussion the internet may have once had.

“But Diego,” you say. “Despite all your complaints, these movies still receive critical acclaim. Why do actual film critics still hand out positive reviews to Marvel’s films if they’re objectively lazy?” Well, it’s a fair question, and there’s no single answer. Some people seem to think that Disney bribes critics-- a big accusation, and a mostly baseless one. Although studios have been caught paying for reviews before (not naming any names (http://eskipaper.com/images/sony-logo-1.jpg)), this kind of illicit activity would have to be very expansive to account for the kind of acclaim Marvel receives on sites like Rotten Tomatoes. Though this may explain some of the critical response to certain films (again, not naming names (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/32/Ghostbusters_2016_film_poster.png)), I think something far worse is happening.

It’s simple capitalism. There’s a market for movie criticism out there, because there is still a demand-- people like to discuss movies and hear other people’s thoughts on them. Professional critics know this, but they also know that they’re losing their readership to people like Jeremy Jahns and Chris Stuckmann, who provide all the wonders of movie criticism without such pesky things as “different opinions” and “actual film analysis.” And so, in an attempt to avoid alienating their readers, they have chosen to heap praise upon some of the worst films ever made-- Age of Ultron, Thor, Deadpool, and all the rest of Marvel’s ghoulish output. Even films like The-Film-That-Must-Not-Be-Named, which are so terrible they almost cease to fit the definition of “movie,” manage to get middling-to-positive reviews from critics.

Critics-- people who studied film, write about movies professionally, and know something about cinema as an art form-- actually praised The-Film-That-Must-Not-Be-Named. Let that sink in. Once you realize that, you have to come to terms with the knowledge that some of these reviewers (maybe even most of them) are not being completely honest in their opinions. There is no other conclusion to draw.

... Unless we’ve reached the point where even the critics have become too brainwashed to tell a Rogue One apart from an Edge of Tomorrow. In which case... God help us all.

But who is better?  Jahns or Stuckmann?
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Charles Longboat Jr. on December 14, 2017, 09:03:11 pm
The first company I would break up would be Wal-Mart. The second would be Disney.

Disney isn’t a monopoly yet. There are still some things they don’t own (Transformers, DC Comics, and Harry Potter, to name a few). But just give them time. They shall consume every aspect of pop culture before long.
It only took them a year after this post to get there.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on December 14, 2017, 10:16:38 pm
The first company I would break up would be Wal-Mart. The second would be Disney.

Disney isn’t a monopoly yet. There are still some things they don’t own (Transformers, DC Comics, and Harry Potter, to name a few). But just give them time. They shall consume every aspect of pop culture before long.
It only took them a year after this post to get there.

I think we're overdue for another installment in this series. Not to toot my own horn, but some of this was highly prescient.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: ChillinDylan Godsend on April 21, 2018, 12:33:40 pm
I missed all of this.  There is some interesting stuff in here.  While I try to evaluate each MCU movie as a separate entity, it is undeniable that they recycle the same formula over and over again.  However, there are distinctions between films.  When talking about acting, I would submit that Iron Man 3 may have the best single acting job with Robert Downey Jr.  When talking about humor, some (like GOTG) is very sharp and witty while others (Avengers, Thor 2) is clunky, ill-timed, and wooden.  This universe of films spreads out fairly evenly on my grade scale - so, while there are common style and devices within all of them, how they are written, timed, and delivered vary throughout.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on April 21, 2018, 03:02:21 pm
I missed all of this.  There is some interesting stuff in here.  While I try to evaluate each MCU movie as a separate entity, it is undeniable that they recycle the same formula over and over again.  However, there are distinctions between films.  When talking about acting, I would submit that Iron Man 3 may have the best single acting job with Robert Downey Jr.  When talking about humor, some (like GOTG) is very sharp and witty while others (Avengers, Thor 2) is clunky, ill-timed, and wooden.  This universe of films spreads out fairly evenly on my grade scale - so, while there are common style and devices within all of them, how they are written, timed, and delivered vary throughout.

Have you read the essays yet? If not, I'd recommend installments 1, 4, 7, 8, and 10. The rest aren't as good. I honestly think I blew my wad on Part 1; it's arguably the biggest complaint I have about these films (and the most universally applicable).

I'll agree that the quality of the acting is wildly different in some of the films, and so is the humor at some points. However, I'd say the issues I raised in those particular five installments are fairly universal across the series, perhaps excluding the first Iron Man film. I won't get into GOTG 2, but I found it to be on the level of Pixels in terms of humor (this might be good for a new installment). Once I laid out the description of the Humor of Juxtaposition, I started seeing it everywhere, and it frustrates me to no end.

I've also just noticed that I have a new installment on Letterboxd that I did not post here...

------------------------------------------



Lesson #11: The Cultural Tyranny of Fan Service

In the tenth installment of this series, I discussed the effect that Marvel movies have had on the profession of film critiquing. My thesis was that critics, due to the sudden advent of the internet and the simultaneous decline of print media, have been forced to censor their own opinions for fear of alienating readers. Instead of acting as a check on the powers of the studios, they are kowtowing to the basest desires of the audiences, offering only token resistance to the unstoppable onslaught of franchise films. They are no longer safeguarding the interests of moviegoers and artists against the laziness of soulless corporate products. In short, the system is not functioning the way it should.

Yet while critics are certainly complicit in the gradual dumbing-down of mainstream film culture, none of this would be happening if it weren’t for the fans. Despite everything I’ve written in these essays, millions of people still go to see these films. I find that hard to wrap my mind around. Remember how shocked people were when upwards of sixty million voters cast ballots for Donald Trump? That’s how I feel every time a new Marvel movie is released.

Speaking of The Donald... the last few years have been characterized by a backlash against the “elites,” culminating in the events of 2016, from Brexit to the election of President Trump. What we tend to forget is that this mentality isn’t limited solely to politics. When it comes to film discussion these days, the label “critic” is tossed around like a dirty word. Whenever a new DC movie bombs (about every six months or so), DC fans are quick to say that the critics have “lost touch” with the “average moviegoer.” And woe to the unfortunate critic who dares to speak out against these films, because they might receive death threats from hateful fanboys who want their websites taken down. I’m surprised they aren’t chanting “Lock Him Up” in the comment sections of Anthony Lane’s reviews.

Who are these people? Where do they come from? Well, in my admittedly limited experience with these communities (which call themselves “fandoms”), I’ve found that a passion for the source material is only a part of their motivation. What they really seem to seek is belonging and companionship-- a sense of community that their day-to-day lives may not be giving them. This may sound condescending, but I assure you that it’s completely in line with the interactions I’ve had with Marvel fans on the internet. They are generally young men, between the ages of 14 and 30, who use their forums as an outlet for their complaints about critics and “snobs”-- as well as their inability to attract women. The lack of self-awareness they display is routinely astounding.

These individuals feel the need to define themselves through group membership, and so they seek these communities out. Once there, the echo chamber effect takes over, and they begin to think that their views are socially acceptable and should be voiced as often and as loudly as possible. This also leaves them open to subtle manipulation by the corporate powers that be-- it’s no secret that before the release of The Force Awakens, Disney paid dozens of websites to run articles praising the Star Wars prequels in an effort to revive the least lucrative part of their new property. Since then, I’ve noticed quite a few prequel-praising contests going on in comment sections across the internet, perpetuating themselves in a worldwide chain reaction. It’s as if these people are literally competing with one another to see who can have the worst taste.

This is not unlike the way “fake news” has propagated throughout partisan websites, from The Huffington Post and Tumblr on the far left to Breitbart and 4Chan on the far right. Rather than bring people with opposing views together to discuss politics and film, the internet seems to have naturally separated them into camps-- camps which are then systematically targeted by corporate interests whose only motivation is to get clicks and likes. These groups see one another as enemies, and direct their own unique brands of vitriolic language at anyone who points out the fact that they’re being duped. With the alt-left and alt-right, it’s “racist” and “cuck.” With critics and fanboys, it’s “neckbeard” and “hipster.”

