I may be one of the few who was completely okay with where both Shang-Chi and Ms Marvel went, but I definitely think Quantumania had a lot of problems going to another realm. Or really, what I think that problem was.... it lost its characters. It's relationships. Had they kept the focus on that stuff, along with the Xcons, Scott's ex and her new husband, a Quantum Realm romp could have been more enjoyable. Another heist, came group, new location. What worked before with some new people and exotic setting. That's my thought anyway, but it may have still not worked in the end either.

With Kang though

I agree, the first "true" Kang we see - one who took over an entire "realm/planet" - needed to win against Ant-Man. And not just Ant-Man, any solo Avenger, in order to be seen as a threat. I'm worried this guy might win up against a team with Thor, Capt Marvel, Hulk, Vision, Dr Strange...?

I thought going to the Quantuum Realm made sense. But they made two mistakes I think -

One is that the Quantum realm was just another realm/world only smaller, with people and cities - that could be anywhere in space, what was the point, when before it seemed abstract and a terrible place to be? And how long was Scott trapped in there between the blip and Endgame, 5 years, and yet he never met any of those people apparently?

Two, if you need to put Kang in there, it should be because he is using the realm to build power and an army, for some reason - not that he was trapped/exiled and took over due to Janet's help by luck, but that his existence there is a threat to Earth and he is planful and in charge and exploiting the realm somehow.

I do admit, I feel that Marvel is now stuck between "going bigger" each sequel or else getting hammered for "low stakes, more of the same" by some fans/media. But they forget that by the third or fourth time we see these characters, we are now getting attached to them in a way that a more character-driven drama can be the focus. They can do the character beats instead of fights. Its why Civil War worked so well - you feel bad for Tony learning about his parents and that Cap is protecting their killer, even if he was brainwashed at the time. No big stakes needed. Its also why Thor Love and Thunder could have been so much better if they let it stay more serious so that you never lost sight of Gorr's pain or Jane's struggle and Thor's genuine affection for her. Its why WandaVision devolving into witch-fu was a shame. The characters are still in there, but they put that on the backseat for the action. No Way Home is so much better for Peter getting to save MJ after he didn't save Gwen, a minor beat in some ways but takes it from being Spideys beating guys they beat before...

(An example where they made a truly wrong choice was cutting the scene in the Black Widow film at the end where she saw the kids playing as the Avengers - the look on her face was perfect and did everything to make me think she was aware of her influence, happy with where she had gotten to, and could be the person who would sacrifice herself in Endgame. But the cut that. It would be like cutting Steve dancing with Peggy and only seeing old Steve at the end with no context.)

@fac Scott was gone for five years but for him it was only five minutes. But I agree it was basically another weird planet rather than something more unique. And a lot of other good points. 

I'm always for shifting back to smaller stakes. I loved Homecoming for being so smaller in focus and am ready for more of those. More personal stories, smaller budgets, character driven things. Quantumania felt like all the character beats were never fleshed out behind bullet points.

The quantum realm was a mess. Every Antman film portrays it differently, and when we finally get to part 3- WHAT is this place? Why are there people that look like humans, and also broccoli people? 
This is what exists when you get smaller than atoms- but they are still shrinking here? What happens when they get smaller? Do these people have atoms too? Are there just endless layers of quantum realms the smaller you go? 
This physical place made less sense to me than the shapeless drug trips we saw before. 

Also, the Main bad guy should have been MODOK. Darren has a personal connection with all the heroes, and it ties back into the first movie neatly. A better, uglier MODOK preferably. Have Kang pulling the strings from a less hands on approach, so he can get away with not failing directly. 

As many problems as I had with Quantumania, I still hope for a part 4 to give the characters a better send-off.

In other news

I've a strong conviction that the Avengers role in the MCU should've ended after Endgame (well, after WandaVision). Everybody pretty much got the ending they deserved, and Far From Home and WandaVision gave decent denouements to the story. 

Phase Four then starts fresh(-ish) with Fantastic Four (which does technically include She-Hulk, Black Panther, Namor, a more Inhiluman-related Ms. Marvel, and even Agatha Harkness). You can still let Spider-Man, Ant-Man and the Guardians finish out their trilogies while Dr. Strange and Capt. Marvel bridge the way to the Multiverse Saga.

