Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness

[Setanta]

Finally watched it on Disney+. I'm so glad I didn't waste money on it at the movies. It was trash on a Captain Marvel level. Even Thor 2 was better. A shit ton of talent and a mediocre story.

[MahrinSkel]

You really shouldn't make 'TV' that good that resolves in 'movies' that meh.

--Dave

Edit: Also, I am disappointed that world-eater Strange did not appear. Corrupted Strange was weak sauce.

[schild]

Finally watched it on Disney+. I'm so glad I didn't waste money on it at the movies. It was trash on a Captain Marvel level. Even Thor 2 was better. A shit ton of talent and a mediocre story.

what was wrong with captain marvel

it was basically middle of the road as far as mcu went and it was pretty fine as far as its placement went in the order

strange 2 was just a hot fucking mess that doesn't belong anywhere

[Setanta]

Finally watched it on Disney+. I'm so glad I didn't waste money on it at the movies. It was trash on a Captain Marvel level. Even Thor 2 was better. A shit ton of talent and a mediocre story.

what was wrong with captain marvel

it was basically middle of the road as far as mcu went and it was pretty fine as far as its placement went in the order

strange 2 was just a hot fucking mess that doesn't belong anywhere

Captain Marvel just didn't work for me, I never felt invested enough to care for the character. Exactly how I felt about Strange, America, and Wanda. I just didn't care what happened to any of them. If you'd asked me prior to this film, I would have told you that Strange and Wanda were solid characters .

[eldaec]

I still think they are solid characters.

But this film is just an exposition block ahead of one of those awful comic book apocalyptic 'events'.

I honestly think the cast do a great job projecting their characters over the top of it.

And this is nowhere near Thor 2 tier. Nothing else in the MCU is that bad.

[Riggswolfe]

I watched this on Disney+ and enjoyed it much more than the first one. I'm not sure where I'd rank it in the MCU. Upper middle maybe? Better than say Antman and Thor 1 and 2 and Captain America 1 but not as good as say Thor Ragnorak or Guardians of the Galaxy 1 and 2. It was quite enjoyable.

[Setanta]

And this is nowhere near Thor 2 tier. Nothing else in the MCU is that bad.

Eternals?

[Velorath]

Finally watched it on Disney+. I'm so glad I didn't waste money on it at the movies. It was trash on a Captain Marvel level. Even Thor 2 was better. A shit ton of talent and a mediocre story.

what was wrong with captain marvel

it was basically middle of the road as far as mcu went and it was pretty fine as far as its placement went in the order

strange 2 was just a hot fucking mess that doesn't belong anywhere

This you?

[Samwise]

"once" and "fuckin bad" are both clearly meant in a strictly figurative sense.

[schild]

I wish I'd never seen Incredible hulk

But I'm ok with having seen captain marvel once

Strange 2 is several rungs lower than marvel for me

2Strange2Spurious

Edit: As time goes on i actually get angrier and angrier about strange 2 and I guess that's raising all boats. Marvel is, at this point, very middle of the road for me. I also will not watch it again (outside of 100% speedruns)

[Threash]

This was just goofy MCU fun, nothing special but certainly not bad. I think they could have gone a much more interesting way, and maybe thought about it, when that guy at the start asked if there really was no other way to beat Thanos and then in a different universe they have a statue of Strange after he died stopping him. Of course that actually did not happen, so bleh.

[Velorath]

I wish I'd never seen Incredible hulk

I can make it through watching Incredible Hulk, and it gave us Tim Roth in the MCU. Thor 2 and Ant Man & Wasp are the only two MCU movies that are just so eye glazingly dull that I actually have trouble sitting through them.

[Khaldun]

I think Thor 2 and Iron Man 2 are the only ones I really just cannot endure. I'll zone through the others if I'm flicking around and hey presto! one is on.

We just rewatched Dr. Strange 2--my kid hadn't seen it yet--and it was fine. I was still entertained. I think it loses a bit if you've also seen Everything Everywhere All At Once in the interim, just because there's some visual and narrative strategies that would have served this film well and going with Raimi was maybe going for the familiar play as opposed to taking a bigger risk.

But definitely the Marvel films are segregating now into "always great to watch", "sure if nothing else is on why not", "oh why not", and "no come on, there's got to be something better to watch or do". There's not much in the last but there's a few. I'm still not sure they've ever made an unambiguous shit film under their own banner, unlike the Warner people with DC.