(https://i.imgur.com/vcrnUb1.png)

A major difference, however, is that while the alt-left and alt-right are somewhat evenly matched, the ratio of fanboys to those with higher standards for film is completely disproportionate. If things were a little more equal, perhaps I wouldn’t be writing this essay right now. But the fanboys have all but drowned out the last voices of reasoned criticism and rational debate on the internet. In lieu of reasonable arguments, they typically use one of the following three ludicrous claims.

1) Citing box office numbers as an indicator of quality. Oh boy. Sounds ridiculous, right? But trust me, this happens more often than you’d think. Not only is this a bandwagon fallacy, but this argument is skewed against R-rated films, and will always reward movies that perform well in the Chinese market (Transformers 4, anyone?). So isn’t it interesting that this metric ends up holding movies about giant robots in such high regard, yet dismisses films like The Hateful Eight completely? Could this be because it didn’t get released in China? No, that couldn’t possibly be it.

2) Citing critical response as an indicator of quality. “Well, the critics liked it, so you’re in the minority.” Um... okay? You mean the critics who you send death threats to if they dislike a Nolan movie? You mean the critics whose jobs are increasingly unstable due to the oversaturation of the market by idiots like Chris Stuckmann and have to compensate accordingly? You mean the exact same critics who you direct passionate, violent gibberish at whenever a DC movie tanks, yet praise up and down whenever they “get it right?” Ah. Those critics. I see. How convenient that whenever the critics agree with you, they’re experts, yet whenever they disagree, they “just hate fun.” Which brings me to the last (and arguably worst) of the three...

3)“Movies are just supposed to be fun.” Aside from relying on a completely subjective definition of the word “fun,” this argument makes the inane assertion that movies are “supposed” to be anything. Sorry, but no director has the responsibility to entertain you with constant explosions and quippy dialogue, like dangling a shiny object in front of a cat. What is fun? Is it sitting in an air-conditioned theater eating popcorn while watching CGI fight scenes fly by? If so, count me out. “Fun” sounds horribly boring.

As always, these things wouldn’t irk me so much if the films in question were being made for niche audiences, and if their effect were significantly diminished. But fandoms have become a loud and vocal minority-- not a week goes by without a franchise film cycling to the top of the box office. These movies aim to please passionate fanboys, yes, but at the same time, they’re carefully constructed to appeal to mass audiences. Like a radical religious group, the fandoms have inflicted their vision upon the rest of us, and what we’re left with is a barren wasteland where movie theaters are closing down and superhero films crush all competition. I’m sick of it.

These people have no standards whatsoever. You would think that if they truly cared about the source material, they would direct their passionate diatribes at things like Star Trek Into Darkness, the Hobbit trilogy, Man of Steel, and Rogue One. You’d be wrong, though-- it really doesn’t matter how much these franchise films pervert their source material, so long as they’re released under the umbrella of something familiar. Of all the many crimes fandoms have perpetrated, the most egregious is valuing branding over substance. A new Hobbit movie? Here’s my money! Superheroes fighting each other? Here’s my money!

Every ticket sold by Avengers: Age of Ultron sent a message, however small. It encouraged audiences and critics to lower their standards, and it encouraged studios to wrest more control away from the actual artists involved in these products-- er-- projects. Moviegoers everywhere are living under the influence of rabid fanboys who now have immense control over the film industry, simply because their favorite franchises are being adapted to the big screen. Do you really think they'll be pushing for more dialogue-driven scenes, more complex characters, and actual messages in their movies? That's a laugh. No, it's far more likely that, in an effort to fit in with their chosen groups, these fans will heap approval upon every installment in their favorite franchises, no matter how dismal. They will denounce dissenters as "enemies of fun" and "hipsters," and will publicly shame critics who do not conform.

They will do all of this... because they are insane.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: ChillinDylan Godsend on April 21, 2018, 03:24:20 pm
I missed all of this.  There is some interesting stuff in here.  While I try to evaluate each MCU movie as a separate entity, it is undeniable that they recycle the same formula over and over again.  However, there are distinctions between films.  When talking about acting, I would submit that Iron Man 3 may have the best single acting job with Robert Downey Jr.  When talking about humor, some (like GOTG) is very sharp and witty while others (Avengers, Thor 2) is clunky, ill-timed, and wooden.  This universe of films spreads out fairly evenly on my grade scale - so, while there are common style and devices within all of them, how they are written, timed, and delivered vary throughout.

Have you read the essays yet? If not, I'd recommend installments 1, 4, 7, 8, and 10. The rest aren't as good. I honestly think I blew my wad on Part 1; it's arguably the biggest complaint I have about these films (and the most universally applicable).

I'll agree that the quality of the acting is wildly different in some of the films, and so is the humor at some points. However, I'd say the issues I raised in those particular five installments are fairly universal across the series, perhaps excluding the first Iron Man film. I won't get into GOTG 2, but I found it to be on the level of Pixels in terms of humor (this might be good for a new installment). Once I laid out the description of the Humor of Juxtaposition, I started seeing it everywhere, and it frustrates me to no end.


I skimmed the essays - that's why I resurrected this thread.  There's a lot of good stuff in those.  I actually quite enjoyed GOTG 2 - I didn't find it in any way similar to Pixels in terms of humor.  I thought there were a lot of really funny moments between Drax/Mantis, the Rocket/Baby Groot bomb scene, Rocket bagging on Taserface, Baby Groot bringing the different/wrong items to the jail, etc.  I thought all of those were well done.  I also thought there were a couple of poorly timed/executed comedic moments - like Peter turning into Pac-Man and the whole "fruit not ripe" deal.  From my vantage point, the humor in Avengers and Thor 2 was much, much worse.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Robert Neville on April 21, 2018, 04:10:10 pm
I remember the time you wrote a Quora answer in response to a Black Panther question stating the main thing Marvel fans watch them for is explosions. When I looked at your profile recently, it wasn't there. Just how bad was the backlash?
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on April 21, 2018, 04:14:36 pm
I remember the time you wrote a Quora answer in response to a Black Panther question stating the main thing Marvel fans watch them for is explosions. When I looked at your profile recently, it wasn't there. Just how bad was the backlash?

I vaguely remember that. But as I'm sure you know, I never delete anything due to backlash-- I delete things because they don't provoke enough of a backlash. I think that question was dying down when I wrote that answer, so it got a measly five upvotes and I dumped it.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Robert Neville on April 21, 2018, 04:35:04 pm
I remember the time you wrote a Quora answer in response to a Black Panther question stating the main thing Marvel fans watch them for is explosions. When I looked at your profile recently, it wasn't there. Just how bad was the backlash?

I vaguely remember that. But as I'm sure you know, I never delete anything due to backlash-- I delete things because they don't provoke enough of a backlash. I think that question was dying down when I wrote that answer, so it got a measly five upvotes and I dumped it.

My first thought was actually that it got collapsed into oblivion. Though, now I remember collapsed answers are still visible normally on profiles, unless you downvoted them personally.

Did you try commenting on the more popular answers, though? That can often lead to more attention than writing one's own, especially if your answer won't be a long one anyway. (Quora automatically gives more weight to longer answers with more images, and this can sometimes even override more upvoted answers, and/or answers from those with much greater "PeopleRank".)
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on April 21, 2018, 04:54:02 pm
I remember the time you wrote a Quora answer in response to a Black Panther question stating the main thing Marvel fans watch them for is explosions. When I looked at your profile recently, it wasn't there. Just how bad was the backlash?

I vaguely remember that. But as I'm sure you know, I never delete anything due to backlash-- I delete things because they don't provoke enough of a backlash. I think that question was dying down when I wrote that answer, so it got a measly five upvotes and I dumped it.

My first thought was actually that it got collapsed into oblivion. Though, now I remember collapsed answers are still visible normally on profiles, unless you downvoted them personally.

Did you try commenting on the more popular answers, though? That can often lead to more attention than writing one's own, especially if your answer won't be a long one anyway. (Quora automatically gives more weight to longer answers with more images, and this can sometimes even override more upvoted answers, and/or answers from those with much greater "PeopleRank".)

