MovieChat Forums > ColdOfWinter > Replies
ColdOfWinter's Replies
I hear you and I am hopeful that is exactly what we see. If they do it well I would completely be willing to change my opinion about the first 2 episodes. Right now, I have this bad feeling that they will slide past dark and troublesome, and go straight to superhero genre.
Without knowing what the end game is, I can't make any firm stances on this. All I know is if its this same speed at episode 4 I will probably lose all interest, and if they are already full fledge superheroes by episode 4 then they clearly missed the opportunity.
I don't have a problem with the concept, but execution has been bad in my opinion. If you are going to go this route, you need the unnerving parts to feel more sinister. After 2 episodes they have clearly shown something is wrong, but the payoff needs to counter the silliness that we endure watching the whole thing.
Again, this is just my opinion, but, I feel like this being Disney + could be hurting the payoff. If we got glimpses of something truly dark an menacing, between the laugh tracks and 50s nostalgia feel, this concept could be really good.
I'm trying to hang in there. Two more episodes as slow as the first two and I'm probably going to bail on it. I'm not sure if this is Disney requiring the teeth to be taken out, or a sincere attempt at a brand new style and take on the comic genre. Either way, it needs to pick up the pace.
Definite Michael Myers throw back. Especially the way she pushed the kids past him as he lay "dead" at her feet. That was straight out of the original Halloween.
Yep I'm right there with you. Luckily they toned it down a little bit. However, this last episode has me worried they might be bringing it back.
Is it possible you meant to respond to someone else? Because I'm not sure how anything I said got translated into what you responded too.
In my first line I essentially said make a strong movie and I couldn't careless about anything else. I simply raised up the points about why it has a few extra hurdles.
Marvel has been phenomenal with their ability to tell a story, but they also put in that cringe worthy part of End Game where somehow in the entire battle all the women managed to be freed up, but none of the males were to help Captain Marvel transport the gauntlet. It was pathetic pandering, and all sides of the argument should agree on that. When powerful female characters are written well they don't need those over the top moments to sell them to the audience.
Scarlet Witch is and has been one of my favorite heroes for awhile, and I'm not sure why they powered up Captain Marvel and didn't simply take the much more obvious route of having Wanda unlock her reality altering abilities. This route would have unlocked the potential for the House of M storyline.
Scarlet Witch is a good character that has grown into her powers, Captain Marvel just busted on the scenes as the most powerful character in the marvel universe. Scarlet Witch is 100 times more interesting for this very reason.
I have read/watched tons of shows where the main character is a powered women(loved Buffy the Vampire slayer). it has never been an issue for me, and yet you somehow read my post and immediately warp my meanings to be part of some anti women crowd rhetoric... this is why I hate SJW and PC police garbage. You can't help yourself but try to find an enemy in everything that is put forward.
I would be interested if they make it a great movie. But if its nothing more then that cheese we got in end game when they had their "women empowered moment" then no thanks I'll pass.
The hard part of this, is why wouldn't the male characters be involved if the threat they are facing is world threatening? What are the odds that an event happens when only the female superheroes are available. Would the female heroes actually be interested in excluding male superheroes for no other reason then they are male??? You could try something like a lead up to Secret Wars where all the male characters are gone cause of that action, but again, why would that be only males?
I think this idea works better in comic book form and less so in the cinematic universe, but again, if they can pull out a great movie I'm all for seeing it.
Actually both of the religions you are referencing are open for target by the show. So its fair game. I suppose the Christian is a little more out front and obvious, but they don't bow down to making all terrorists represented, to be white alt right figures.
I guess I can see a little uptick of PC in some of the later episodes, but I didn't think it was anything that pulled me out of the show. Normally I couldn't care less about this stuff as long as it doesn't jar me out of the story with over the top messaging.
Well that still depends on the comic adaptation that they go with. Spider man could do all of that as well, but his vulnerability was still that he was just human. I hear what you are saying though, if you introduce real world physics then extra strength(the kind required for the feats you describe) only works if your skin and bones are also equally resistant/enhanced.
I'm probably reading WAY too much into it, but I actually thought her baby was going to be tied to a manufactured weakness of Homelander. I'm not sure that you can control the type of hero you make with the serum, but it would be an interesting twist if the company knew it was only a matter of time before they had to deal with Homelander so they were actively trying to create something that could take him out.
