Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 AduroT wrote:
She used her Hulk powers while she wasn’t supposed to either, why does she get a free pass?

Because in the meta commentary of the episode/seasons conclusion this was about justice. Jen never actually did anything wrong except some property damage. Which she can pay for with money. Giving her the same restrictions as at least attempted murderer Blonski is not justice.

Also, the News guy on the steps says that in light of the intelligencia stuff she was cleared of her previous conviction. So it was resolved off screen.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
The 4th wall breaking was clever when Mel Brooks did in Blazing Saddles, fun for Moonlighting and Ferris Bueler and of course the 80 John Byrne She Hulk comics, but 30-40 years later it's... nice.

Good thing that she was breaking the fourth wall since the late 80's in her comics

What she?

 Grumpy Gnome wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
If for nothing else the recreation of the 80s Hulk intro (Savage She Hulk) made the episode worth watching.

That was exceptionally well done. It was nearly frame-for-frame perfect.

Ah, I forgot to mention how much I enjoyed that. 👍

That's because you're left feeling like the episode has peaked early, but the it.... absolutely does not peak early.

 Lance845 wrote:

 AduroT wrote:
She used her Hulk powers while she wasn’t supposed to either, why does she get a free pass?

Because in the meta commentary of the episode/seasons conclusion this was about justice. Jen never actually did anything wrong except some property damage. Which she can pay for with money. Giving her the same restrictions as at least attempted murderer Blonski is not justice.

Also, the News guy on the steps says that in light of the intelligencia stuff she was cleared of her previous conviction. So it was resolved off screen.

Ah yes, the best way to resolve your finale, off screen.

She was never convicted or even charged with anything. DDC agrees not to press charges as long as she's willing to wear the inhibitor. She's not on parole, there's not actually anything stopping her from removing it other than the threat of the DDC filing against her if she does.

As stated, the idea of charging her didn't have a lot of merit to begin with. No one was harmed, just property damage. She didn't even resist arrest. It's mostly just to appease the public scared by media hype. With that past, following through on the threats to charge her and bring it to court where it likely turns into a plea bargain anyway doesn't really make a lot of sense.

Overall, I liked the series though it wasn't great, but I really disliked the finale. While I agree that the "transform into villain via blood" and Bruce Banner comes back for a big brawl at the end and Abomination was a villain all along was a bad idea and that Jen's idea was better why not just do that in the first place. Why setup the bad ending" then say it's stupid, explain to the viewers why it's bad and what could make it better with a fourth wall breaking scenario instead of just doing the better more "show consistent" and She-Hulk centered ending within the show itself. One of my biggest critique of the show is that it spent a lot of time speaking and explaining itself at the audience instead of just doing it. It's like they were convinced the audience wouldn't "get it" without the character spelling it out for us too and that we would have rolled our eyes without it. Don't make a show that needs to justify itself all the time, just do it and if people don't like well too bad. Have confidence in your product. The idea of a "legal-comedy" with a superhero at the center of it is not bad. The acting and the scenario were not bad. It would have been better without all the attempts at self justification.

Now, I out to watch Andor and hopes it will be as good as it's trailer looked like.

They were “throwing shade” at the MCU formula. It might have worked better if they fought a CGI army under a blue sky beam. Instead, it felt rather toothless.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
They were “throwing shade” at the MCU formula. It might have worked better if they fought a CGI army under a blue sky beam. Instead, it felt rather toothless.

Or if they were going to change the pattern, which I highly doubt; admitting they do the same thing quite a bit doesn't really mean much if all it is is recognition.

It felt was a tad smug and self congratulatory with undertones of mocking the fan base for tolerating the same fairy tale over and over (although box office on Wackadoo Wanda and Eternals suggests there are limits)

And as a more memory capable member of my nerd herd pointed out various Heroes have met "The Creator" usually depicted as Jack or Stan on numerous occasions

Harrison Ford Set As General Thaddeus “Thunderbolt” Ross For ‘Captain America: New World Order’, Will Star Opposite Anthony Mackie.

If it's up on his IMDb page, then it's official right?

https://m.imdb.com/name/nm0000148/filmotype/actor

I hereby nickname his character “Thunderchief Ross”.



*Yes, this is a joke about Harrison Ford crashing airplanes.

**Because crashing planes is the only interesting thing he’s done in decades.

So, a slow rainy day & evening.
I finally got around to watching "What If...." It was ok. Up until the final two episodes when they decided it all had to tie together into it's own story. :(

I really enjoyed the final two episodes, though I was also expecting that team up right from the very start so it was fun to watch them introduce characters. Was surprised it was the zombies/Wanda and not Spider-Man they pulled from the zombies episode though…

 Ghaz wrote:
If it's up on his IMDb page, then it's official right?