See, if I start posting my anti-Marvel rants as answers on there, I'll keep getting Marvel-related content on my feed. I'm fine to do movie discussion elsewhere and keep Quora reserved for politics. I've gotten a sizable following and a lot of upvotes for my political answers, and next week I'm going to start using the site more frequently to push my nutty worldview.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Charles Longboat Jr. on April 21, 2018, 05:50:39 pm
Nice work, Diego. It’s likely been discussed by other people on various sites but maybe one of your essays could be on the superficiality of corporate diversity (in regards to Disney, potentially) and how these blockbusters are the only things people actually care about when they refer to meaningful on-screen diversity. You could probably plug in how people suddenly have the idea that Wonder Woman and Black Panther are Oscar worthy just because they broke boundaries in their field and because they made a ton of money (or the 2016 Ghostbusters reboot).

It wouldn’t be condemning diversity, as that’s not inherently a bad goal,  but it would be criticizing the climate that fast food cinema has created where people are too lazy to seek out foreign films, indie films from diverse creative minds, or films starring the diverse actors that they’d want to see in other films (e.g. Where was the audience that turned up for Civil War/Black Panther for Chadwick Boseman when his Thurgood Marshall biopic could only muster a $10 million gross?). It’s a shame when films that are subtly diverse like Annihilation are overlooked because corporate giants need to publicize how stuff like their Wrinkle in Time adaptation is “the movie America needs right now”.

Another point (that may be somewhat tangential or superfluous) is that this whole cultural trend of “kids being able to see themselves onscreen” indirectly projects the message that physically similar people are the only things people can resonate with (or that real life figures are inferior as role models) which I think runs counter to the concept of actually compelling characters, whose struggles and traits should speak universal volumes regardless of physical characteristics. That may be the goal of this cinematic diversity movement but they’re certainly not telegraphing it that way from what I’ve seen.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: ChillinDylan Godsend on April 21, 2018, 06:42:38 pm
I remember the time you wrote a Quora answer in response to a Black Panther question stating the main thing Marvel fans watch them for is explosions. When I looked at your profile recently, it wasn't there. Just how bad was the backlash?

I vaguely remember that. But as I'm sure you know, I never delete anything due to backlash-- I delete things because they don't provoke enough of a backlash. I think that question was dying down when I wrote that answer, so it got a measly five upvotes and I dumped it.

Were you called a racist in all 5?  Seeing as how you mentioned Black Panther without slobbering all over it, I'd expect that to be the response.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: ChillinDylan Godsend on April 21, 2018, 06:44:30 pm
I remember the time you wrote a Quora answer in response to a Black Panther question stating the main thing Marvel fans watch them for is explosions. When I looked at your profile recently, it wasn't there. Just how bad was the backlash?

I vaguely remember that. But as I'm sure you know, I never delete anything due to backlash-- I delete things because they don't provoke enough of a backlash. I think that question was dying down when I wrote that answer, so it got a measly five upvotes and I dumped it.

My first thought was actually that it got collapsed into oblivion. Though, now I remember collapsed answers are still visible normally on profiles, unless you downvoted them personally.

Did you try commenting on the more popular answers, though? That can often lead to more attention than writing one's own, especially if your answer won't be a long one anyway. (Quora automatically gives more weight to longer answers with more images, and this can sometimes even override more upvoted answers, and/or answers from those with much greater "PeopleRank".)

See, if I start posting my anti-Marvel rants as answers on there, I'll keep getting Marvel-related content on my feed. I'm fine to do movie discussion elsewhere and keep Quora reserved for politics. I've gotten a sizable following and a lot of upvotes for my political answers, and next week I'm going to start using the site more frequently to push my nutty worldview.

End every post with MoS SUCKS!!!
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on April 21, 2018, 07:09:51 pm
Nice work, Diego. It’s likely been discussed by other people on various sites but maybe one of your essays could be on the superficiality of corporate diversity (in regards to Disney, potentially) and how these blockbusters are the only things people actually care about when they refer to meaningful on-screen diversity. You could probably plug in how people suddenly have the idea that Wonder Woman and Black Panther are Oscar worthy just because they broke boundaries in their field and because they made a ton of money (or the 2016 Ghostbusters reboot).

It wouldn’t be condemning diversity, as that’s not inherently a bad goal,  but it would be criticizing the climate that fast food cinema has created where people are too lazy to seek out foreign films, indie films from diverse creative minds, or films starring the diverse actors that they’d want to see in other films (e.g. Where was the audience that turned up for Civil War/Black Panther for Chadwick Boseman when his Thurgood Marshall biopic could only muster a $10 million gross?). It’s a shame when films that are subtly diverse like Annihilation are overlooked because corporate giants need to publicize how stuff like their Wrinkle in Time adaptation is “the movie America needs right now”.

Another point (that may be somewhat tangential or superfluous) is that this whole cultural trend of “kids being able to see themselves onscreen” indirectly projects the message that physically similar people are the only things people can resonate with (or that real life figures are inferior as role models) which I think runs counter to the concept of actually compelling characters, whose struggles and traits should speak universal volumes regardless of physical characteristics. That may be the goal of this cinematic diversity movement but they’re certainly not telegraphing it that way from what I’ve seen.

I have three more installments in the works. One is about how superhero films encourage authoritarianism (putting one's trust and life in the hands of a powerful superman). The second is about drawing parallels between the postmodern "deconstruction" of other art forms such as painting and sculpture and the compartmentalization of taste we're seeing in film. The third is going to cover this exact subject, but I need to actually see Black Panther before I start writing it.

You're absolutely right though; this bogus corporate activism is physically sickening to me. It's being perpetuated by a group of developmentally stunted millennial women who hate capitalism but love Disney princesses (and see no contradiction there). Adult men and women alike are being encouraged to embrace their inner man-baby, and the infantilization of their entertainment parallels their childish political beliefs. Meanwhile, as you say, America's kids are being slowly conditioned to look at themselves and see only a list of racial and political classifications rather than individuals capable of unique opinions, skills, and original thought. This is being encouraged by the aforementioned wannabe Marxists who control sites like Buzzfeed, and spend their time talking about little kids needing to see people who look like them in the media.

It's insidious, and when I write that installment, I'll likely get quite a blowback on Letterboxd.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on April 21, 2018, 07:13:29 pm
I remember the time you wrote a Quora answer in response to a Black Panther question stating the main thing Marvel fans watch them for is explosions. When I looked at your profile recently, it wasn't there. Just how bad was the backlash?

I vaguely remember that. But as I'm sure you know, I never delete anything due to backlash-- I delete things because they don't provoke enough of a backlash. I think that question was dying down when I wrote that answer, so it got a measly five upvotes and I dumped it.

Were you called a racist in all 5?  Seeing as how you mentioned Black Panther without slobbering all over it, I'd expect that to be the response.

No, I don't recall receiving any comments-- just an overall tepid response. That's not to say I haven't gotten backlash on Quora before, though. My answer regarding Oprah's potential presidential candidacy (https://www.quora.com/After-her-fantastic-speech-at-the-Golden-Globes-do-you-think-Oprah-would-make-a-good-US-President/answer/Graham-Vert) was met with accusations of racism and sexism alike. Still, it received 1,500 upvotes and remains the highest-voted answer to that question (out of well over a hundred responses), cementing my belief that Quora is one of the last bastions of sanity on the internet.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: ChillinDylan Godsend on April 21, 2018, 07:15:08 pm
Meanwhile, as you say, America's kids are being slowly conditioned to look at themselves and see only a list of racial and political classifications

Don't forget gender and sexual classifications - those are being hammered by millennials as much as anything...
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: ChillinDylan Godsend on April 21, 2018, 07:26:44 pm
I remember the time you wrote a Quora answer in response to a Black Panther question stating the main thing Marvel fans watch them for is explosions. When I looked at your profile recently, it wasn't there. Just how bad was the backlash?

I vaguely remember that. But as I'm sure you know, I never delete anything due to backlash-- I delete things because they don't provoke enough of a backlash. I think that question was dying down when I wrote that answer, so it got a measly five upvotes and I dumped it.

Were you called a racist in all 5?  Seeing as how you mentioned Black Panther without slobbering all over it, I'd expect that to be the response.

No, I don't recall receiving any comments-- just an overall tepid response. That's not to say I haven't gotten backlash on Quora before, though. My answer regarding Oprah's potential presidential candidacy (https://www.quora.com/After-her-fantastic-speech-at-the-Golden-Globes-do-you-think-Oprah-would-make-a-good-US-President/answer/Graham-Vert) was met with accusations of racism and sexism alike. Still, it received 1,500 upvotes and remains the highest-voted answer to that question (out of well over a hundred responses), cementing my belief that Quora is one of the last bastions of sanity on the internet.

