I'm caught in a weird spot where I generally enjoy the MCU movies as popcorn fun that fill a niche while at the same time wishing it hadn't had this galactic impact on the industry where now EVERYTHING is all about franchise potential and tie-ins.
For me, the most memorable superhero movies (or movies set in superhero universes) in recent years have been the darker ones that explore the human psyche. The Dark Knight, Logan, and Joker, to name a few.
"I generally enjoy the MCU movies as popcorn fun that fill a niche while at the same time wishing it hadn't had this galactic impact on the industry where now EVERYTHING is all about franchise potential and tie-ins"
This exactly. If the MCU a just a very successful film franchise that reliably churned out B/B+ popcorn movies for fans it would be absolutely fine. The problem is that they've been SO financially successful that they've distorted the whole industry.
don't have any opinions on marvel movies, but the comments section being turned on feels like an interesting new development given that you've blogged for a long time without one.
I realized that this is a secret selling point to the substack subscription model, you're paying for a civil comments section. In the long-term I think people might feel like it's easier to justify $5 a month for access to a community they like rather than one dude's takes.
One reason I really like reading your writing is that it's very thought provoking for me and I like sharing them with you – your replies are always great too.
I just tried to watch Wandavision. I have a baby and the parts with her and Vision and the kids were really something- maybe not intentionally they captured a kind of postpartum derangement, the alienation and also just insane love you feel; and it was also good as a story about grief. I had to skip all the dorky bits about, idk, agents? She made a forcefield? There's a secret bad guy? I hated the ending. It was terrible. The only good Marvel thing is the first season of Legion.
The ending also features random quips, too! Yes, the (totally pro forma) bad guy shoots a gun at the children, but they and the heroes quip with each other so you can tell no one's really in any danger and there are no stakes. The irony of Wandavision, where there's danger and unpredictability in Wanda's fantasy world but the "real" world is safe as houses—sums up the whole Marvel problem.
I hadn’t really thought about it in terms of quips, but I’ve long been tired of the fact that we’re a fundamentally unserious culture. Someone said we’re living in the age of stupid. I suppose the homogenization of pop culture and what passes for intellectual culture is represented to some extent by the prevalence of one liners and other shallow humor. Everything is a referent to everything else and we’re all in on the joke, which is supposed to make us feel sophisticated. But if we’re all sophisticated, then we aren’t really. I think this gets conflated to some extent by conservatives who complain about the infestation of politics into culture, but it’s not so much about politics as it is about being in the in group. I don’t think this necessarily goes with what you were saying, but it’s what your post made me think about.
As an aside, you’re one of my three or four favorite writers right now. I’d never heard of you before you started a substack, but I’ve read everything you’ve written so far on here. Thanks.
It seems uncharitable to denigrate something many people enjoy a great deal because you don't enjoy it. But it seems unfair to blame the creators. They are, after all, only giving the people what they want. Shouldn't you really be criticizing the people who choose to watch these movies?
"It seems uncharitable to denigrate something many people enjoy a great deal because you don't enjoy it."
... are you familiar with the entire concept of film criticism? Are you opposed to it in general? The way you take art seriously is by engaging with it critically.
"They are, after all, only giving the people what they want."
So were the writers who made Twilight, but I didn't like those movies.
"Shouldn't you really be criticizing the people who choose to watch these movies?"
No, I don't think so. Taste is subjective and complicated. It's the creators who are responsible for the art they create.
I mean...I thought I was familiar with the concept of film criticism? Maybe I'm not. I guess I just thought like, whether I like a movie and whether it succeeds at what it was trying to do are different, and film criticism is mostly about the latter than the former. But maybe it isn't. I definitely haven't had any sort of training or extensive exposure to the medium. What does film criticism mean to you?
But where did I say people are bad for liking these movies? Can you please copy and paste a quote of what you're reacting to? I'm especially confused because I make a point of saying I sometimes watch these movies.