In fact, in light of Ezra Miller's difficulties, I almost wonder if the DC people opened a forbidden tomb somewhere or otherwise had a curse on them. It almost goes beyond "we have the wrong executives in charge".

[schild]

liking iron man 2 less than strange 2  makes everything you've ever said suspect

[Velorath]

Strange 2 is better than Iron Man 2.

Edit:

Just going to repost my personal rankings from over on Discord from best to worst (and going to add some breaks in between what are essentially the tiers to me):

Iron Man
Endgame
No way Home
GotG
Winter Soldier
Ragnarok

Avengers
GotG 2
Infinity War
Black Panther
Shang Chi
Cap 1

Homecoming
Dr. Strange 2
Civil War
Iron Man 3
Dr. Strange

Far From Home
Age of Ultron
Captain Marvel
Iron Man 2
Thor
Ant Man

Incredible Hulk
Black Widow
Eternals
Ant Man & Wasp
Dark World

[schild]

Strange 2 is better than Iron Man 2.

no

[Khaldun]

My god, there are more reasons to suspect everything I've ever said than that.

Anyhoo, I like Velorath's rankings, more or less.

I don't understand why people downrate Cap 1 often; the stuff that's dumb in it, it's supposed to be dumb, that's the point.

I would probably put Iron Man 3 lower because it tries to be more permanent than it is in terms of resolving Stark's status quo.

[Velorath]

I would probably put Iron Man 3 lower because it tries to be more permanent than it is in terms of resolving Stark's status quo.

Yeah, but that's also not out of character for Stark that he keeps wanting to get to a point where he doesn't feel like he needs to be Iron Man anymore.

[eldaec]

I don't understand why people downrate Cap 1 often; the stuff that's dumb in it, it's supposed to be dumb, that's the point.

Same goes for Thor 1. It's just that people are wrong about stuff a lot.

[Velorath]

Thor 1 I mostly just find that it drags in a lot of parts. Obviously it gets a lot of points for casting, but Hemsworth and Hiddleston don't really start getting their characters down until Avengers (although in the context of the Thor 1's story those characters are both still developing so it makes sense). It's fine.

[Riggswolfe]

Strange 2 is better than Iron Man 2.

no

There is almost nothing good about Iron Man 2 except Downey and Roarke. Black Widow is fun a time or two as well but she's far from the character she develops into. Really, Tony Stark works much better as an ensemble character with the exception of his first film and even that has a pretty weak ending.

[Typhon]

I liked it, thought it was entertaining.  I expected to hate it given this thread, but I was entertained all the way through and when Bruce Campbell says his line in the post-credits scene I laughed and said, 'oh fuck you'... you know, like you are supposed to in these movies.  I mean, the movie is about an evil book, and has a giant eye monster as the first (well, sort of), big bad.  It is in no way subtle.  It is in no way an action movie.  I cannot fathom why y'all try to compare this to any other MCU movie. 

Iron Man versus DS: MVM?  They both have action?  Sure, I guess... but no, not all.  That's stupid, WHY would I compare those two movies?  They are trying to do completely different things.  Would I compare Die Hard to American Werewolf in London?  Why? Why would I do that?

I appreciate them doing it because I think it was 'not safe' (I won't go so far as to say, 'bold') to do this movie in the MCU.  I'd say if you wanted to gauge this movies quality you need to compare this to the Evil Dead 2 (allowing for differences due to budget size and thirty years) to determine whether you thought this was successful or not.  OR you say, "I don't like Evil Dead (series), so of course I don't like this, I'm not the target audience."  So it was a risk, but was it a good choice for this IP?  I'd say yes, definitely, because they pushed the boundaries of (MCU fans) audience genre-expectation and they picked a genre that has a strong element of humor.

[Samwise]

Why? Why would I do that?

 

[HaemishM]

My biggest problem with the movie had more to do with its place in the MCU. Both No Way Home and this movie promised series repercussions for the MCU in terms of the multiverse, especially based on what we'd seen in Loki as well as what we were set up for in Wandavision. And then it just didn't deliver. It was a very self-contained, self-referential story that I don't think really stood on its own all that well. It meandered especially in the middle, but rather than do so by showing us lots of different multiversal changes, we got what... glimpses in montages and only really 1 or 2 universes that had any depth to them. In the context of a solo movie, it was meh to me. It's not Dark World bad and forgettable, but it's probably Black Widow or Eternals level of unfortunate. And Black Widow's stinger had more impact on the overall MCU than anything in Multiverse other than maybe the introduction of America Chavez.

