Spoilers Marvel's Werewolf by Night on Disney+
- Thread starter Turtletrekker
- Start date
Man-Thing is the connection as noted by Turtletrekker earlier. That and monsters being in the world in general.
I very much liked the mini-movie, but didn't like how the cutesy last scene (which was fine in of itself, though I wish they'd gone with a less distractingly iconic sendoff song) utterly ruined the Halloween mood. You can't do a tonal swerve like that and then go back to a spooky end credits sequence, and expect the eerie ambiance not to break like a dropped egg. If anything, that last scene should have come after the credits.
Other than that, tons of fun, no notes.
Other than that, tons of fun, no notes.
I dunno... don't a lot of vintage horror movies end with a happy ending where the hero and heroine have escaped the monster and return to their reassuringly normal lives? This was like that, except that the monsters turned out to be the ones to root for.
Of course, in vintage horror movies, they showed all the credits at the start, so technically the final scene was indeed a post-credit scene, because every scene was.
Hard disagree. I loved that musical segue and I thought it was quite fitting for the moment and the transition to the scene with Jack and Man-Thing.
That's precisely why I found it so fitting.
Now that it's been brought up, I wonder if there's any deeper significance, beyond merely a stylistic choice, to the fact that the Bloodgem was the only thing that was in color for most of the special, and that once Elsa took possession of it, the color spread out from it to her and then to everything else. Maybe it represents how it's augmented her senses and perceptions? Or maybe there's something special about her and it coming together, bringing some new power into the world.
Or maybe Giacchino just thought it looked cool.
Or maybe Giacchino just thought it looked cool.
I took switching to color at the end as a message that this world and what comes with it is part of the MCU proper now.
Yeah, but what I'm wondering is whether the specific way the transition to color happened, triggered by Elsa taking the Bloodgem, had any significance.
I'm actually wondering if the Bloodstone itself might be a MacGuffin of larger significance, along with the Ten Rings and Kamala's Bangle.
Last edited:
In the Judy Garland film, the real world was black and white (shades of sepia, actually, but that's digressing), and Oz was in color. Oz was the magical place. So, apparently that's one level: color = magic.
I think there could be an inversion of "there's no place like home" going on as well. In the Judy Garland film, home was the real, black and white (sepia) world. But in Werewolf by Night, Elsa is like a prodigal daughter returning to her family. Her return home means embracing the magic which is effectively her legacy. So, for Elsa, returning home, at least at this point of the story, means embracing color.
These are just ideas, they might not hold up.
I think there could be an inversion of "there's no place like home" going on as well. In the Judy Garland film, home was the real, black and white (sepia) world. But in Werewolf by Night, Elsa is like a prodigal daughter returning to her family. Her return home means embracing the magic which is effectively her legacy. So, for Elsa, returning home, at least at this point of the story, means embracing color.
These are just ideas, they might not hold up.
Oh, I see they're calling it the Bloodstone in the special instead of the Bloodgem as in the comics (though apparently it's sometimes called the Bloodstone there as well). Which is in keeping with the MCU's use of "Infinity Stones" instead of "Infinity Gems." Could there be a connection?
It reminded me a lot of the infinity stones, the time stone in particular.
Really? I read an article about the family's comics history and they called it the Bloodstone throughout the whole article, and the Wikipedia article on the comics' Ulysees also refers to it as the Bloodstone.
The Marvel Wiki says it's Bloodgem and occasionally Bloodstone. And, come on, it's kind of clunky if the Bloodstone family has an artifact called the Bloodstone. What are the odds? Unless they changed their name to match it, I guess. Still, it feels inelegant for the name of the protagonist's weapon to be the same as their surname.
Clunky? How? I would say the Bloodstone family with an artifact called Bloodgem is far more clunky. As Bloodstone, it could be theorized that the family got their name from the artifact, which makes sense considering historical family names in reality.
According to the article from Marvel.com Ulysees was born thousands of years ago, during the Hyborean Age, with a different name, so I just assumed he named himself after the Bloodstone when it was time to give himself a new name.
I just mean from a writing perspective, it feels awkward to use the same name for both a character and their weapon/artifact of power. "I'm Lord Samuel Arbington, and this is my sword, Arbington." It just sounds weird to me. It seems it could lead to confusion. "We must destroy Arbington!" "Uh, boss, do you mean the man or the sword?"