Aristatide said:
Hawki said:
[...]
...okay, I've got it all out. I'll leave a link below for a similar view on the subject that I found carthartic...and flamebait is fun
http://blip.tv/confused-matthew/matthew-s-marvel-madness-or-why-marvel-studios-sucks-ass-7021494
You took a really long time to explain that you dislike movie series with extensive internal continuity and interdependence. Which isn't a problem. I don't like Westerns. The thing is, I don't try to explain how Westerns are a complete failure as a genre based on said dislike.
That wasn't me in the video. The only reason I posted it was because it was a video I felt captured the essentials of my issues with the MCU, if not the details (e.g. not as harsh towards GotG personally). And the difference is that Westerns are still Westerns. I like continuity and interdependence as a rule, but the problem with the MCU is that (IMO) the interdependence has come at the expense of the individual movies.
And the thing is, it's been done before. For example:
-Aliens vs. Predator: Whatever faults the movie had, it at least took the time to explain what the xenomorphs and yautja were. Even if a filmgoer had never heard of or seen these aliens in fiction before, the movie at least took the time to establish them within the context of its own movie.
Predator 2: Actually, forget AvP, it more or less established that it takes place in the same continuity as the 'Alien' films if you take the xenomorph skull at face value. And again, not at the expense of the film itself. I've never had to see an 'Alien' film to understand a 'Predator' film, and vice versa.
-Prometheus: A bad film IMO. But whatever its faults, you didn't need to have seen 'Alien' to understand it. True, it's set in the same universe, but it isn't named "Alien," it's named "Prometheus." The title implies that the average filmgoer can see it without seeing a film under a completely different name. And on that front, it succeeded.
-Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Khan appeared in a single episode of TOS, and prior to the film, was one villain out of many. Those who had seen TOS would instantly know who Khan was. Those who hadn't wouldn't be at a disadvantage however, because the film still takes the time to explain who Khan is, why he's on Ceti Alpha V, and why he hates Kirk.
-Doctor Who: By the end of series 3 of the new series, Jack Harkness has been working with Torchwood for a season's worth of time. This is brought up at the end of series 3...but also explained within series 3, not to mention that Torchwood itself was introduced in series 2 of DW. TV gets more of a free pass with interconnectivity and spin-offs (after all, the 'Stargate' and 'Star Trek' series still had the words "Stargate" and "Star Trek" in the title), but "Doctor Who" and "Torchwood" are two different words and series. But as someone who was only interested in 'Doctor Who' at the time, no, I didn't feel out of the loop not knowing anything about the 'Torchwood' series. The episodes took the time to establish relevant plot details within the context of its own plot. And after seeing series 1 of 'Torchwood' (not because DW forced me to, but because it made me want to), while not really my thing, it did manage to be its own show, and the average viewer wouldn't have had to see DW to understand it.
-Frozen: Taking easter eggs literally, 'Frozen' is in the same setting as 'Tangled' (Flynn and Repunzel's cameo) and 'The Little Mermaid' (the structure of the ship Elsa's parents drown on). To someone who's seen those previous films, they will likely get more out of 'Frozen' by appreciating the interconnectedness. But for someone who hasn't seen those films (such as myself), they still don't lose anything. Knowing that Flynn and Repunzel are at Arendelle never becomes relevant to the plot of 'Frozen', and those who haven't seen 'Tangled' aren't punished for it. If anything, seeing them made me want to see 'Tangled' because 'Frozen' was good on its own terms.
And to be fair, the MCU has pulled this off at times. The chitauri in GotG? Nice touch - it wasn't a plot crutch, it's an easter egg. The presence of Wayne Industires and LexCorp in the background of 'Man of Steel'? Nice touch - I don't have much hope for a DCMU, but that's still a good way of showing aspects of a shared universe. But many times, the MCU HASN'T done this. Things like Nick Fury in 'Iron Man 2', or Hawkeye in 'Thor', or the tesseract in 'Captain America', these aren't easter eggs or things that are explained within their own movie, they're advertisments. Things that say "go see these other movies!" Whatever the faults of AvP, I was able to see it and understand it without ever seeing a 'Predator' film before, or most of the 'Alien' ones. 'The Avengers' did not extend the same courtesy.
So no. The video isn't mine. And as stated, I like continuity. I like references. But the MCU hasn't just provided these references, or presented them as easter eggs, these are things that are front and centre in the films, and aren't even explained in the very film they're introduced in. And saying that the 'Avengers' isn't a stand-alone movie is not an excuse. If it wasn't a stand alone movie (and it isn't), then that should be made clear from the outset. A viewer should still be able to understand who these characters are within the movie itself, and have enough faith in the writers to make the movie good on its own terms as a movie rather than be a sequel to five movies that they may or may not have seen. And it isn't. And as the examples I provided above show, there isn't an excuse for this.
So back to the above point. I'm indifferent to westerns. I'm indifferent to the superhero genre in comics, but there's plenty of superhero films that I consider good and enjoyed, and plenty that I didn't. And the films that I did like managed to stand on their own as being good films in their own right - I'd never heard of Ra's al-Ghul before 'Batman Begins' for instance, but the movie made me care about him within the film itself, and didn't rely on a non-Batman film to give me the reasons why I should care. The MCU films however, are things that I cannot like or dislike as films by themselves, bar the original 'Iron Man'. And that's come at a cost to me. At a cost to the 'Iron Man' series (the only films I would have ever likely seen if Marvel wasn't constantly advertising its other films) and to 'Guardians of the Galaxy.' To phase 2, I can only say, "not this time." I am not seeing all these extraneous films for the sake of understanding what the heck is going on in individual films.