You can't really pull MCU movies out of the context of the MCU because the first 3 phases specifically trained the audience to try to put whatever movie it was into the larger context. They are built specifically as vehicles to advertise the next MCU movie (or one down the road). It's ingenuous, but when it doesn't work, the movie feels somewhat empty.

[Samwise]

You can't really pull MCU movies out of the context of the MCU because the first 3 phases specifically trained the audience to try to put whatever movie it was into the larger context.

God forbid we violate our conditioning.  This does help explain why some of y'all are so obsessive about the ranking and "fitting them into the order" or whatever, but man, I just don't have any of that, luckily for me.

[eldaec]

Every movie before infinity War, with the obvious exception of Thor 2, works fine as a movie on its own.

Since then not so much.

Wholeheartedly agree that people get way too fussy about continuity though.

[Reg]

I just watched it last night. It was great and I enjoyed it all the way through. I honestly don't know what all the bitching is about.

[Typhon]

My biggest problem with the movie had more to do with its place in the MCU. Both No Way Home and this movie promised series repercussions for the MCU in terms of the multiverse, especially based on what we'd seen in Loki as well as what we were set up for in Wandavision. And then it just didn't deliver. It was a very self-contained, self-referential story that I don't think really stood on its own all that well. It meandered especially in the middle, but rather than do so by showing us lots of different multiversal changes, we got what... glimpses in montages and only really 1 or 2 universes that had any depth to them. In the context of a solo movie, it was meh to me. It's not Dark World bad and forgettable, but it's probably Black Widow or Eternals level of unfortunate. And Black Widow's stinger had more impact on the overall MCU than anything in Multiverse other than maybe the introduction of America Chavez.

You can't really pull MCU movies out of the context of the MCU because the first 3 phases specifically trained the audience to try to put whatever movie it was into the larger context. They are built specifically as vehicles to advertise the next MCU movie (or one down the road). It's ingenuous, but when it doesn't work, the movie feels somewhat empty.

Two lines of thought occur to me after reading this; a pragmatic question about movie making, and a self-reflective question about what type of audience am I? Is this film for me?  And, after you've answered that last questions, how do you think about the films and film-makers that make films that just aren't for your audience demographic.

Do you ever ask yourself the pragmatic question, "how is the MCU going to attract top-tier talent if all their movies focus more heavily on advancing the MCU rather than on trying, and allowing, film-makers to create one-off experiences in the MCU"?  A studio that takes chances and works outside it's comfort zone all while conducting a massive experiment in continuity (I'm talking about the MCU phases and continuity) deserves a large amount of respect and a level of humility from the audience that not every film will be "for them" AND that not simply repeating the same formulas IS good film-making regardless of whether any individual film is widely adored.  I would only ask you this question because you write books.  You engage in an artistic process, so I assume you have some interest in the theory of that.  And here, my point is, "fucking seriously?  You, an artist, can't cut them some slack because you, the comic book lover, wants every MCU movie to move the MCU forward in a way that is satisfying TO YOU?"  I'd suggest that maybe you try to get over yourself, or if you can't get over yourself, at lease try to step outside of yourself as an intellectual exercise and judge films through the eyes and (supposed) intent of the film-makers trying to make those films.

Second question is, "Am the target audience?"  Ms Marvel isn't capturing my attention because it's a teen/young adult film and I'm old.  There isn't a problem with either of those things.  It's appropriate that teen/YA entertainment is primarily for teens/YA.  Humans get old.  I feel like the only comment about Ms Marvel that I should make is something along the lines of, "I was pleasantly surprised, they made this appeal to a broader audience" or "I wasn't the target audience".  I feel like a lot of you either forget that, or it just never occurs to you.

In that same vein, I'm thinking that if you liked the Evil Dead series, but you don't like DS: MoM maybe you just aged out of that genre.  Go back and watch Evil Dead 2 (if you ever liked it), and try to be honest with yourself about whether you still like the movie now, or whether you mostly like it because you are remembering how much you loved it.