No I was talking to you. I'm confused by this: "I guess I just thought like, whether I like a movie and whether it succeeds at what it was trying to do are different, and film criticism is mostly about the latter than the former."
I don't disagree - but when did I criticize people for liking these movies, or suggest that liking them is illegitimate.
I never intended to claim that you criticized people for liking the movies. I'm not sure where you're getting that? I had said "Shouldn't you really be criticizing the people who choose to watch these movies?" which is predicated upon your NOT having criticized those people.
That last one about "criticizing the people who choose to watch these movies" has been a sore spot for me in recent years. I quit Twitter a few years ago in part because Academy Awards discourse got so ugly, especially after Trump won. There were just so many sneering, Woke assholes whose primary mission is that the most explicitly progressive art or artist wins and fuck anyone who thinks otherwise. To call it all alienating was an understatement.
This is emblematic of the terrible and lazy "Let People Enjoy Things" meme. Taken to its logical conclusion we end up with the lowest common denominator.
How is that the logical conclusion? All of the people I know who enjoy smart stuff also like some dumb stuff. The presence of the dumb stuff doesn't preclude the enjoyment of, or demand for, the smart stuff.
The problem is that it doesn't flow in the opposite direction - the people that like the smart stuff almost always like the dumb stuff too but many many people who like the dumb stuff don't access anything else. Which is fine, that's their choice. But it's sad because they're missing out on a lot of what movies have to offer.
A Disney movie will get edgy and original at the same time they create a theme park ride you have a chance of falling out of. (Cue an article from you about how every large organization devolves into a culture of risk reduction, and cluelessly tries to cheat on the risk-return curve)
Hmmm .. my introduction to the MCU was Guardians of the Galaxy. Nothing but end-to-end jokes, so I figured hey I guess that’s how they roll. Earliest exposure to Stan Lee was Howard the Duck comics in high school (God I’m old). Same thing.
So if these characters *weren’t* doing cheesy humor, I’d give them two Ibuprofen and a day off work.
I'm not sure the humor is a problem. I think there's humor in even the worst tragedies (and I don't just mean the MCU movies :)).
I get what you mean about "really good movies can only be made with the freedom to fail" – and I think it's true of all art.
(And some of the best 'art' is precisely the 'failures'.)
I'm fine with the humor. I generally like the movies. I actually like "Thor Ragnarok" a lot; maybe the most.
And I'm fine with the 'big franchise effect' on Hollywood. I think of the MCU as more of a hybrid between (traditional) 'films' and modern TV shows (e.g. The Wire). And from that perspective, it's totally fine that they're "assembly line movies". The work is the franchise itself. Obviously the individual movies _can_ or _could_ (and thus do) stand on their own. It's perfectly fine to criticize them individually.
But I think it misses the point in a significant way.
It's a book of (beautiful) photos of blast furnaces.
It would be easy to criticize individual photos as being technically (very) well produced but otherwise uninteresting (or 'un-serious').
But I'd be very surprised if you couldn't appreciate the _collection_ itself as a masterful work of art. (Like all great art, it's _fascinating_ to enjoy. My reaction was 'wow!' when I first viewed it.)
In today's day The Rock has franchise potential
https://www.slashfilm.com/the-rock-sequel/
Boy that sounds like it would suck ass
Nice to remember a time where any successful movie doesn't have a forced sequel
Coming 2 America: Remember *This* Gag?
I'm caught in a weird spot where I generally enjoy the MCU movies as popcorn fun that fill a niche while at the same time wishing it hadn't had this galactic impact on the industry where now EVERYTHING is all about franchise potential and tie-ins.
For me, the most memorable superhero movies (or movies set in superhero universes) in recent years have been the darker ones that explore the human psyche. The Dark Knight, Logan, and Joker, to name a few.