I was thinking mind control, or power leaching. Again probably was reading way too much into it, and if the baby died, I guess my theory for the big twist probably dies with it.
I thought it was a little weird that they acted like they exhausted all the possible ways of killing him off as well. I assume the writers are wanting to try to kill off all of the heroes by exploiting a weakness vs common sense methods. Otherwise, I suspect that if they were seriously attempting to kill off the heroes, then any of them that were not bullet proof would already be dead.
Or maybe I missed something and it is just a given that all Supes are bulletproof? I was a little shocked that Starlight turned out to be bulletproof.
I agreed with you all the way up until you claim those terms are used interchangeably(at least I don't know anyone that uses them interchangeably).
Sexual assault is a broader definition that includes but is not limited to rape. Rape pretty much suggests that the person did not have the ability to walk away freely, essentially lacking consent. You cannot be both sexually coerced and raped, because the two are designed to explain two very different scenarios surrounded around the same type of event. Now you can make the argument that what started out as sexual coercion can escalate to rape, but once it does the event no longer fits the definition of sexual coercion.
Both are horrible and deserve serious respect when discussing, but they are different by both legal and standard definitions.
Exactly, if the worshipers had caused the dad to have an "accident" it would have made the story flow better, and would have also added to the uneasy feeling as we now have a dysfunctional family with a clearly unstable mother, and the only calming influence (the father) was now out of the picture.
Actually this part stuck out to me as well. I actually found it a little bit out of place. We had a pretty good story that was even handed. And then we have a blatant over show of power from the demon, who, as far as I can tell should have had no power over the husband. There is always the possibility I missed something, but to me this came across as bad writing, killing the uneasy feel of the movie. Eventually the movie would need to break that feeling to give us the actual action, but this just failed to pull it off.
I didn't get the feeling she was possessed or born a demon. I got the impression that she was prepared to become the host for the Demon, but the demon preferred a boy body. So I wonder if the characters in the movie were manipulated into giving the demon what it wanted. Otherwise its just very bizarre circumstances, in an already very bizarre scenario.
Its just so hard to do a Hulk movie. I thought World War Hulk was the best chance, and they kind of stole that for Thor. Professor Hulk is a cool novelty, but is he really the hulk if he isn't flying off the handle into a rage???
I think he is always going to work best as a co-star with near equal billing, like he was in Thor.
Really nice list! I was thinking it would have also been interesting if they had gone the route of collapsing dimensions. If Tony, Banner, or Pym found out that an alternate time line existed where the snap never happened, and they become the "villain" in the movie as they attempt to merge the 2 timelines. It could almost deliver us a Civil War like environment. 1/2 the heroes are willing to take the chance to bring back loved ones, and 1/2 believe that its not worth the risk. I think the right writers could really give us some compelling motives on each side.
I assume in this case the "villain" would win and you would get a world that brings back the other heroes, but also has some consequences that would have to be addressed moving forward in the next phase of movies.
Yeah but he reveals he destroyed it in the same movie that time travel is needed. Its not like at the beginning of writing the movie they were stuck with Time Travel as the only way to fix it. Not saying I disagree with your primary point, just saying that the movie had choices.
I personally thought they handled time travel about as well as they could have, but I was also skeptical of the movies going that route. Personally I thought they should have included something where the heroes were stripped of their ability to use the quantum realm going forward. Without that the technology used would have been worthless and time travel would have been dead moving forward.
When they announced the plans to make them connected I was hoping that they would make the connection obvious and tangible. A guest star spot from any of the film heroes would have done wonders for that type of connection. An introduction to the new big bad starting in Agents of Shield would have been amazing. Instead they made it so Shield was somehow never over their heads, which makes you wonder why do they even need the heroes?
I think it was a big missed opportunity but I can't really blame them. They were in the middle of so many other things that nobody had ever done before. With their track record of success in the movies at least, I'm not going to second guess them on any of it. The TV shows and Netflix originals do feel disconnected, and could have used a little bit more connection to the movie-verse.
What I had really hoped for with Agents of Shield was an introduction into a lot of second and third rate villains that have no chance of making it to the big screen. I know they did it a little, but it seemed like they were afraid to make it a core to the show, and that's unfortunate.
No it really wasn't. they could have even ended it the same way if they had just given it more time to make it fit better.