Just a quick note, based on having watched a Youtube video that explained that the Marvel cinematic "Universe" (now really a cable TV plus cinema universe - not to everyone's satisfaction) is doubtlessly heading towards a series of stories (already in comic book form) in which the multiverse plays a key role:
The storyline involves the destruction of the Marvel Universe and various other alternate universes (including those seen in the Ultimate Marvel and Marvel 2099 imprints, the "Age of Apocalypse" storyline, the Marvel 1602 universe, and the "House of M" storyline), with each universe's respective Earth combining with each other into Battleworld, a planet that exhibits the aspects of the various universes. The planet itself is divided in many territories that are mostly self-contained and where a "pocket universe" composed of a specific storyline or universe reside and evolve. Various versions of individual Marvel characters can be present multiple times on the Battleworld. For example, there is a Tony Stark present in many of the territories where the Kingdom of Manhattan has both the Earth-1610 and the Earth-616 versions, and many versions of Thor serve as a peace-keeping force. The stories depicted in the miniseries about each domain's characters' powers and personal histories vastly differ from the ones portrayed in the main Marvel universe(s).
Now, I'm already not the biggest fan of superhero movies, and my enjoyment is very dependent on them not taking themselves too seriously. (The next Thor movie looks to be a continuation of the rather comedic last one, so I'll still see it if it has good reviews.)
But even so, isn't it obvious that the problem with multiverse storylines is that when anything is possible, it quickly starts to become boring? There are too many options. You might get away with dealing with the multiverse in one movie, or maybe two, but if you keep on going, how can you really keep it dramatically (or creatively?) interesting.
And is it possible that audiences are already starting to sense that, despite the box office success of the last Dr Strange movie?
9 comments:
I don't like superheroes movies either. Try "The Boys", an anti-superhero series that is great fun and very highly rated.
Or the Michael Moorcock option, have characters (and especially heroes) who gradually become aware of their other selves in the multiverse and become so mired in self-doubt and existential crises that you don't end up with conventional SF or fantasy at all.
I should mention: Rick & Morty is suffering from the "too many options" problem too. Their multiverse stories are only working if they are parodying an existing film or genre.
I'd love to see some Moorcock novels translated to the big screen.
John, I can't remember how, but I saw a short bit of The Boys and decided quickly it wasn't for me. An article at The Guardian (about how some right wing fans have finally cottoned on that the show is attacking them) probably explains it well enough:
"Perhaps the problem is The Boys’ insistence on having its cake and eating it. The show tries to make a stand against issues like racism, totalitarianism and toxic masculinity. But it does all this under the guise of a show full of violence, cool fight scenes, exploding heads and, as of last week’s episode, a man having sex with an octopus. Perhaps, just perhaps, some people are so blinded by all the whizz-bang outrageousness that they can’t see anything deeper beneath that."
Yeah, I'm always leery of anti-violence violence.
The Boys is much more violent than superhero movies. That's the point: you can't go around smashing things up without blood and guts everywhere. It doesn't sanitize violence and the superheroes are flawed characters with the principal superhero being a murderous psychopath.
The Multiverse is one of these very stupid ideas. LIke dark matter. Its an indication that the science workers will not go back to the drawing board when they are proven wrong.
The Multiverse is one of these very stupid ideas. LIke dark matter. Its an indication that the science workers will not go back to the drawing board when they are proven wrong.
True that. I refer to dark matter as the Cosmological Fudge Factor. We know our understanding of gravity isn't right. The multi-verse is all Everett's fault, taking the math too seriously, something Einstein warned against. Contrary to popular belief he did not think spacetime is curved. What doesn't reach the general public though is that there are always plenty of scientists challenging the status quo but if we only source material through news outlets and documentaries we never know that in the literature there are plenty of scientists challenging the current understanding.
Yes bravo. Their entire approach is wrong. Since gravity is a MECHANISM. It cannot be dictated to by formulae, or by "principles" ..... People imagine that heritage formulae can describe a mechanism. Which is ludicrous. Particularly not such simplistic formulae. These formulae only seem to work in the inner solar system. But thats probably an illusion too. But at least you can make it all appear to work in the inner solar system. But even there they don't work really. Occasionally you can find yourself uninvited in discussions where people admit that various orbits won't conform to Einsteins formula that was derived from Mercury's orbit. They don't tend to talk that way in mixed company.
Post a Comment