Seems like most of these comments are completely on your side.  Maybe I didn't scroll down far enough.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on April 21, 2018, 07:29:12 pm
I remember the time you wrote a Quora answer in response to a Black Panther question stating the main thing Marvel fans watch them for is explosions. When I looked at your profile recently, it wasn't there. Just how bad was the backlash?

I vaguely remember that. But as I'm sure you know, I never delete anything due to backlash-- I delete things because they don't provoke enough of a backlash. I think that question was dying down when I wrote that answer, so it got a measly five upvotes and I dumped it.

Were you called a racist in all 5?  Seeing as how you mentioned Black Panther without slobbering all over it, I'd expect that to be the response.

No, I don't recall receiving any comments-- just an overall tepid response. That's not to say I haven't gotten backlash on Quora before, though. My answer regarding Oprah's potential presidential candidacy (https://www.quora.com/After-her-fantastic-speech-at-the-Golden-Globes-do-you-think-Oprah-would-make-a-good-US-President/answer/Graham-Vert) was met with accusations of racism and sexism alike. Still, it received 1,500 upvotes and remains the highest-voted answer to that question (out of well over a hundred responses), cementing my belief that Quora is one of the last bastions of sanity on the internet.

Seems like most of these comments are completely on your side.  Maybe I didn't scroll down far enough.

Yeah, another thing I like about Quora-- they collapse heavily downvoted comments waaaaaaay at the bottom of the chain.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: ChillinDylan Godsend on April 21, 2018, 07:32:12 pm
I remember the time you wrote a Quora answer in response to a Black Panther question stating the main thing Marvel fans watch them for is explosions. When I looked at your profile recently, it wasn't there. Just how bad was the backlash?

I vaguely remember that. But as I'm sure you know, I never delete anything due to backlash-- I delete things because they don't provoke enough of a backlash. I think that question was dying down when I wrote that answer, so it got a measly five upvotes and I dumped it.

Were you called a racist in all 5?  Seeing as how you mentioned Black Panther without slobbering all over it, I'd expect that to be the response.

No, I don't recall receiving any comments-- just an overall tepid response. That's not to say I haven't gotten backlash on Quora before, though. My answer regarding Oprah's potential presidential candidacy (https://www.quora.com/After-her-fantastic-speech-at-the-Golden-Globes-do-you-think-Oprah-would-make-a-good-US-President/answer/Graham-Vert) was met with accusations of racism and sexism alike. Still, it received 1,500 upvotes and remains the highest-voted answer to that question (out of well over a hundred responses), cementing my belief that Quora is one of the last bastions of sanity on the internet.

Seems like most of these comments are completely on your side.  Maybe I didn't scroll down far enough.

Yeah, another thing I like about Quora-- they collapse heavily downvoted comments waaaaaaay at the bottom of the chain.

I actually have a tough time working Quora sometimes - the link to view the comments or other answers isn't as clear as someone my age would like it to be...but that's an interesting sort order for stacking the answers.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: ChillinDylan Godsend on April 22, 2018, 06:24:50 pm
I remember the time you wrote a Quora answer in response to a Black Panther question stating the main thing Marvel fans watch them for is explosions. When I looked at your profile recently, it wasn't there. Just how bad was the backlash?

I vaguely remember that. But as I'm sure you know, I never delete anything due to backlash-- I delete things because they don't provoke enough of a backlash. I think that question was dying down when I wrote that answer, so it got a measly five upvotes and I dumped it.

My first thought was actually that it got collapsed into oblivion. Though, now I remember collapsed answers are still visible normally on profiles, unless you downvoted them personally.

Did you try commenting on the more popular answers, though? That can often lead to more attention than writing one's own, especially if your answer won't be a long one anyway. (Quora automatically gives more weight to longer answers with more images, and this can sometimes even override more upvoted answers, and/or answers from those with much greater "PeopleRank".)

See, if I start posting my anti-Marvel rants as answers on there, I'll keep getting Marvel-related content on my feed. I'm fine to do movie discussion elsewhere and keep Quora reserved for politics. I've gotten a sizable following and a lot of upvotes for my political answers, and next week I'm going to start using the site more frequently to push my nutty worldview.

Well, in a week or so there may be a lot of responses to MCU stuff like this...
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: ChillinDylan Godsend on April 23, 2018, 12:45:14 pm
Bumping
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: ChillinDylan Godsend on April 23, 2018, 03:37:38 pm
Nice work, Diego. It’s likely been discussed by other people on various sites but maybe one of your essays could be on the superficiality of corporate diversity (in regards to Disney, potentially) and how these blockbusters are the only things people actually care about when they refer to meaningful on-screen diversity. You could probably plug in how people suddenly have the idea that Wonder Woman and Black Panther are Oscar worthy just because they broke boundaries in their field and because they made a ton of money (or the 2016 Ghostbusters reboot).

It wouldn’t be condemning diversity, as that’s not inherently a bad goal,  but it would be criticizing the climate that fast food cinema has created where people are too lazy to seek out foreign films, indie films from diverse creative minds, or films starring the diverse actors that they’d want to see in other films (e.g. Where was the audience that turned up for Civil War/Black Panther for Chadwick Boseman when his Thurgood Marshall biopic could only muster a $10 million gross?). It’s a shame when films that are subtly diverse like Annihilation are overlooked because corporate giants need to publicize how stuff like their Wrinkle in Time adaptation is “the movie America needs right now”.

Another point (that may be somewhat tangential or superfluous) is that this whole cultural trend of “kids being able to see themselves onscreen” indirectly projects the message that physically similar people are the only things people can resonate with (or that real life figures are inferior as role models) which I think runs counter to the concept of actually compelling characters, whose struggles and traits should speak universal volumes regardless of physical characteristics. That may be the goal of this cinematic diversity movement but they’re certainly not telegraphing it that way from what I’ve seen.

I have three more installments in the works. One is about how superhero films encourage authoritarianism (putting one's trust and life in the hands of a powerful superman). The second is about drawing parallels between the postmodern "deconstruction" of other art forms such as painting and sculpture and the compartmentalization of taste we're seeing in film. The third is going to cover this exact subject, but I need to actually see Black Panther before I start writing it.

You're absolutely right though; this bogus corporate activism is physically sickening to me. It's being perpetuated by a group of developmentally stunted millennial women who hate capitalism but love Disney princesses (and see no contradiction there). Adult men and women alike are being encouraged to embrace their inner man-baby, and the infantilization of their entertainment parallels their childish political beliefs. Meanwhile, as you say, America's kids are being slowly conditioned to look at themselves and see only a list of racial and political classifications rather than individuals capable of unique opinions, skills, and original thought. This is being encouraged by the aforementioned wannabe Marxists who control sites like Buzzfeed, and spend their time talking about little kids needing to see people who look like them in the media.

It's insidious, and when I write that installment, I'll likely get quite a blowback on Letterboxd.

Three more?  That's a lot of reading.......
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on April 23, 2018, 05:06:51 pm
Three more?  That's a lot of reading.......

Hopefully they'll be worth everyone's time. I'll try to get caught up on these soon, but I've got a lot of work to do for the next month or so.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: ChillinDylan Godsend on April 23, 2018, 05:38:14 pm
Three more?  That's a lot of reading.......

Hopefully they'll be worth everyone's time. I'll try to get caught up on these soon, but I've got a lot of work to do for the next month or so.

Stuff for your internship?
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on April 23, 2018, 08:46:27 pm
Three more?  That's a lot of reading.......

Hopefully they'll be worth everyone's time. I'll try to get caught up on these soon, but I've got a lot of work to do for the next month or so.

Stuff for your internship?

That plus three enormous final essays. I also might be getting some big news soon. But I won't jinx it.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: ChillinDylan Godsend on April 23, 2018, 10:10:51 pm
Three more?  That's a lot of reading.......

Hopefully they'll be worth everyone's time. I'll try to get caught up on these soon, but I've got a lot of work to do for the next month or so.

Stuff for your internship?