"I generally enjoy the MCU movies as popcorn fun that fill a niche while at the same time wishing it hadn't had this galactic impact on the industry where now EVERYTHING is all about franchise potential and tie-ins"
This exactly. If the MCU a just a very successful film franchise that reliably churned out B/B+ popcorn movies for fans it would be absolutely fine. The problem is that they've been SO financially successful that they've distorted the whole industry.
don't have any opinions on marvel movies, but the comments section being turned on feels like an interesting new development given that you've blogged for a long time without one.
I'm sure I'll regret it soon. Hopefully the fact that only subscribers can comment (which I can't seem to change on my end) will limit the riff raff.
I realized that this is a secret selling point to the substack subscription model, you're paying for a civil comments section. In the long-term I think people might feel like it's easier to justify $5 a month for access to a community they like rather than one dude's takes.
That's a _very_ good point – I hope it's true!
> I'm sure I'll regret it soon.
I hope not!
One reason I really like reading your writing is that it's very thought provoking for me and I like sharing them with you – your replies are always great too.
I just tried to watch Wandavision. I have a baby and the parts with her and Vision and the kids were really something- maybe not intentionally they captured a kind of postpartum derangement, the alienation and also just insane love you feel; and it was also good as a story about grief. I had to skip all the dorky bits about, idk, agents? She made a forcefield? There's a secret bad guy? I hated the ending. It was terrible. The only good Marvel thing is the first season of Legion.
My brother loved the weird parts of Wandavision and was incredibly disappointed that it just devolved into standard superhero stuff.
The ending also features random quips, too! Yes, the (totally pro forma) bad guy shoots a gun at the children, but they and the heroes quip with each other so you can tell no one's really in any danger and there are no stakes. The irony of Wandavision, where there's danger and unpredictability in Wanda's fantasy world but the "real" world is safe as houses—sums up the whole Marvel problem.
I hadn’t really thought about it in terms of quips, but I’ve long been tired of the fact that we’re a fundamentally unserious culture. Someone said we’re living in the age of stupid. I suppose the homogenization of pop culture and what passes for intellectual culture is represented to some extent by the prevalence of one liners and other shallow humor. Everything is a referent to everything else and we’re all in on the joke, which is supposed to make us feel sophisticated. But if we’re all sophisticated, then we aren’t really. I think this gets conflated to some extent by conservatives who complain about the infestation of politics into culture, but it’s not so much about politics as it is about being in the in group. I don’t think this necessarily goes with what you were saying, but it’s what your post made me think about.
As an aside, you’re one of my three or four favorite writers right now. I’d never heard of you before you started a substack, but I’ve read everything you’ve written so far on here. Thanks.
> ... we’re a fundamentally unserious culture.
That's a sweeping generalization, and thus not (completely or comprehensively) true.
I think there are lots of examples of very successful 'artists' producing serious art. I include Freddie in this group.
If anything, seriousness seems to be seriously over-bifurcated. Things are either never-funny or always-funny.
(I think almost everything can (and 'should') be both serious and funny at the same time. Existence _is_ absurd! It's also _incredibly_ tragic!)
It seems uncharitable to denigrate something many people enjoy a great deal because you don't enjoy it. But it seems unfair to blame the creators. They are, after all, only giving the people what they want. Shouldn't you really be criticizing the people who choose to watch these movies?
"It seems uncharitable to denigrate something many people enjoy a great deal because you don't enjoy it."
... are you familiar with the entire concept of film criticism? Are you opposed to it in general? The way you take art seriously is by engaging with it critically.
"They are, after all, only giving the people what they want."
So were the writers who made Twilight, but I didn't like those movies.
"Shouldn't you really be criticizing the people who choose to watch these movies?"
No, I don't think so. Taste is subjective and complicated. It's the creators who are responsible for the art they create.
I mean...I thought I was familiar with the concept of film criticism? Maybe I'm not. I guess I just thought like, whether I like a movie and whether it succeeds at what it was trying to do are different, and film criticism is mostly about the latter than the former. But maybe it isn't. I definitely haven't had any sort of training or extensive exposure to the medium. What does film criticism mean to you?