What I'm saying is, going into a new saga, I'd rather have A-team FF characters than C-tier Avengers.

I get where you're coming from, but when Iron Man first came out, the reviews were calling out Marvel for bringing out a c-tier hero, compared to Spider-Man etc. These days, it's hard to imagine anyone seeing Iron Man that way. But I'm sure Feige remembers that, as well as the Guardians, and what he learned is you can turn anyone into A-grade when handled the right way. And I do agree with that. They didn't always fulfill that, but it can still be true.

@ru1977  And honestly, these days, Fantastic Four is C-tier. They've failed to make it into pop culture proper even after three films. Their comics routinely don't do well and that's something marketed -at comic fans-. I could point out that it's because Fantastic Four sucks. But that's neither here nor there. Current movie-goers don't care about and barely know the team.
And maybe that's why Feige is showing interest there. Or Marvel/Disney. -Someone- either thinks it will be interesting to try to propel them, or someone wants them shoved down our throats to sell comics and merch and try to maintain their relevancy in a nerd world that doesn't seem all that interested in them.

I tend to think it's both. I imagine Feige wants to do it because it's fun and interesting to try something different now. While Marvel/Disney wants to do it because they want another bankable property. I'd argue they want as many Marvel things as possible to be bankable properties.

Anyway.. I watched The Marvels the other day, finally. I enjoyed it a lot. Not my favorite Marvel film but easily in the top ten for me. It's one of those movies, and I say this a lot, that just felt like a comic book. I'm kind of tired of the nose-in-the-air attitude that comic book movies need to pretend to not be comic book movies and imitate high art or some other version of film that people like. This film was silly/funny, had enjoyable, explosive action, cool character moments, some fan-service, and didn't feel like any of that was sacrificing having a story. It did have a story. A comic booky story. Which it should have. And I feel like most of the best Marvel films have felt this way.

So yeah, fun. That's it. Nothing transcendent. Just comic book fun on the big, or small, screen. But I do agree with the sentiment that they need to scale back, while disagreeing that they've boxed themselves into a place where they can't. We see that isn't true with the Netflix shows, as an example. Or even the first couple of Spider-Mans, and even Black Panther, to an extent. Those stories were a lot more focused on 'local' events and yet, they felt important and had stories the audience cared about.

This is a huge problem in fantasy as well, where too many writers default to 'the dark lord is destroying the entire world and will bring upon us the Endless Night and plagues of zombies and letting him win will mean the end of all things.' That can make for good storytelling, but if you do it a lot it gets very samey and actually undercuts all of the tension. The Dragonlance setting has like.. three world-breaking events because they just couldn't think of anything dramatic to do, while many of Dragonlance's BEST stories are not about those events, or are side-stories within those events.

Tell good stories. Focus on the characters first. Think about how to make people care about this story. And people will enjoy it. Netflix Daredevil told an incredibly engaging story that people loved and was spoken very highly of, and it was just about one dude fighting a crime lord in one PART of one city. Daredevil didn't have to fight Thanos for Daredevil to matter, and Marvel/Disney needs to remember that. Desperately.

@theknightdamien I whole-heartedly agree, and the audience needs to remember that too (about Daredevil/Thanos). It's okay he wasn't in Endgame. And I completely agree on Marvels. It wasn't the best one, but it was FAR from their worst and just a ton of fun for me.

Posted by: @ru1977

↑

is you can turn anyone into A-grade when handled the right way.

Very true, and I'll champion that same attitude all day long, but I wasn't really trying to dismiss the characters themselves.  It's just that, in my eyes, the Avengers had an epic story that came to satisfying conclusions for all of them. Not letting that story end there just promises a slow fade instead of an exciting conclusion. All we can expect now is the Second-Best Avengers.

But honestly, it's really just a change of tone. Shang-Chi is a good movie without any kind of promise of him becoming an Avenger. Black Panther 2's vibranium detector didn't have to come from an Ironman-adjacent character. Maybe Ms. Marvel's bangle made its way to Pakistan from a great hidden refuge in the Himalayas. Aside from squeezing in an FF movie early to get the ball rolling (sorry, Eternals) the schedule can play out the same, we just use them to build out FF lore instead of Avengers lore.

To be fair, I can armchair QB the MCU for days (and probably have), but I'm trying to avoid a lot of those little "that's not how I would've done it" hindsight revisions. The slow death of the Avengers is just such a big cloud for me. 