That plus three enormous final essays. I also might be getting some big news soon. But I won't jinx it.

Good idea.  Good luck on the finals - I always hated finals week.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Robert Neville on May 23, 2018, 01:40:09 pm
I remember the time you wrote a Quora answer in response to a Black Panther question stating the main thing Marvel fans watch them for is explosions. When I looked at your profile recently, it wasn't there. Just how bad was the backlash?

I vaguely remember that. But as I'm sure you know, I never delete anything due to backlash-- I delete things because they don't provoke enough of a backlash. I think that question was dying down when I wrote that answer, so it got a measly five upvotes and I dumped it.

Does your latest answer count as well? It got so much of a response yesterday I didn't have time to read it all at the time. Today, I refresh, and I get this:

(https://i.imgur.com/xZcoWZ1.png)
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on May 23, 2018, 05:36:11 pm

Does your latest answer count as well? It got so much of a response yesterday I didn't have time to read it all at the time. Today, I refresh, and I get this:

Actually, I deleted that because I realized it could jeopardize my internship at that congressional office. Can't go around online telling Trump supporters they're retards when you're working in government, even if it's in a very minor capacity.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: ChillinDylan Godsend on May 23, 2018, 07:09:32 pm

Does your latest answer count as well? It got so much of a response yesterday I didn't have time to read it all at the time. Today, I refresh, and I get this:

Actually, I deleted that because I realized it could jeopardize my internship at that congressional office. Can't go around online telling Trump supporters they're retards when you're working in government, even if it's in a very minor capacity.

Why not?  Hillary did...
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on May 23, 2018, 08:01:56 pm

Does your latest answer count as well? It got so much of a response yesterday I didn't have time to read it all at the time. Today, I refresh, and I get this:

Actually, I deleted that because I realized it could jeopardize my internship at that congressional office. Can't go around online telling Trump supporters they're retards when you're working in government, even if it's in a very minor capacity.

Why not?  Hillary did...

And she's not working in government anymore...
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: ChillinDylan Godsend on May 23, 2018, 11:46:49 pm

Does your latest answer count as well? It got so much of a response yesterday I didn't have time to read it all at the time. Today, I refresh, and I get this:

Actually, I deleted that because I realized it could jeopardize my internship at that congressional office. Can't go around online telling Trump supporters they're retards when you're working in government, even if it's in a very minor capacity.

Why not?  Hillary did...

And she's not working in government anymore...

She sure acts like it - campaigning all over, passing blame to everyone but herself, and not doing any government work - it's a very governmentesque life she's living.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on May 24, 2018, 12:00:42 am

Does your latest answer count as well? It got so much of a response yesterday I didn't have time to read it all at the time. Today, I refresh, and I get this:

Actually, I deleted that because I realized it could jeopardize my internship at that congressional office. Can't go around online telling Trump supporters they're retards when you're working in government, even if it's in a very minor capacity.

Why not?  Hillary did...

And she's not working in government anymore...

She sure acts like it - campaigning all over, passing blame to everyone but herself, and not doing any government work - it's a very governmentesque life she's living.

I don't think any other presidential candidate in history has disappeared off the face of the Earth as quickly as she has. The only people who still bring her up these days are Trump supporters.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: ChillinDylan Godsend on May 24, 2018, 10:07:02 am

Does your latest answer count as well? It got so much of a response yesterday I didn't have time to read it all at the time. Today, I refresh, and I get this:

Actually, I deleted that because I realized it could jeopardize my internship at that congressional office. Can't go around online telling Trump supporters they're retards when you're working in government, even if it's in a very minor capacity.

Why not?  Hillary did...

And she's not working in government anymore...

She sure acts like it - campaigning all over, passing blame to everyone but herself, and not doing any government work - it's a very governmentesque life she's living.

 The only people who still bring her up these days are Trump supporters.

(https://media1.tenor.com/images/c1779cc711eec61ef3cd322d569e005f/tenor.gif?itemid=8486419)

Ummm...all from liberal sites in the past few days...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/23/politics/hillary-clinton-endorses-andrew-cuomo-new-york-democrats/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/21/us/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-midterms.html

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/21/politics/hillary-clinton-democracy-crisis/index.html

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-trump-russian-hat_us_5b0275ffe4b07309e05a02c9

Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on May 24, 2018, 11:55:34 am

Does your latest answer count as well? It got so much of a response yesterday I didn't have time to read it all at the time. Today, I refresh, and I get this:

Actually, I deleted that because I realized it could jeopardize my internship at that congressional office. Can't go around online telling Trump supporters they're retards when you're working in government, even if it's in a very minor capacity.

Why not?  Hillary did...

And she's not working in government anymore...

She sure acts like it - campaigning all over, passing blame to everyone but herself, and not doing any government work - it's a very governmentesque life she's living.

 The only people who still bring her up these days are Trump supporters.

(https://media1.tenor.com/images/c1779cc711eec61ef3cd322d569e005f/tenor.gif?itemid=8486419)

Ummm...all from liberal sites in the past few days...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/23/politics/hillary-clinton-endorses-andrew-cuomo-new-york-democrats/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/21/us/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-midterms.html

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/21/politics/hillary-clinton-democracy-crisis/index.html

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-trump-russian-hat_us_5b0275ffe4b07309e05a02c9



One of those is about her endorsing Cuomo against a retarded actress. Everyone else in the establishment has done the same. The second one literally says "The couple has been largely absent from the 2018 midterm campaigns," as if to prove my point.

The other two are about the exact same story.

Clinton is still news because people want to hear about her. But the people who want to hear about her aren't Democrats. They're Trumpeters who are still beating that dead horse.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: ChillinDylan Godsend on May 24, 2018, 07:20:05 pm

Does your latest answer count as well? It got so much of a response yesterday I didn't have time to read it all at the time. Today, I refresh, and I get this:

Actually, I deleted that because I realized it could jeopardize my internship at that congressional office. Can't go around online telling Trump supporters they're retards when you're working in government, even if it's in a very minor capacity.

Why not?  Hillary did...

And she's not working in government anymore...

She sure acts like it - campaigning all over, passing blame to everyone but herself, and not doing any government work - it's a very governmentesque life she's living.

 The only people who still bring her up these days are Trump supporters.

(https://media1.tenor.com/images/c1779cc711eec61ef3cd322d569e005f/tenor.gif?itemid=8486419)

Ummm...all from liberal sites in the past few days...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/23/politics/hillary-clinton-endorses-andrew-cuomo-new-york-democrats/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/21/us/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-midterms.html

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/21/politics/hillary-clinton-democracy-crisis/index.html

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-trump-russian-hat_us_5b0275ffe4b07309e05a02c9



One of those is about her endorsing Cuomo against a retarded actress. Everyone else in the establishment has done the same. The second one literally says "The couple has been largely absent from the 2018 midterm campaigns," as if to prove my point.

The other two are about the exact same story.

Clinton is still news because people want to hear about her. But the people who want to hear about her aren't Democrats. They're Trumpeters who are still beating that dead horse.

Again, these are LIBERAL sites writing articles about her.  Being the exact same story, but 2 liberal sites posting them, is still to my point.  You said "The only people who still bring her up these days are Trump supporters."  And these are literally liberal sites constantly "bringing her up".

Here's more:

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/05/24/hillary-clinton-2018-election-endorsements/

https://www.inc.com/eric-mack/hillary-clinton-just-gave-master-classes-in-both-emotional-intelligence-trolling-in-a-single-speech.html

She continues to put herself in the spotlight because she has NO interest in going away.  And the liberal sites (and often the conservative sites) post story after story about her.  So to say only Trump supporters have interest in her is at best misleading and at worst completely false.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on May 24, 2018, 08:12:40 pm

Does your latest answer count as well? It got so much of a response yesterday I didn't have time to read it all at the time. Today, I refresh, and I get this:

Actually, I deleted that because I realized it could jeopardize my internship at that congressional office. Can't go around online telling Trump supporters they're retards when you're working in government, even if it's in a very minor capacity.

Why not?  Hillary did...

And she's not working in government anymore...

She sure acts like it - campaigning all over, passing blame to everyone but herself, and not doing any government work - it's a very governmentesque life she's living.

 The only people who still bring her up these days are Trump supporters.

