TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Marvel Cinematic Universe

Go To

Welcome to the main discussion thread for the Marvel Cinematic Universe! This pinned post is here to establish some basic guidelines. All of the Media Forum rules still apply.

  • This thread is for talking about the live-action films, TV shows, animated works, and related content that use the Marvel brand, currently owned by Disney.
  • While mild digressions are okay, discussion of the comic books should go in this thread. Extended digressions may be thumped as off-topic.
  • Spoilers for new releases should not be discussed without spoiler tagging for at least two weeks. Rather, each title should have a dedicated thread where that sort of conversation is held. We can mention new releases in a general sense, but please be courteous to people who don't want to be spoiled.

If you're posting tagged spoilers, make sure that the film or series is clearly identified outside the spoiler tagging. People need to know what will be spoiled before they choose to read the post.

    Original post 
Since Thor and now Captain America came out this year, I wanted to get what Tropers thought of the concept and execution of the Marvel Cinematic Universe in general. Personally I love the idea and wonder why this idea hasn't been seriously tried before. It sorta seems to me like the DCAU in movie form (And well, ummm, with Marvel), and really 'gets' the comic book feel of a shared universe while not being completely alienating.

Edited by Mrph1 on Jul 29th 2024 at 3:09:00 PM

KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
#82126: Mar 12th 2018 at 6:59:36 PM

Saying that it's not as political as people are saying is the exact same excuse people used to shit on Black Panther. Just saying.

And again, that's "just saying" nothing, because the two movies face entirely different situations.

Appropriating the trials Black Panther is going through that as an excuse to claim an entirely different and significantly more sensationalist movie is deeper than it actually is, or implying that people are being ignorant for not agreeing, is no less insulting to Black Panther itself and the people who support the political messages it holds.

edited 12th Mar '18 7:01:47 PM by KnownUnknown

AdricDePsycho Rock on, Gold Dust Woman from Never Going Back Again Since: Oct, 2014 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Rock on, Gold Dust Woman
#82127: Mar 12th 2018 at 6:59:56 PM

[up][up]

That's because it isn't one of those times. There may be a point to this but frankly I'm still reading it off as incredibly condescending towards Waititi's work that it's allegedly from a "white man's perspective".

[up]

Hardly. It's all the same BS justifications of shoving one's head in the sand and ignoring any analysis about the film. Both films are about imperialism. Black Panther may have done it better and with more explicitness, but that does not mean Thor: Ragnarok didn't do it either, that numerous indigenous writers have approved of it, or that it's being overplayed by people.

edited 12th Mar '18 7:01:31 PM by AdricDePsycho

Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?
KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
#82128: Mar 12th 2018 at 7:04:08 PM

Looking over the course of this conversation, I can't honestly say it's looked that way. It does feel a lot like appropriating racial and national rhetoric for the sake of shutting down criticism of a film that is in no way legitimately expressing such things.

The fact that this tangent has very neatly sidestepped conversation about the movie's actual narrative and how it may or may not reflect those themes is very telling. You haven't actually rebutted any of the criticisms, you've attempted to claim the critics are inherently wrong for presenting them.

Loosely comparing this situation to Black Panther's negative press contributes nothing if you don't do any actual comparison. "Just saying" is not an argument. You're wrangling a topic you don't seem to have much conviction in actually pursuing, in favor of saying "no, it isn't!" repeatedly with more and more enthusiasm.

edited 12th Mar '18 7:08:15 PM by KnownUnknown

wisewillow She/her Since: May, 2011
She/her
#82129: Mar 12th 2018 at 7:07:54 PM

...

a film that is in no way legitimately expressing such things.

Dude. I’ve linked at least three articles that explain IN DEPTH how Ragnatok addresses these themes. You can’t just say it’s not there cause you personally don’t see it. It’s like covering your eyes and then saying there’s nothing there.

this tangent has very neatly sidestepped conversation about the movie's actual narrative and how it may or may not reflect those themes is very telling.

Adric and I have both said that Black Panther expands on these themes with more depth/detail; that doesn’t mean that Ragnarok doesn’t ALSO address these themes.

edited 12th Mar '18 7:09:17 PM by wisewillow

Tuckerscreator (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Drift compatible
#82130: Mar 12th 2018 at 7:08:23 PM

I think that there is worth in analyzing a metaphor and saying "hey maybe this doesn't work as well as it could" or "the symbolism contradicts over here". Like I said before, I like what we have in this film but would like to see what it could've been as a longer series or even set in an original universe.

That said, it comes off as pretty rude, to put it lightly, to not pay heed to the responses of actual Māori and Indigenous writers linked here like Jeanne and Meleika and basically say back "no you're reading into it too much and this movie is no different than if a white guy directed it". Like, there's only a handful of Māori movies in Hollywood; I think Native folks can be trusted to know what is authentically their toy after years of calling out shoddy imitations.

edited 12th Mar '18 7:10:30 PM by Tuckerscreator

KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
#82131: Mar 12th 2018 at 7:08:54 PM

[up][up] Linking to a review doesn't make that review inherently apt, so I don't know why you would assume that I had to have changed my opinion by reading them.

edited 12th Mar '18 7:09:09 PM by KnownUnknown

DeathsApprentice The Ultimate Lifeform from The Ark Since: Aug, 2011 Relationship Status: Is that a kind of food?
The Ultimate Lifeform
#82132: Mar 12th 2018 at 7:08:57 PM

I think the themes of imperialism and colonialism are present in Ragnarok, yeah, but I feel like it's probably just easier to miss than it is in Black Panther.

