Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread

[Relayer1]

I find the Guardians movies and Thor: Ragnarok pretty broad and implausible in their storytelling, if that's what you mean by "cartoony." I mean, they have a talking raccoon, tree, and duck in them. And the physics in the MCU have always been absurd, ever since Tony Stark survived crashing into the desert at rocket speed inside a rigid metal suit. It shouldn't matter whether it's live-action or animation. Especially since so much of the "live-action" these days is computer animation anyway, so the distinction between the two is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

Absolutely regarding the 'broad' movies, but it's down (as far as I am concerned anyway) to internal consistency and the suspension of disbelief.

Some of the stuff in the MCU would take me right out of a Trek movie if it happened there. And some Trek stuff would pop my disbelief if it happened in an Alien or hard sci-fi movie. It's all very specific and relative.

Animated offerings in a live action franchise are already straining at that by being visually very, very different. I'm already at the far edge of my suspension of disbelief. If the content of that animation drags it any further, my disbelief is no longer suspended.

Edit : I was fine with all manner of crap in the Indy movies, even (barely) exiting a plane in a life raft, but the nuclear fridge incident was way out there and lost me.

 

[Christopher]

Some of the stuff in the MCU would take me right out of a Trek movie if it happened there. And some Trek stuff would pop my disbelief if it happened in an Alien or hard sci-fi movie. It's all very specific and relative.

That's the point -- the MCU is already quite fanciful. It abandoned any pretense of grounding or naturalism the moment Thor's hammer showed up, let alone when Doctor Strange came along.

And there is absolutely no reason why it should matter whether it's live-action or animated, because you can do realism or fanciful nonsense in either medium. Especially in these days when almost every major cinematic action sequence is mostly or entirely animated anyway. The only difference between a shot of Iron Man in an Avengers movie and a shot of the Hydra Stomper here is that one is computer-animated in a photorealistic style and the other is computer-animated in a cel-shaded style.

Edit : I was fine with all manner of crap in the Indy movies, even (barely) exiting a plane in a life raft, but the nuclear fridge incident was way out there and lost me.

Okay, but what in the world does that have to do with whether it's depicted through live-action photography or through animated drawings? That's confusing format with genre. You can easily make an animated movie that's completely grounded and has nothing unrealistic or unbelievable in it, e.g. Grave of the Fireflies, or you can make a live-action movie that's completely fanciful, like Superman: The Movie.

I mean, there have been Indiana Jones comics, and the ones I've read don't seem any more fanciful than the live-action movies or the prose novels. Ditto for the comic books based on Star Trek or Babylon 5. Because they're all trying to depict the same consistent reality and thus employ a similar approach and style, regardless of medium. Okay, comics and animation, like prose, let you go bigger and depict things that are harder to show in live action without a gigantic budget, but that's a matter of degree, not the fundamental nature of the reality you're trying to depict.

 

[Relayer1]

That's the point -- the MCU is already quite fanciful.

Indeed.

And there is absolutely no reason why it should matter whether it's live-action or animated, because you can do realism or fanciful nonsense in either medium. Especially in these days when almost every major cinematic action sequence is mostly or entirely animated anyway. The only difference between a shot of Iron Man in an Avengers movie and a shot of the Hydra Stomper here is that one is computer-animated in a photorealistic style and the other is computer-animated in a cel-shaded style.

True. But I'd posit that the live action animation differs by the animators and directors own preconceptions of what is acceptable in that format.

Okay, but what in the world does that have to do with whether it's depicted through live-action photography or through animated drawings? That's confusing format with genre. You can easily make an animated movie that's completely grounded and has nothing unrealistic or unbelievable in it, e.g. Grave of the Fireflies, or you can make a live-action movie that's completely fanciful, like Superman: The Movie.

This comes back to what I said about my personal suspension of disbelief (and is likely a minority issue). I certainly don't expect everyone to feel the same.

I already have expectations set by the live action movies and would want animated instalments to conform to them. As I said earlier, the simple fact of their being such a massive visual discontinuity between the live action and animated stuff stretches my suspension of disbelief before any other considerations come into play.

Edit : My expectations of an MCU movie and say, The Incredibles are quite different, despite them both being superhero fantasy and having (different) internal criteria. To me What If #1 was a little closer to the latter, where it should have been close to the former.

 

[Christopher]

I already have expectations set by the live action movies and would want animated instalments to conform to them. As I said earlier, the simple fact of their being such a massive visual discontinuity between the live action and animated stuff stretches my suspension of disbelief before any other considerations come into play.

There's a pretty huge visual discontinuity between, say, a Star Trek episode and one of my Star Trek novels, because in my novels, everything looks like letters of the alphabet and punctuation marks on a white background (or sepia or black depending on your e-reader settings). Yet I don't think I've ever heard anyone say they have more trouble suspending disbelief about a book than they do about live-action TV or film. Seems to me that the visual difference between live action and animation is much, much smaller than that.

 

[Relayer1]

There's a pretty huge visual discontinuity between, say, a Star Trek episode and one of my Star Trek novels, because in my novels, everything looks like letters of the alphabet and punctuation marks on a white background (or sepia or black depending on your e-reader settings). Yet I don't think I've ever heard anyone say they have more trouble suspending disbelief about a book than they do about live-action TV or film. Seems to me that the visual difference between live action and animation is much, much smaller than that.

It is, and the only response I have is that your books look just like the show in my minds eye. It's a good point though.

I'm tempted to say maybe I should lighten up a bit and just go with the flow, but that's not really what we do here is it ?