Anyone can edit IMDB. It's as official as saying it in this thread.

I finished season 1 of Agent Carter and it was a really strong season. There was one ropey episode involving the Howling Commandos, but overall it was pretty good stuff.

I would argue it might even have been better than the more recent Marvel TV I have watched.

Agent Carter was WAY better than a lot of the D+ shows. A real missed opportunity there to do more.

ccs wrote:
So, a slow rainy day & evening.
I finally got around to watching "What If...." It was ok. Up until the final two episodes when they decided it all had to tie together into it's own story. :(

The big problem with What If... has always been that it doesn't have room to breath. They take these massive events and rearrange them from the ground up and then tell the story of how this changes the whole world in either one comic issue or a 30 minute show.

I felt like the Guardians of the Multiverse wasn't any worse than all the times the comics did pretty much the same thing with a "super team recruited from throughout the multiverse on a multiversal mission" thing.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

epronovost wrote:
Overall, I liked the series though it wasn't great, but I really disliked the finale. While I agree that the "transform into villain via blood" and Bruce Banner comes back for a big brawl at the end and Abomination was a villain all along was a bad idea and that Jen's idea was better why not just do that in the first place. Why setup the bad ending" then say it's stupid, explain to the viewers why it's bad and what could make it better with a fourth wall breaking scenario instead of just doing the better more "show consistent" and She-Hulk centered ending within the show itself. One of my biggest critique of the show is that it spent a lot of time speaking and explaining itself at the audience instead of just doing it. It's like they were convinced the audience wouldn't "get it" without the character spelling it out for us too and that we would have rolled our eyes without it. Don't make a show that needs to justify itself all the time, just do it and if people don't like well too bad. Have confidence in your product. The idea of a "legal-comedy" with a superhero at the center of it is not bad. The acting and the scenario were not bad. It would have been better without all the attempts at self justification.

I think you have some points, but I saw one of the main conflicts of the show was displayed through the point-counter-point of the show's identity as both a super hero show and a legal comedy and by extension Jen's identity as a lawyer with a fairly normal life and as a super hero. It kind of does make sense for that conflict to come down to an argument between Jen and Kevin.

But one of the things I was most looking forward to with the show was how it breaks the 4th wall, and I rather liked the comment on how this is the first show to not have a super-hero brawl ending despite it not being the first that deserved one (ie- Wandavision). In the overall MCU narrative, I think the 4th wall breaking of the ending was important.

Eternals and Inhumans, watched and… found disappointing,

Inhumans really came across like a late 80's, early 90's show. Was that intentional? And the finale… what a lame let down conclusion with zero tie in to the rest of the MCU.

Eternals was much… grander. And yet still unsatisfying. It felt like the writing just was not up to the task of trying to convey such a… large scale, epic really, crisis…yet again. Too much, too loud, too often with not enough to really feel invested in the characters or story itself. Trying to get it to fit into a same drama drenched setting as the “Blip” just did not work as well as the Multiverse plot line seems to do.

Eternals is an odd one.

As a movie? It’s competent enough. Acting is good, scenes are interesting. The plot itself is actually alright overall. But.

But

But….as a MCU movie? It feels more like a Sony or Fox “we are part of the MCU! WE ARE HIM!” type effort, where it just doesn’t really fit, because whoever made it only has the rights to The Eternals, so can’t really reference the rest of the stable.

Also? Minus One Hundred And Eleventy Twelve Points for casting the creepy Harry Styles. He’s not a great singer. And he’s a worse actor than he is a singer. Just…..no need.

Did Inhumans have a finale? I thought it just kind of got canceled and stopped.

Just got binned unceremoniously. It’s one of those shows I genuinely forget even exists.

 Grumpy Gnome wrote:
Eternals and Inhumans, watched and… found disappointing,

Inhumans really came across like a late 80's, early 90's show. Was that intentional? And the finale… what a lame let down conclusion with zero tie in to the rest of the MCU.

Eternals was much… grander. And yet still unsatisfying. It felt like the writing just was not up to the task of trying to convey such a… large scale, epic really, crisis…yet again. Too much, too loud, too often with not enough to really feel invested in the characters or story itself. Trying to get it to fit into a same drama drenched setting as the “Blip” just did not work as well as the Multiverse plot line seems to do.

You watched inhimans? I am sorry.

That show was basically Ike Pearlmutters revenge for Kevin Fiege taking control of the MCU. Ike was clearly forcing there to be an Inhumans movie. Which got quietly cancled. So Ike decided to just make it a show instead.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Eternals is an odd one.