[Velorath]

Iron Man versus DS: MVM?  They both have action?  Sure, I guess... but no, not all.  That's stupid, WHY would I compare those two movies?  They are trying to do completely different things.  Would I compare Die Hard to American Werewolf in London?  Why? Why would I do that?

I'd have a hard time trying to call any two MCU movies completely different things, let alone movies starring the MCU's two arrogant heroes that come from privilege. That said, they're both movies so it's pretty easy to compare them in the same way that a perfectly made deep dish pizza, and completely burnt grilled cheese sandwich are two different kinds of food but I can clearly acknowledge finding one better than the other.

For the record, I much prefer American Werewolf in London to Die Hard.

[Velorath]

It was a very self-contained, self-referential story that I don't think really stood on its own all that well.

It was a direct sequel to WandaVision so I'd be hard pressed calling it self-contained. Presumably it's set things up to bring that thread to a close at some point since we all assume Wanda's kids will eventually have to show up again when the Young Avengers are brought together.

It also brought in a character who can cross between dimensions as her main power, so that has some potentially big ramifications moving forward.

[Riggswolfe]

My biggest problem with the movie had more to do with its place in the MCU. Both No Way Home and this movie promised series repercussions for the MCU in terms of the multiverse, especially based on what we'd seen in Loki as well as what we were set up for in Wandavision. And then it just didn't deliver. It was a very self-contained, self-referential story that I don't think really stood on its own all that well. It meandered especially in the middle, but rather than do so by showing us lots of different multiversal changes, we got what... glimpses in montages and only really 1 or 2 universes that had any depth to them. In the context of a solo movie, it was meh to me. It's not Dark World bad and forgettable, but it's probably Black Widow or Eternals level of unfortunate. And Black Widow's stinger had more impact on the overall MCU than anything in Multiverse other than maybe the introduction of America Chavez.

You can't really pull MCU movies out of the context of the MCU because the first 3 phases specifically trained the audience to try to put whatever movie it was into the larger context. They are built specifically as vehicles to advertise the next MCU movie (or one down the road). It's ingenuous, but when it doesn't work, the movie feels somewhat empty.

Maybe I didn't pay attention to marketing talk or something but I had no idea that these two movies were intended to advance the overall MCU narrative. I figured, at most, they'd be a means of easing the audience into thinking about the multiverse since it feels like Phase 4 is moving that direction. I didn't expect either of them to have a major impact as that has traditionally been reserved for the Avengers films and arguably even then it's not really until IW and EG that we get long lasting impacts. Avengers 1 and 2 had some fallout that played out in solo movies but they didn't massively change the MCU and I'm hard pressed to think of any solo movie that did to be honest. The solo movies generally act as little building blocks and ways to bring in new characters and make incremental changes to existing characters.

I won't lie. I'd like to see a Rated R cut of DS2:iMoM that leans a bit harder into the horror side of things but sadly the MCU is just no there for their mainstream heroes.

[HaemishM]

You can't really pull MCU movies out of the context of the MCU because the first 3 phases specifically trained the audience to try to put whatever movie it was into the larger context.

God forbid we violate our conditioning.  This does help explain why some of y'all are so obsessive about the ranking and "fitting them into the order" or whatever, but man, I just don't have any of that, luckily for me.

It's a pretty deeply ingrained nerd trait. I'm not saying it's one to be proud of, mind you, but it certainly colors my expectations on these movies.

EDIT: And again, if it's going to do that, fine, but it also needs to be entertaining in its own right. It wasn't nearly as entertaining as it should have been. I enjoyed the first one a lot more than this one, including the unique visual motif of the final set piece.

[HaemishM]

Do you ever ask yourself the pragmatic question, "how is the MCU going to attract top-tier talent if all their movies focus more heavily on advancing the MCU rather than on trying, and allowing, film-makers to create one-off experiences in the MCU"?  A studio that takes chances and works outside it's comfort zone all while conducting a massive experiment in continuity (I'm talking about the MCU phases and continuity) deserves a large amount of respect and a level of humility from the audience that not every film will be "for them" AND that not simply repeating the same formulas IS good film-making regardless of whether any individual film is widely adored.  I would only ask you this question because you write books.  You engage in an artistic process, so I assume you have some interest in the theory of that.  And here, my point is, "fucking seriously?  You, an artist, can't cut them some slack because you, the comic book lover, wants every MCU movie to move the MCU forward in a way that is satisfying TO YOU?"  I'd suggest that maybe you try to get over yourself, or if you can't get over yourself, at lease try to step outside of yourself as an intellectual exercise and judge films through the eyes and (supposed) intent of the film-makers trying to make those films.