When we're done, there won't be anything left.
AdricDePsycho Rock on, Gold Dust Woman from Never Going Back Again Since: Oct, 2014 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Rock on, Gold Dust Woman
#82133: Mar 12th 2018 at 7:10:16 PM

Saying it's "in no way expressing these things" feels like ignoring how, again, numerous other indigenous writers have pointed out this same themes, approved of them, and how this does indeed relate to imperialism. It says a lot more that a Maori director is being criticized for having a "white person's perspective" when it's been anything but, that people keep saying it's either insulting or are pointing out how other indigenous writers have said otherwise.

This is where the Black Panther comparison come in because it's exactly the same shit. Don't accuse it of being appropriation when in the end it's the same bullshit of POC filmmakers putting out a message and then people complaining that said message is illegitimate.

Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?
AlleyOop Since: Oct, 2010
#82134: Mar 12th 2018 at 7:10:17 PM

Saying that Ragnarok doesn't deal with those themes as well as it should have or some analysts claim it did, is very different from saying those themes don't exist in the film, in direct contradiction with parts of the script, and that anyone who does read those themes into it must be delusional and trying too hard to look for more meaning than what's in there.

[down][down]Whoops.

edited 12th Mar '18 7:14:14 PM by AlleyOop

KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
#82135: Mar 12th 2018 at 7:10:47 PM

I mean, yeah. As noted several times, the movie brings up Imperialism but doesn't actually explore it in any way. The conversation is about whether the film is "about" Imperialism, not whether Waititi uses the idea as a means of presenting characterization.

[up] Nobody said anything of the latter as far as I'm aware. The point has, very consistently, been that the movie uses imperialism as a backdrop for easy characterization, while it instead whiles it away to focus on other things. So it's closer to the former, but more along that the lines that the movie uses imperialism but doesn't make itself about imperialism, and in fact goes counter to that theme a few times for the sake of cool, funny or plot resolution.

We should not reach the point where we start assuming what people have said over actually responding to said dialogue.

edited 12th Mar '18 7:15:55 PM by KnownUnknown

AdricDePsycho Rock on, Gold Dust Woman from Never Going Back Again Since: Oct, 2014 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Rock on, Gold Dust Woman
#82136: Mar 12th 2018 at 7:11:26 PM

[up][up]

Did you post before finishing your last sentence?

EDIT: Look, I'm not going to say that this film is better at its message than Black Panther. I've outright conceded that in some parts it could have been improved. That does not mean that such a message or theme is there and that labeling it a "white man's perspective" after people have linked to Indigenous opinions on the film that showed otherwise is highly insulting to Waititi.

edited 12th Mar '18 7:16:59 PM by AdricDePsycho

Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?
KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
#82137: Mar 12th 2018 at 7:17:53 PM

Then for Pete's sake call it a "Western" perspective if Tobias' exact wording bothers you.

edited 12th Mar '18 7:19:13 PM by KnownUnknown

AdricDePsycho Rock on, Gold Dust Woman from Never Going Back Again Since: Oct, 2014 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Rock on, Gold Dust Woman
#82138: Mar 12th 2018 at 7:19:01 PM

And that point is still under dispute given, again, how many Indigenous writers have said otherwise.

Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?
KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
#82139: Mar 12th 2018 at 7:19:21 PM

Tobias' point that the ending is a very colonialist and blase leaning concept on the tail end of what attempts to be an anti-colonialist movie still stands regardless of terminology.

To repeat myself:

Minority writers are in no way immune to having Westernized approaches to situations and ideologies when it comes to the things they write. As a minority myself who has spent much of his life reading, watching and experiencing the works of many, many minority writers, I can attest to the fact that many writers - especially movie and comic writers - default to the typical, normalized "white" way of thinking when it comes to characterization, plot and resolution, because that's what they're trained to believe is good and thus regurgitate.

It's a sad reality of the world we live in, but it is a reality.

[up] So how do those indigenous analysts interpret the ending, exactly? You keep bringing them up, but not using them to actually rebut the point. The terminology was used in regards to the themes that the ending portrays: how do the analysts you're citing reconcile those seemingly contradictory themes?

edited 12th Mar '18 7:24:05 PM by KnownUnknown

unknowing from somewhere.. Since: Mar, 2014
#82140: Mar 12th 2018 at 7:22:22 PM

Mre important, just because the theme is there dosent mean is was handle good which is the point here: that the used of imperalism is used in a very superficial way.

"is poetic justice"

Yeah I will doubt about that because the one who destroy asgard at the end is thor, the guy who didnt have that much tie to Asgard and even less to Hela, and second because it fail to show any perpective about asgard and their participation because the film is to busy trying to be funny about Hulk and Thor.