But where did I say people are bad for liking these movies? Can you please copy and paste a quote of what you're reacting to? I'm especially confused because I make a point of saying I sometimes watch these movies.
I think you meant to make this comment in response to KW, not me.
No I was talking to you. I'm confused by this: "I guess I just thought like, whether I like a movie and whether it succeeds at what it was trying to do are different, and film criticism is mostly about the latter than the former."
I don't disagree - but when did I criticize people for liking these movies, or suggest that liking them is illegitimate.
I never intended to claim that you criticized people for liking the movies. I'm not sure where you're getting that? I had said "Shouldn't you really be criticizing the people who choose to watch these movies?" which is predicated upon your NOT having criticized those people.
That last one about "criticizing the people who choose to watch these movies" has been a sore spot for me in recent years. I quit Twitter a few years ago in part because Academy Awards discourse got so ugly, especially after Trump won. There were just so many sneering, Woke assholes whose primary mission is that the most explicitly progressive art or artist wins and fuck anyone who thinks otherwise. To call it all alienating was an understatement.
This is emblematic of the terrible and lazy "Let People Enjoy Things" meme. Taken to its logical conclusion we end up with the lowest common denominator.
How is that the logical conclusion? All of the people I know who enjoy smart stuff also like some dumb stuff. The presence of the dumb stuff doesn't preclude the enjoyment of, or demand for, the smart stuff.
The problem is that it doesn't flow in the opposite direction - the people that like the smart stuff almost always like the dumb stuff too but many many people who like the dumb stuff don't access anything else. Which is fine, that's their choice. But it's sad because they're missing out on a lot of what movies have to offer.
A Disney movie will get edgy and original at the same time they create a theme park ride you have a chance of falling out of. (Cue an article from you about how every large organization devolves into a culture of risk reduction, and cluelessly tries to cheat on the risk-return curve)
Hmmm .. my introduction to the MCU was Guardians of the Galaxy. Nothing but end-to-end jokes, so I figured hey I guess that’s how they roll. Earliest exposure to Stan Lee was Howard the Duck comics in high school (God I’m old). Same thing.
So if these characters *weren’t* doing cheesy humor, I’d give them two Ibuprofen and a day off work.
That's a good point.
Thanks for turning on comments! (It's frustrating wanting to reply and not having an obvious means to do so!)
I like the post – not a fan of the title. (It's a little too 'nitro' for my taste.)
I'm not sure the humor is a problem. I think there's humor in even the worst tragedies (and I don't just mean the MCU movies :)).
I get what you mean about "really good movies can only be made with the freedom to fail" – and I think it's true of all art.
(And some of the best 'art' is precisely the 'failures'.)
I'm fine with the humor. I generally like the movies. I actually like "Thor Ragnarok" a lot; maybe the most.
And I'm fine with the 'big franchise effect' on Hollywood. I think of the MCU as more of a hybrid between (traditional) 'films' and modern TV shows (e.g. The Wire). And from that perspective, it's totally fine that they're "assembly line movies". The work is the franchise itself. Obviously the individual movies _can_ or _could_ (and thus do) stand on their own. It's perfectly fine to criticize them individually.
But I think it misses the point in a significant way.
This is one of my favorite works of art: https://smile.amazon.com/Blast-Furnaces-Bernd-Becher/dp/0262023113/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=blast+furnaces+book&qid=1617635675&sr=8-1
It's a book of (beautiful) photos of blast furnaces.
It would be easy to criticize individual photos as being technically (very) well produced but otherwise uninteresting (or 'un-serious').
But I'd be very surprised if you couldn't appreciate the _collection_ itself as a masterful work of art. (Like all great art, it's _fascinating_ to enjoy. My reaction was 'wow!' when I first viewed it.)