(https://media1.tenor.com/images/c1779cc711eec61ef3cd322d569e005f/tenor.gif?itemid=8486419)

Ummm...all from liberal sites in the past few days...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/23/politics/hillary-clinton-endorses-andrew-cuomo-new-york-democrats/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/21/us/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-midterms.html

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/21/politics/hillary-clinton-democracy-crisis/index.html

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-trump-russian-hat_us_5b0275ffe4b07309e05a02c9



One of those is about her endorsing Cuomo against a retarded actress. Everyone else in the establishment has done the same. The second one literally says "The couple has been largely absent from the 2018 midterm campaigns," as if to prove my point.

The other two are about the exact same story.

Clinton is still news because people want to hear about her. But the people who want to hear about her aren't Democrats. They're Trumpeters who are still beating that dead horse.

Again, these are LIBERAL sites writing articles about her.  Being the exact same story, but 2 liberal sites posting them, is still to my point.  You said "The only people who still bring her up these days are Trump supporters."  And these are literally liberal sites constantly "bringing her up".

Here's more:

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/05/24/hillary-clinton-2018-election-endorsements/

https://www.inc.com/eric-mack/hillary-clinton-just-gave-master-classes-in-both-emotional-intelligence-trolling-in-a-single-speech.html

She continues to put herself in the spotlight because she has NO interest in going away.  And the liberal sites (and often the conservative sites) post story after story about her.  So to say only Trump supporters have interest in her is at best misleading and at worst completely false.

I guess I just don't know what you expected of a former presidential candidate. You would have to go back decades before you found a candidate who vanished the way she did. She's given a few speeches, but she holds no official capacity in any way. Her current title is that of "key person" at this thing, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onward_Together) which is hardly an influential position.

You do realize that her political career is done, right? Goldwater, Dukakis, McCain, and Romney-- hell, even Mondale-- all continued to hold various offices after their defeats. If Clinton is elected dog catcher somewhere in 2020, I'll take the L on this one (as Paasche would say).
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: ChillinDylan Godsend on May 24, 2018, 09:11:55 pm

Does your latest answer count as well? It got so much of a response yesterday I didn't have time to read it all at the time. Today, I refresh, and I get this:

Actually, I deleted that because I realized it could jeopardize my internship at that congressional office. Can't go around online telling Trump supporters they're retards when you're working in government, even if it's in a very minor capacity.

Why not?  Hillary did...

And she's not working in government anymore...

She sure acts like it - campaigning all over, passing blame to everyone but herself, and not doing any government work - it's a very governmentesque life she's living.

 The only people who still bring her up these days are Trump supporters.

(https://media1.tenor.com/images/c1779cc711eec61ef3cd322d569e005f/tenor.gif?itemid=8486419)

Ummm...all from liberal sites in the past few days...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/23/politics/hillary-clinton-endorses-andrew-cuomo-new-york-democrats/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/21/us/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-midterms.html

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/21/politics/hillary-clinton-democracy-crisis/index.html

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-trump-russian-hat_us_5b0275ffe4b07309e05a02c9



One of those is about her endorsing Cuomo against a retarded actress. Everyone else in the establishment has done the same. The second one literally says "The couple has been largely absent from the 2018 midterm campaigns," as if to prove my point.

The other two are about the exact same story.

Clinton is still news because people want to hear about her. But the people who want to hear about her aren't Democrats. They're Trumpeters who are still beating that dead horse.

Again, these are LIBERAL sites writing articles about her.  Being the exact same story, but 2 liberal sites posting them, is still to my point.  You said "The only people who still bring her up these days are Trump supporters."  And these are literally liberal sites constantly "bringing her up".

Here's more:

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/05/24/hillary-clinton-2018-election-endorsements/

https://www.inc.com/eric-mack/hillary-clinton-just-gave-master-classes-in-both-emotional-intelligence-trolling-in-a-single-speech.html

She continues to put herself in the spotlight because she has NO interest in going away.  And the liberal sites (and often the conservative sites) post story after story about her.  So to say only Trump supporters have interest in her is at best misleading and at worst completely false.

I guess I just don't know what you expected of a former presidential candidate. You would have to go back decades before you found a candidate who vanished the way she did. She's given a few speeches, but she holds no official capacity in any way. Her current title is that of "key person" at this thing, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onward_Together) which is hardly an influential position.

You do realize that her political career is done, right? Goldwater, Dukakis, McCain, and Romney-- hell, even Mondale-- all continued to hold various offices after their defeats. If Clinton is elected dog catcher somewhere in 2020, I'll take the L on this one (as Paasche would say).

I do think her political career is done - most likely.  Though I still think she holds out hope to "get back in the game" despite what she says.  I would say that Walter Mondale disappeared more quickly though - he was gone in a flash whereas Clinton still lingers around (as she's about to start "helping" the Dems in the midterms).  He resurfaced years later, but after that '84 election he just fell off the map.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Kale Pasta on May 25, 2018, 09:50:57 am

Does your latest answer count as well? It got so much of a response yesterday I didn't have time to read it all at the time. Today, I refresh, and I get this:

Actually, I deleted that because I realized it could jeopardize my internship at that congressional office. Can't go around online telling Trump supporters they're retards when you're working in government, even if it's in a very minor capacity.

Why not?  Hillary did...

And she's not working in government anymore...

She sure acts like it - campaigning all over, passing blame to everyone but herself, and not doing any government work - it's a very governmentesque life she's living.

 The only people who still bring her up these days are Trump supporters.

(https://media1.tenor.com/images/c1779cc711eec61ef3cd322d569e005f/tenor.gif?itemid=8486419)

Ummm...all from liberal sites in the past few days...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/23/politics/hillary-clinton-endorses-andrew-cuomo-new-york-democrats/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/21/us/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-midterms.html

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/21/politics/hillary-clinton-democracy-crisis/index.html

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-trump-russian-hat_us_5b0275ffe4b07309e05a02c9



One of those is about her endorsing Cuomo against a retarded actress. Everyone else in the establishment has done the same. The second one literally says "The couple has been largely absent from the 2018 midterm campaigns," as if to prove my point.

The other two are about the exact same story.

Clinton is still news because people want to hear about her. But the people who want to hear about her aren't Democrats. They're Trumpeters who are still beating that dead horse.

Again, these are LIBERAL sites writing articles about her.  Being the exact same story, but 2 liberal sites posting them, is still to my point.  You said "The only people who still bring her up these days are Trump supporters."  And these are literally liberal sites constantly "bringing her up".

Here's more:

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/05/24/hillary-clinton-2018-election-endorsements/

https://www.inc.com/eric-mack/hillary-clinton-just-gave-master-classes-in-both-emotional-intelligence-trolling-in-a-single-speech.html

She continues to put herself in the spotlight because she has NO interest in going away.  And the liberal sites (and often the conservative sites) post story after story about her.  So to say only Trump supporters have interest in her is at best misleading and at worst completely false.

I guess I just don't know what you expected of a former presidential candidate. You would have to go back decades before you found a candidate who vanished the way she did. She's given a few speeches, but she holds no official capacity in any way. Her current title is that of "key person" at this thing, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onward_Together) which is hardly an influential position.

You do realize that her political career is done, right? Goldwater, Dukakis, McCain, and Romney-- hell, even Mondale-- all continued to hold various offices after their defeats. If Clinton is elected dog catcher somewhere in 2020, I'll take the L on this one (as Paasche would say).

I do think her political career is done - most likely.  Though I still think she holds out hope to "get back in the game" despite what she says.  I would say that Walter Mondale disappeared more quickly though - he was gone in a flash whereas Clinton still lingers around (as she's about to start "helping" the Dems in the midterms).  He resurfaced years later, but after that '84 election he just fell off the map.
I think there's a bit of a difference there in that Mondale got absolutely blown out by Reagan that election, whereas Hillary was really close to beating Trump. Anyway, I think Diego's point isn't so much on media focus as it is on the fact that she stepped way back after losing; she holds basically no positions, appears to have no intention of running for anything, etc.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: ChillinDylan Godsend on May 25, 2018, 11:13:17 pm

Does your latest answer count as well? It got so much of a response yesterday I didn't have time to read it all at the time. Today, I refresh, and I get this:

Actually, I deleted that because I realized it could jeopardize my internship at that congressional office. Can't go around online telling Trump supporters they're retards when you're working in government, even if it's in a very minor capacity.