@fletch thank you for explaining that, and yeah that's all fair. I think we are all guilty of arm chairing, and that's okay. I think being more constructive than venomous is fine. Yes, having FF in Phase Four, aside from being fitting, would have really been a great kickoff. Or mutants, though I would still love to have a show for that. Eight episodes with the original five Xmen, but treat it like X Files or Supernatural where it's a mutant of the week they save/meet/attempt to recruit, but the big names (Wolverine, Storm, Colossus etc) turn them down. In the finale, they get captured or whatever, and Charles is able to convince the characters that hadnt joined to help him, and most of them end up staying by episode's end. Then, movie.

Posted by: @fletch

↑

I've a strong conviction that the Avengers role in the MCU should've ended after Endgame (well, after WandaVision). Everybody pretty much got the ending they deserved, and Far From Home and WandaVision gave decent denouements to the story. 

I think what they were trying to do was really combine "last appearances" for the core Avengers with passing of the torch/new character introductions - and if they had stuck to just that as Phase 4 it would have been nicely focused.

Think if this had been Phase 4:

WandaVision - resets Vision, pivots Wanda, adds Monica

Falcon & Winter Soldier - deals in part with the fallout from Steve, resets Sam, adds Walker-Cap

Hawkeye - deals in part with fallout from Natasha, wraps up Hawkeye, adds Kate, Echo

Secret Invasion - resets Fury, resets Rhodey, adds G'iah

Black Widow - wraps up Natasha, adds Yelena, Red Guardian

Thor L&T - wraps up Thor

Guardians 3 - deals in part with fallout from Gamora, resets StarLord, pivots the other Guardians

Spidey FFH - deals in part with fallout from Tony

BP Wakanda Forever - deals in part with fallout from T'Challa, adds Siri and Iron Heart

Ant-Man Quantumania - adds Cassie

You kind of have an extended post-Endgame wrap up of each major Avenger and a soft reset bringing in a lot of new faces. 

Phase 5 - half all-new characters and half Multiverse

Loki S1 and S2 - kicks of Multiverse

What If...?

Spidey NWH - resets Spidey, intros DD

Dr Strange MOM - more Multiverse - and starts bringing in alts of Characters, X-Men

Ms. Marvel

Moon Knight

She-Hulk (more DD)

Echo (more DD)

The Marvels

Eternals

Shang-Chi

....

Deadpool (presumably)

Fantastic Four

Daredevil

Then Phase 6 brings all the pieces together for bigger teams and threats...

Thunderbolts

Cap NWO

Armor Wars

Avengers Team-ups

Well that makes a ton of sense. No sarcasm.

Posted by: @theknightdamien

↑

@ru1977  And honestly, these days, Fantastic Four is C-tier. They've failed to make it into pop culture proper even after three films. Their comics routinely don't do well and that's something marketed -at comic fans-. I could point out that it's because Fantastic Four sucks. But that's neither here nor there. Current movie-goers don't care about and barely know the team.

I am offended by this FF libel! I think they have generally been done wrong in film form and I'm sure the comics have gotten repetitive after 60 years. But the FF concept is pretty great, the "elements" in human form with four distinct attributes (impulsive, angry/PTSD, caring, introvert/genius). I think however the FF works better over longer time frames so the family dynamic can build. 

Posted by: @theknightdamien

↑

But I do agree with the sentiment that they need to scale back, while disagreeing that they've boxed themselves into a place where they can't.

They passed up many potential small character moments since Endgame in the films to focus on spectacle/humor and I think it has hurt the films a bit. It isn't just the size of the threat, the films have been a bit less about the characters when they could have been more about them this last round. Spidey NWH worked the best because of the character impact. (Same with Hawkeye and WandaVision, at least to me, and Thor when it was serious about Jane, and all of Loki)

Which is why I am hoping they don't go the Galactus route with FF in the first film. 

I never got into FF but I imagine it CAN work really well on screen. I think I said before but I am ready for the movie to win me over.

And I definitely agree they've sacrificed character for spectacle more and more. Quantumania was the worst offender of that, but yeah the character moments of Thor 4 were the best parts of that movie and what I remember most. But that, and especially stuff like Loki show they can still knock it out of the park when they DO focus on character.