So yeah, the theme are present and that is good, but I wont said is much better for it.

"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"
Tuckerscreator (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Drift compatible
#82141: Mar 12th 2018 at 7:23:18 PM

What I'll add is that the theme of Asgard being such a source of evil that it has to be destroyed, is part of a larger theme in the film of having to move on the past.

Thor loses his hammer, and he spends much of the film pining for it and struggling to fight without it, until it's made clear that it was just a training tool and he was meant to grow into someone stronger.

Loki has spent his years being the God of Mischief and constantly backstabbing. Until it's turned predictable and he gets out-betrayed and lectured to by Thor about how he's doomed until he decides to change.

Valkyrie has lived on a lawless planet caring only about money for drinks, by her own admission coming to Sakaar to drink herself to death after seeing all her fellow warriors die was too horrific to continue from. She has a variant in that she both embraces and moves on from the past by reclaiming her office as a Valkyrie.

Destroying Asgard, and accepting that its prophecy was for a reason, is their way of demonstrating their character growth leading up to bringing about the consequence for Asgard's sins.

AdricDePsycho Rock on, Gold Dust Woman from Never Going Back Again Since: Oct, 2014 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Rock on, Gold Dust Woman
#82142: Mar 12th 2018 at 7:23:43 PM

[up][up][up]

You know, I will concede that point. They don't talk about the ending. I'll grant you that point there.

edited 12th Mar '18 7:23:58 PM by AdricDePsycho

Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?
wisewillow She/her Since: May, 2011
She/her
#82143: Mar 12th 2018 at 7:26:12 PM

I’m not sure I see how “imperialists lose everything they built from the conquest of others” is a colonialist ending. They aren’t an expedition setting out to conquer; they’re refugees.

KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
#82144: Mar 12th 2018 at 7:27:37 PM

Refugees is a stretch. They're explicitly a self sufficient nation, just one that needs a new land in which to settle. The end theme is very much them going "the old home destroyed itself, so we'll build a new one elsewhere:" they're settlers.

The alleged colonialist themes comes from the fact that when you're independently settling someplace of your own accord (especially a place that is already populated) you're taking that place from someone else. Tobias, I think, was comparing them more to Europeans who went to rebuild in the New World to escape war and strife at home.

edited 12th Mar '18 7:30:58 PM by KnownUnknown

unknowing from somewhere.. Since: Mar, 2014
#82145: Mar 12th 2018 at 7:30:40 PM

[up]More important since the movie brush the efect all this have in asgard or the other kindoms is really hard to acept the asgardian will learn anything other than his king and protector blow up his own kindom because he coudnt beat her sister.

Or that consider what kind of habitant we see (the frost gigant and dark elves) being awfull jerk give a unfortune implications vibes

Or that Loki, the guy who did try the same things as Hella on earth(while back by Thanos, no less) get pretty much is own redemption story...

edited 12th Mar '18 7:32:15 PM by unknowing

"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"
RBluefish Since: Nov, 2013
#82146: Mar 12th 2018 at 7:31:00 PM

As for the ending, "burn it all to the ground, problem solved," is totally a white perspective.

Yeah, if there's one perspective white people are famous for, it's radical revolutionary sentiments. I think you need to expand your view of what leftist POC activism can look like.

I feel like so much of this whole argument could have gone so much smoother if you had just refrained from essentially calling Taika Waititi a white guy and then flat-out ignoring everyone who corrected you.

"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."
KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
#82147: Mar 12th 2018 at 7:32:21 PM

Revolutionary is definitely a stretch. Thor didn't start a revolution anywhere. He dropped a superweapon on the person who tried to usurp his kingdom, and then moved his people away from the problem to rebuild elsewhere.

Scorched Earth, basically. Destroying the land because they're confident they can get their hands on a new one, or have decided they don't care either way as the case may be. Which, yeah, can be rather uncomfortable if you think about it too long.

edited 12th Mar '18 7:35:25 PM by KnownUnknown

unknowing from somewhere.. Since: Mar, 2014
#82148: Mar 12th 2018 at 7:33:25 PM

[up][up]I think he is refering of "just blow out things and beat the bad guy" which is usually the typical naive white position to almost....everything.

edited 12th Mar '18 7:33:51 PM by unknowing

"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#82149: Mar 12th 2018 at 7:35:00 PM

[up][up]In what way are they a self sufficient nation? They have few supplies, little in the way of personal effects, and virtually no method of defending themselves(unless I'm mistaken their craft lacks weapons). On top of that almost none of them are warriors or fighters of any variety. Virtually any planet they try to settle on could probably beat them in a straight fight. They sure seem like refugees to me.

Bocaj Funny but not helpful from Here or thereabouts (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Pining for the fjords
Funny but not helpful
#82150: Mar 12th 2018 at 7:36:12 PM

All the nine realms are in revolt in Thor 2 including ones that we don't know for sure if they're evil jerks

Thor serves his part in putting down these revolts

Forever liveblogging the Avengers

Total posts: 186,763
Top