Why not?  Hillary did...

And she's not working in government anymore...

She sure acts like it - campaigning all over, passing blame to everyone but herself, and not doing any government work - it's a very governmentesque life she's living.

 The only people who still bring her up these days are Trump supporters.

(https://media1.tenor.com/images/c1779cc711eec61ef3cd322d569e005f/tenor.gif?itemid=8486419)

Ummm...all from liberal sites in the past few days...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/23/politics/hillary-clinton-endorses-andrew-cuomo-new-york-democrats/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/21/us/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-midterms.html

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/21/politics/hillary-clinton-democracy-crisis/index.html

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-trump-russian-hat_us_5b0275ffe4b07309e05a02c9



One of those is about her endorsing Cuomo against a retarded actress. Everyone else in the establishment has done the same. The second one literally says "The couple has been largely absent from the 2018 midterm campaigns," as if to prove my point.

The other two are about the exact same story.

Clinton is still news because people want to hear about her. But the people who want to hear about her aren't Democrats. They're Trumpeters who are still beating that dead horse.

Again, these are LIBERAL sites writing articles about her.  Being the exact same story, but 2 liberal sites posting them, is still to my point.  You said "The only people who still bring her up these days are Trump supporters."  And these are literally liberal sites constantly "bringing her up".

Here's more:

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/05/24/hillary-clinton-2018-election-endorsements/

https://www.inc.com/eric-mack/hillary-clinton-just-gave-master-classes-in-both-emotional-intelligence-trolling-in-a-single-speech.html

She continues to put herself in the spotlight because she has NO interest in going away.  And the liberal sites (and often the conservative sites) post story after story about her.  So to say only Trump supporters have interest in her is at best misleading and at worst completely false.

I guess I just don't know what you expected of a former presidential candidate. You would have to go back decades before you found a candidate who vanished the way she did. She's given a few speeches, but she holds no official capacity in any way. Her current title is that of "key person" at this thing, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onward_Together) which is hardly an influential position.

You do realize that her political career is done, right? Goldwater, Dukakis, McCain, and Romney-- hell, even Mondale-- all continued to hold various offices after their defeats. If Clinton is elected dog catcher somewhere in 2020, I'll take the L on this one (as Paasche would say).

I do think her political career is done - most likely.  Though I still think she holds out hope to "get back in the game" despite what she says.  I would say that Walter Mondale disappeared more quickly though - he was gone in a flash whereas Clinton still lingers around (as she's about to start "helping" the Dems in the midterms).  He resurfaced years later, but after that '84 election he just fell off the map.
I think there's a bit of a difference there in that Mondale got absolutely blown out by Reagan that election, whereas Hillary was really close to beating Trump. Anyway, I think Diego's point isn't so much on media focus as it is on the fact that she stepped way back after losing; she holds basically no positions, appears to have no intention of running for anything, etc.

That's not what we were discussing though.  We were just talking about presidential candidates that lost - the margin of defeat wasn't pertinent.  And my point was that Mondale immediately disappeared completely whereas Hillary is still lingering around and we get something new from her every day.  I mean, this is just from a few hours ago and on Yahoo home page.  She hasn't gone away at all - she's just not holding any political position - but she very much still has her hands in all of this.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clinton-honored-medal-harvard-040430834.html

Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Kale Pasta on May 28, 2018, 02:29:02 pm

Does your latest answer count as well? It got so much of a response yesterday I didn't have time to read it all at the time. Today, I refresh, and I get this:

Actually, I deleted that because I realized it could jeopardize my internship at that congressional office. Can't go around online telling Trump supporters they're retards when you're working in government, even if it's in a very minor capacity.

Why not?  Hillary did...

And she's not working in government anymore...

She sure acts like it - campaigning all over, passing blame to everyone but herself, and not doing any government work - it's a very governmentesque life she's living.

 The only people who still bring her up these days are Trump supporters.

(https://media1.tenor.com/images/c1779cc711eec61ef3cd322d569e005f/tenor.gif?itemid=8486419)

Ummm...all from liberal sites in the past few days...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/23/politics/hillary-clinton-endorses-andrew-cuomo-new-york-democrats/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/21/us/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-midterms.html

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/21/politics/hillary-clinton-democracy-crisis/index.html

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-trump-russian-hat_us_5b0275ffe4b07309e05a02c9



One of those is about her endorsing Cuomo against a retarded actress. Everyone else in the establishment has done the same. The second one literally says "The couple has been largely absent from the 2018 midterm campaigns," as if to prove my point.

The other two are about the exact same story.

Clinton is still news because people want to hear about her. But the people who want to hear about her aren't Democrats. They're Trumpeters who are still beating that dead horse.

Again, these are LIBERAL sites writing articles about her.  Being the exact same story, but 2 liberal sites posting them, is still to my point.  You said "The only people who still bring her up these days are Trump supporters."  And these are literally liberal sites constantly "bringing her up".

Here's more:

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/05/24/hillary-clinton-2018-election-endorsements/

https://www.inc.com/eric-mack/hillary-clinton-just-gave-master-classes-in-both-emotional-intelligence-trolling-in-a-single-speech.html

She continues to put herself in the spotlight because she has NO interest in going away.  And the liberal sites (and often the conservative sites) post story after story about her.  So to say only Trump supporters have interest in her is at best misleading and at worst completely false.

I guess I just don't know what you expected of a former presidential candidate. You would have to go back decades before you found a candidate who vanished the way she did. She's given a few speeches, but she holds no official capacity in any way. Her current title is that of "key person" at this thing, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onward_Together) which is hardly an influential position.

You do realize that her political career is done, right? Goldwater, Dukakis, McCain, and Romney-- hell, even Mondale-- all continued to hold various offices after their defeats. If Clinton is elected dog catcher somewhere in 2020, I'll take the L on this one (as Paasche would say).

I do think her political career is done - most likely.  Though I still think she holds out hope to "get back in the game" despite what she says.  I would say that Walter Mondale disappeared more quickly though - he was gone in a flash whereas Clinton still lingers around (as she's about to start "helping" the Dems in the midterms).  He resurfaced years later, but after that '84 election he just fell off the map.
I think there's a bit of a difference there in that Mondale got absolutely blown out by Reagan that election, whereas Hillary was really close to beating Trump. Anyway, I think Diego's point isn't so much on media focus as it is on the fact that she stepped way back after losing; she holds basically no positions, appears to have no intention of running for anything, etc.

That's not what we were discussing though.  We were just talking about presidential candidates that lost - the margin of defeat wasn't pertinent.  And my point was that Mondale immediately disappeared completely whereas Hillary is still lingering around and we get something new from her every day.  I mean, this is just from a few hours ago and on Yahoo home page.  She hasn't gone away at all - she's just not holding any political position - but she very much still has her hands in all of this.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clinton-honored-medal-harvard-040430834.html
I mean, I also mentioned two candidates who lost. I'm just saying that the margin of victory is pertinent. As for Mondale completely disappearing whereas Hillary has stayed in the public eye a little bit, I'd say that's entirely due to them being from different eras and the prevalence of the internet. Furthermore, as I alluded to before, Hillary Clinton herself has stepped way back (ie. not running for office or anything). Media attention is irrelevant to that.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: ChillinDylan Godsend on May 28, 2018, 07:58:07 pm

Does your latest answer count as well? It got so much of a response yesterday I didn't have time to read it all at the time. Today, I refresh, and I get this:

Actually, I deleted that because I realized it could jeopardize my internship at that congressional office. Can't go around online telling Trump supporters they're retards when you're working in government, even if it's in a very minor capacity.

Why not?  Hillary did...

And she's not working in government anymore...

She sure acts like it - campaigning all over, passing blame to everyone but herself, and not doing any government work - it's a very governmentesque life she's living.

 The only people who still bring her up these days are Trump supporters.