As a movie? It’s competent enough. Acting is good, scenes are interesting. The plot itself is actually alright overall.

The primary problem with The Eternals is pacing. There are too many characters and we spend too much time assembling the team, and spend very little time dealing with the actual plot.

Most of the film is about going around and picking up everyone from "the old gang," introducing them (with lots of flashbacks) and then moving on to the next one who is in some other very remote part of the world. All that moving around really kills the 'ticking bomb' tension they're trying to build.

All of that globe trotting to go have a low stakes talk about how each characters should come along to save the world misses the story beats that ought to push the plot forward. Sure, we interact with monsters from time to time, but that doesn't change our characters plan- they're still going to go find the next Eternal and sit down on the couch and talk them into joining the team again (missing the beats makes the film seem longer than it is in an already long film).

It is like they spent the whole movie to get to the point where the Avengers are on the ship together.

Then the film tried to make up for this lack of tension by having the actors try to act more tense for longer- which just became exhausting and killed the tension further. Plus now you don't really get to like any of the too many characters we're watching.


AND ON TOP OF THAT- it has the problem of not doing anything with its MCU setting. We've apparently got all the time in the world to go about globe trotting to pick up all the characters- so why don't any of the other MCU characters notice the crazy things happening and get involved? Why don't any of our characters contact the other MCU heroes while they're picking up all their Eternal friends? But Eternals ties in not at all and they do big showy things that should attract the attention of other MCU characters.


The MCU really works best when it works within its interconnectedness. I love how the MCU Spider-Man films aren't solo films.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Inhumans really came across like a late 80's, early 90's show. Was that intentional? And the finale… what a lame let down conclusion with zero tie in to the rest of the MCU.

Inhumans reminded me a bit of the GenX pilot with white Jubilee that was never made into a series. Too low budget for characters to use their powers, and a terrible script to boot.

My wife and I were both rather surprised with how much we liked Eternals. I totally get that its probably not what people wanted and its definitely not for everyone, but I greatly enjoyed the slow build of character dynamics and the scope and scale of their lives. It wasn't really ever exciting, but about halfway through I realized I was far more invested than I expected to be.

Inhumans is a trainwreck that mostly came down to fulfilling contractual oblications.

 AduroT wrote:
Did Inhumans have a finale? I thought it just kind of got canceled and stopped.

They finished airing a first season. I remember it kind of came to something like a conclusion? I think Black Bolt talked at something in the end and all the Inhumans moved to Hawaii

Eternals had Kumail Nanjiani and his friend, so it’s not all bad. And the guy who played Druig was almost as unnerving as David Tennant’s Purple Man, possibly on purpose. It’s a shame the rest of the film was basically BVS levels of plodding cringe.

Inhumans made so many mistakes it was't even funny by the end. It was just sad.

I mean it starts with taking Medusa and cutting off her hair - great! - and then has Maximus, the bad guy, be the one who wants to free all the slaves working in the mines. Wait... he's the bad guy? And so many pointless and illogical plot threads, like the military guys in Hawaii who after knowing Gorgon for about 8 seconds are ready to lay down their lives fighting alongside him, or giving Karnak a head injury so he can't use his abilities (that show was so beneath what Ken Leung was doing with that character - he deserved better). The only character I liked was Laser Face (Mordis, according to the wiki). He was the only one who seemed like he was having fun. Either way, I don't think I saw anything past the 3rd episode. Certainly never finished the show.

Anson Mount is a good actor, so I was happy to see him show back up again in Multiverse of Madness.

Good breakdown @Odin Grandson

Yet despite all of that, the comics often have the exact same issue. All this crazy stuff is happening, but only to the one character UNLESS it is a big cross-over event. Of course, modern movie watchers have a lot less tolerance for it than comic readers have had historically (or it gets glossed over because so much now-a-days is a big cross-over event!)

However, this is just a quibble of an excellent analysis of the pacing, globe trotting, and tension in Eternals.

It also took me a bit out of the story when the big reveal is that they are all basically mass-produced machines.

The only good part of Eternals was the Bollywood pop-star guy and his platonic life partner cameraman.

Those two were golden.

Everything else about the movie is so forgettable I can't even bother to work up the energy to remember how I should mock it.

 LordofHats wrote:
The only good part of Eternals was the Bollywood pop-star guy and his platonic life partner cameraman.

Those two were golden.

Everything else about the movie is so forgettable I can't even bother to work up the energy to remember how I should mock it.

Fair point. Mrs GG was not a big fan of them but I thought those two were at least something interestingly new and memorable.