Second question is, "Am the target audience?"  Ms Marvel isn't capturing my attention because it's a teen/young adult film and I'm old.  There isn't a problem with either of those things.  It's appropriate that teen/YA entertainment is primarily for teens/YA.  Humans get old.  I feel like the only comment about Ms Marvel that I should make is something along the lines of, "I was pleasantly surprised, they made this appeal to a broader audience" or "I wasn't the target audience".  I feel like a lot of you either forget that, or it just never occurs to you.

TBF, I am absolutely the target demographic for this movie. I am a long-time comic nerd, I've mostly liked Sam Raimi movies including the Evil Dead movies and specifically Ash v. Evil Dead most recently, and I like the horror/supernatural genre (though not as much as schild). I don't have any problem with Raimi as a director, though I do agree he's kind of leaned pretty heavily on his old visual tricks that he started using the in first Evil Dead. It's just that those visual tricks haven't really aged well, nor has he evolved them much at all - the scene of creeping evil in ED1 is done in almost the exact same way as Wanda's presence in her counterpart's dimension in DS: MoM. The only real difference between the two was resolution and film quality - everything else about those tricks is 100% the same. What's worse, is that it absolutely felt out of place even within this movie. I had the same sort of criticism for Raimi in the scene in Spiderman 2 when Doc Ock first uses his mechanical arms. It's shot in a very similar fashion to a number of shots in both Evil Dead movies. That's been what... 20 years since Spiderman 2?

MCU movies can be from wildly different genres. Comics often have a wide range of genres. You bring up Ms. Marvel and that's a very good example. Both the comic and the TV show are firmly in the lighthearted teen angst drama with mild superhero antics genre. Both the comic and the TV show work for me as a nice "palate cleanser" type of show, a light contrast to the more naturalistic style of say Falcon and Winter Soldier or the darker, more violent DS: MoM. They still have to execute. Ms. Marvel could have easily been CW level of shitty teen angst, but it isn't.

Nothing wrong with the MCU experimenting with things, I hope they do, because I can easily see the formula getting stale. And there's no reason that solo movies can't also be mostly isolated from the MCU proper or its phase flow. They still have to execute an entertaining movie and unfortunately, both DS: MoM and Eternals have fallen very flat for me. Whatever experiment they were trying with either one didn't work. Neither are bad, but I also don't feel an overriding desire to watch either of them again.

[Velorath]

Second question is, "Am the target audience?"  Ms Marvel isn't capturing my attention because it's a teen/young adult film and I'm old.  There isn't a problem with either of those things.  It's appropriate that teen/YA entertainment is primarily for teens/YA.  Humans get old.  I feel like the only comment about Ms Marvel that I should make is something along the lines of, "I was pleasantly surprised, they made this appeal to a broader audience" or "I wasn't the target audience".  I feel like a lot of you either forget that, or it just never occurs to you.

I don't know that the Ms. Marvel show is any more specifically teen/YA targeted than say, Spider-man or that it's not capturing your attention because you're old.

[Khaldun]

I do see why people thought both Spider-Man and Multiverse of Madness would completely pop the cherry on the Marvel Multiverse, but:

a) you know, that shit is actually tiresome when it goes full out and becomes the bases of the continuity unless you're building a setting that is meant for it from the beginning; Marvel's comics continuity long since shark-jumped on excessive multiversal stuff because it's the only way, along with time travel, to let characters change and evolve when intellectual property investments demand that they otherwise always return to default
b) Easter Eggs that get devoured like Augustus Gloop just got locked into Cadbury Egg warehouse aren't a story with characters and a narrative, they're a revolting orgy that ends in diarrhea and sadness
c) Honestly, it's freaking expensive to make an asston of superheroes appear convincingly on-screen for just a few minutes or a cameo

I'm 100% in favor of restraint on all of this. I think the one thing they could be doing better at this point is some slight sign-posting of where it's all going. That might really be the problem--so many people enjoyed Endgame, both the nerds and the normies, that everybody's kind of eager for another gigantic everything comes together beautifully movie/movies.