(https://media1.tenor.com/images/c1779cc711eec61ef3cd322d569e005f/tenor.gif?itemid=8486419)

Ummm...all from liberal sites in the past few days...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/23/politics/hillary-clinton-endorses-andrew-cuomo-new-york-democrats/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/21/us/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-midterms.html

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/21/politics/hillary-clinton-democracy-crisis/index.html

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-trump-russian-hat_us_5b0275ffe4b07309e05a02c9



One of those is about her endorsing Cuomo against a retarded actress. Everyone else in the establishment has done the same. The second one literally says "The couple has been largely absent from the 2018 midterm campaigns," as if to prove my point.

The other two are about the exact same story.

Clinton is still news because people want to hear about her. But the people who want to hear about her aren't Democrats. They're Trumpeters who are still beating that dead horse.

Again, these are LIBERAL sites writing articles about her.  Being the exact same story, but 2 liberal sites posting them, is still to my point.  You said "The only people who still bring her up these days are Trump supporters."  And these are literally liberal sites constantly "bringing her up".

Here's more:

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/05/24/hillary-clinton-2018-election-endorsements/

https://www.inc.com/eric-mack/hillary-clinton-just-gave-master-classes-in-both-emotional-intelligence-trolling-in-a-single-speech.html

She continues to put herself in the spotlight because she has NO interest in going away.  And the liberal sites (and often the conservative sites) post story after story about her.  So to say only Trump supporters have interest in her is at best misleading and at worst completely false.

I guess I just don't know what you expected of a former presidential candidate. You would have to go back decades before you found a candidate who vanished the way she did. She's given a few speeches, but she holds no official capacity in any way. Her current title is that of "key person" at this thing, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onward_Together) which is hardly an influential position.

You do realize that her political career is done, right? Goldwater, Dukakis, McCain, and Romney-- hell, even Mondale-- all continued to hold various offices after their defeats. If Clinton is elected dog catcher somewhere in 2020, I'll take the L on this one (as Paasche would say).

I do think her political career is done - most likely.  Though I still think she holds out hope to "get back in the game" despite what she says.  I would say that Walter Mondale disappeared more quickly though - he was gone in a flash whereas Clinton still lingers around (as she's about to start "helping" the Dems in the midterms).  He resurfaced years later, but after that '84 election he just fell off the map.
I think there's a bit of a difference there in that Mondale got absolutely blown out by Reagan that election, whereas Hillary was really close to beating Trump. Anyway, I think Diego's point isn't so much on media focus as it is on the fact that she stepped way back after losing; she holds basically no positions, appears to have no intention of running for anything, etc.

That's not what we were discussing though.  We were just talking about presidential candidates that lost - the margin of defeat wasn't pertinent.  And my point was that Mondale immediately disappeared completely whereas Hillary is still lingering around and we get something new from her every day.  I mean, this is just from a few hours ago and on Yahoo home page.  She hasn't gone away at all - she's just not holding any political position - but she very much still has her hands in all of this.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clinton-honored-medal-harvard-040430834.html
I mean, I also mentioned two candidates who lost. I'm just saying that the margin of victory is pertinent. As for Mondale completely disappearing whereas Hillary has stayed in the public eye a little bit, I'd say that's entirely due to them being from different eras and the prevalence of the internet. Furthermore, as I alluded to before, Hillary Clinton herself has stepped way back (ie. not running for office or anything). Media attention is irrelevant to that.

Margin of victory wasn't pertinent to the discussion Diego and I were having.  And media attention is ABSOLUTELY relevant to that.  He was saying Trump supporters are the only ones that bring her up - that's completely false - the liberal media are the ones most often bringing her up - largely because of her own actions - but if the media paid no attention to her, people would forget about her.  Mondale's actions were to go back to the private sector and kind of disappear.  If he had made a stink about losing for the next 18 months, newspapers would have written about it.
Title: Re: Why Marvel is Destroying America: Taught by Professor Tutweiller
Post by: Tut on May 28, 2018, 08:34:33 pm

Does your latest answer count as well? It got so much of a response yesterday I didn't have time to read it all at the time. Today, I refresh, and I get this:

Actually, I deleted that because I realized it could jeopardize my internship at that congressional office. Can't go around online telling Trump supporters they're retards when you're working in government, even if it's in a very minor capacity.

Why not?  Hillary did...

And she's not working in government anymore...

She sure acts like it - campaigning all over, passing blame to everyone but herself, and not doing any government work - it's a very governmentesque life she's living.

 The only people who still bring her up these days are Trump supporters.

(https://media1.tenor.com/images/c1779cc711eec61ef3cd322d569e005f/tenor.gif?itemid=8486419)

Ummm...all from liberal sites in the past few days...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/23/politics/hillary-clinton-endorses-andrew-cuomo-new-york-democrats/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/21/us/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-midterms.html

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/21/politics/hillary-clinton-democracy-crisis/index.html

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-trump-russian-hat_us_5b0275ffe4b07309e05a02c9



One of those is about her endorsing Cuomo against a retarded actress. Everyone else in the establishment has done the same. The second one literally says "The couple has been largely absent from the 2018 midterm campaigns," as if to prove my point.

The other two are about the exact same story.

Clinton is still news because people want to hear about her. But the people who want to hear about her aren't Democrats. They're Trumpeters who are still beating that dead horse.

Again, these are LIBERAL sites writing articles about her.  Being the exact same story, but 2 liberal sites posting them, is still to my point.  You said "The only people who still bring her up these days are Trump supporters."  And these are literally liberal sites constantly "bringing her up".

Here's more:

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/05/24/hillary-clinton-2018-election-endorsements/

https://www.inc.com/eric-mack/hillary-clinton-just-gave-master-classes-in-both-emotional-intelligence-trolling-in-a-single-speech.html

She continues to put herself in the spotlight because she has NO interest in going away.  And the liberal sites (and often the conservative sites) post story after story about her.  So to say only Trump supporters have interest in her is at best misleading and at worst completely false.

I guess I just don't know what you expected of a former presidential candidate. You would have to go back decades before you found a candidate who vanished the way she did. She's given a few speeches, but she holds no official capacity in any way. Her current title is that of "key person" at this thing, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onward_Together) which is hardly an influential position.

You do realize that her political career is done, right? Goldwater, Dukakis, McCain, and Romney-- hell, even Mondale-- all continued to hold various offices after their defeats. If Clinton is elected dog catcher somewhere in 2020, I'll take the L on this one (as Paasche would say).

I do think her political career is done - most likely.  Though I still think she holds out hope to "get back in the game" despite what she says.  I would say that Walter Mondale disappeared more quickly though - he was gone in a flash whereas Clinton still lingers around (as she's about to start "helping" the Dems in the midterms).  He resurfaced years later, but after that '84 election he just fell off the map.
I think there's a bit of a difference there in that Mondale got absolutely blown out by Reagan that election, whereas Hillary was really close to beating Trump. Anyway, I think Diego's point isn't so much on media focus as it is on the fact that she stepped way back after losing; she holds basically no positions, appears to have no intention of running for anything, etc.

That's not what we were discussing though.  We were just talking about presidential candidates that lost - the margin of defeat wasn't pertinent.  And my point was that Mondale immediately disappeared completely whereas Hillary is still lingering around and we get something new from her every day.  I mean, this is just from a few hours ago and on Yahoo home page.  She hasn't gone away at all - she's just not holding any political position - but she very much still has her hands in all of this.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clinton-honored-medal-harvard-040430834.html
I mean, I also mentioned two candidates who lost. I'm just saying that the margin of victory is pertinent. As for Mondale completely disappearing whereas Hillary has stayed in the public eye a little bit, I'd say that's entirely due to them being from different eras and the prevalence of the internet. Furthermore, as I alluded to before, Hillary Clinton herself has stepped way back (ie. not running for office or anything). Media attention is irrelevant to that.

Margin of victory wasn't pertinent to the discussion Diego and I were having.  And media attention is ABSOLUTELY relevant to that.  He was saying Trump supporters are the only ones that bring her up - that's completely false - the liberal media are the ones most often bringing her up - largely because of her own actions - but if the media paid no attention to her, people would forget about her.  Mondale's actions were to go back to the private sector and kind of disappear.  If he had made a stink about losing for the next 18 months, newspapers would have written about it.

I said "even Mondale" because he lost 49 states. Clinton won the popular vote, and she's still disappeared more than Kerry, McCain, or Romney did.