As a kind of related aside, my son sent me a link to the Star Wars : Visions trailer a few minutes ago. He added "It looks fantastic. I'm sure you'll hate it !"

 

[Mr. Adventure]

There's a pretty huge visual discontinuity between, say, a Star Trek episode and one of my Star Trek novels, because in my novels, everything looks like letters of the alphabet and punctuation marks on a white background (or sepia or black depending on your e-reader settings). Yet I don't think I've ever heard anyone say they have more trouble suspending disbelief about a book than they do about live-action TV or film. Seems to me that the visual difference between live action and animation is much, much smaller than that.

You're usually pretty good but I've heard better arguments...

 

[Christopher]

You're usually pretty good but I've heard better arguments...

The point is that if we can use our imaginations to visualize a story described purely in words, it should be comparatively easier to use our imaginations to visualize the underlying reality of an animated production. Experiencing fiction is always about filling in the blanks with our minds, to some degree.

 

[Mage]

Completely unrelated, but I was just wondering......

Could a Taika Waititi directed Deadpool3 work or not? I'd say it would a match made in heaven.

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

Completely unrelated, but I was just wondering......

Could a Taika Waititi directed Deadpool3 work or not? I'd say it would a match made in heaven.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

What gives you that idea?

 

[Mage]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

What gives you that idea?

Hah, I actually forgot about that already. Seeing footage of Taika in the trailers and clips for Free Guy earlier got me thinking.

 

[Relayer1]

The point is that if we can use our imaginations to visualize a story described purely in words, it should be comparatively easier to use our imaginations to visualize the underlying reality of an animated production. Experiencing fiction is always about filling in the blanks with our minds, to some degree.

There's more mental building work envisioning a text story, but it's a 'clean' build. You're not having to overwrite already existing visuals.

I enjoyed the TAS novelisations very much more than the actual episodes, and not just because they added to and improved the actual stories, but I've still got the 'ghost' of the animation in the back of my mind.

 

[Christopher]

There's more mental building work envisioning a text story, but it's a 'clean' build. You're not having to overwrite already existing visuals.

I don't see why you'd have to. You just have to accept that it's a representation of the story you're being told, and the story is still just as valid regardless of format.

What about live theater? For thousands of years, people were able to watch stories acted out on a stage directly in front of them and buy into the premise that it was actually happening in some grand castle or distant battlefield or divine plane. The fact that they could see it was just a stage didn't inhibit their suspension of disbelief, because it's not about what you can see, it's about how you think.

 

[Booji]

There is an EW article on the Eternals...
https://ew.com/movies/marvel-eternals-exclusive-details/

 

[Commander Troi]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

What gives you that idea?

BWAH-HAH-HAH! "Canadian Cumberbatch!" BWAH-HAH-HAH!

 

[Commander Troi]

I don't see why you'd have to. You just have to accept that it's a representation of the story you're being told, and the story is still just as valid regardless of format.

What about live theater? For thousands of years, people were able to watch stories acted out on a stage directly in front of them and buy into the premise that it was actually happening in some grand castle or distant battlefield or divine plane. The fact that they could see it was just a stage didn't inhibit their suspension of disbelief, because it's not about what you can see, it's about how you think.

@Christopher I think you just have to accept that not everyone likes every format. For example, my mom doesn't like anything animated. No idea why. She just doesn't. Personal quirks and all that.

 

[Christopher]

@Christopher I think you just have to accept that not everyone likes every format.

It's not even about liking, it's about understanding. We shouldn't let personal opinions get in the way of understanding objective facts. And it is an objective, provable fact that animation is by no means required to be less believable or less intelligent than live action. There is a lot of animation out there that's a lot smarter, more serious, or more mature than a lot of the live action out there. You don't have to like it, but it's a factual error to deny its objective existence. People are entitled to their own opinions, not their own facts.

 

[Reverend]

You're conflating objective fact with subjective tastes. If people aren't into it, they aren't into it. Telling them they're "wrong" isn't going to make them change their tastes.

For example, I really dislike musicals. They don't do a thing for me. Objectively, there are many very well written, scored and choreographed musicals. Subjectively; I don't care. I'm not into it. For the vast majority of people who aren't souless android people, the objective merits of a given artform don't play a part of personal tastes. That's kind of the whole point.

If people not liking something you enjoy bugs you, that's a YOU problem, not a THEM problem.

 

[Commander Troi]

It's not even about liking, it's about understanding. We shouldn't let personal opinions get in the way of understanding objective facts. And it is an objective, provable fact that animation is by no means required to be less believable or less intelligent than live action. There is a lot of animation out there that's a lot smarter, more serious, or more mature than a lot of the live action out there. You don't have to like it, but it's a factual error to deny its objective existence. People are entitled to their own opinions, not their own facts.

I agree with you. But objective facts can't make someone like something. Also, plenty of neurodivergent people (speaking generally, not specifically here) respond to different stimuli/media in different ways, which changes how they perceive/receive information.

 

[Christopher]

But objective facts can't make someone like something.

I never said it did. But not liking something is not an excuse to be unfair to it. And it is unfair to animation to stereotype it as less intelligent, less believable, or less worthwhile than live action.

 

[Turtletrekker]

I never said it did. But not liking something is not an excuse to be unfair to it. And it is unfair to animation to stereotype it as less intelligent, less believable, or less worthwhile than live action.

This is why I have come to dislike the word "cartoon". No matter what the subject matter, that word makes it sound like for kids. I prefer "animated programming".