Dr Strange 2 [split topic]

[JamesTC]

There is a fair amount of Sam Raimi-ness in this. Surprised how much considering how these films are made. It feels like it was scripted as a Sam Raimi film too. More Evil Dead Raimi than Spiderman Raimi.

I enjoyed it. Not as good as No Way Home but not too far behind.

If you've not seen WandaVision then you may be a little bit lost with Wanda. Then again, all you really need to know is that she took over a town of people because she wanted a family and then after the town was freed, she heard her fake sons call to her.

Benedict Wong is great. I like to imagine Wong peeling the wall paper in that house him and Strange live in. Then strange tells him that, as the Sorcerer Supreme, he must walk up and down in a white coat so people can clean their hands on it.

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

Is there a thing such as two universes?

[stonkers]

Just seen this and surely it makes fuck all sense unless you're pretty clued up on the MCU lore? Not tomention the various other things it references.

[checkoutgirl]

Is Benedict Wong the first superhero with the same name as the actor playing him?

[beanheadmcginty]

Is Benedict Wong the first superhero with the same name as the actor playing him?

Until Eric Bana plays Bananaman

[BritishHobo]

I was surprised how unambitious it felt, both in a multiversal sense -

Spoiler alert

they basically go to one proper other universe, apart from the spooky house and the very quick montage which could have been a trailer clip

[close]

- and in a general sense. There's barely anything going on for the character, and what the film does with Wanda, who's had six hours of compelling characterisation to build up her motivation in this film, is lazy and unimaginative. There are a couple of scenes that feel Raimi-ish rather than Disney, but otherwise it's no more visually interesting than any other Marvel film.

I think the worst part is that even now they're still churning out films that just feel like set-up. This should have been a bit of a culmination film, like Civil War was, but it feels entirely like another 'come back next time when the real story begins!' film.

[colacentral]

I think you're downplaying it to say "a couple of scenes feel like Sam Raimi." There was a lot more in his style than his Spider-Man films. I was surprised by how far out it went at points. I hope he gets to make a third Strange film and go even further.

It was good, daft silly fun, exactly what I wanted from it. I burst out laughing a few times, and I'm not an easy laugher in the cinema.

I was surprised how unambitious it felt, both in a multiversal sense -

Spoiler alert

they basically go to one proper other universe, apart from the spooky house and the very quick montage which could have been a trailer clip

[close]

- and in a general sense. There's barely anything going on for the character, and what the film does with Wanda, who's had six hours of compelling characterisation to build up her motivation in this film, is lazy and unimaginative. There are a couple of scenes that feel Raimi-ish rather than Disney, but otherwise it's no more visually interesting than any other Marvel film.

I think the worst part is that even now they're still churning out films that just feel like set-up. This should have been a bit of a culmination film, like Civil War was, but it feels entirely like another 'come back next time when the real story begins!' film.

I agree that the multiverse stuff maybe could have gone a bit further; I'm surprised by that. On the other hand, I thoroughly enjoyed what they did do and it's 100% getting used as a plot device again anyway.

As for feeling like set up for something else - well, that's comics, isn't it? Villain gets beat, tease the next thing. It's a soap. I don't think they ever tried to promote it as a culmination of anything, people just inferred it from the title. "Secret Wars" has been teased and that will be the huge crossover multiverse event that goes really wacky with it, I would think.

[madhair60]

Yes, but in film it's rote. It's tiresome. And it makes the film you've just seen feel disposable, feel like "content" rather than its own entity.

And that's fine, you know? As you say, it is what it is. This is what mainstream movies are like now, because of Marvel's success. They are all the same.

A movie that's a sequel to a streaming TV series that was itself a sequel to a movie. Has this ever happened before?

[colacentral]

To be clear though, what gets teased is another Strange film. That's not unique to comic book films. The Evil Dead films all end with a tease for something else. I don't really get the complaint since the film works as its own thing (aside from that there is some set up from Wandavision but really, I question anyone trying to say they couldn't catch up and get the gist without that context. It's made quite clear.)

[madhair60]

Right, but it's not its own thing. It would be intellectually dishonest to consider it as such.

Edit: Sorry, actually, don't want to argue the toss about this movie I haven't even seen yet.

[colacentral]

Well yeah, because it's a sequel teasing another sequel. That's the majority of genre films made since the 80s. The tease at the end of this is no different than Doc Brown turning up again at the end of Back to the Future. I can still watch it and be satisfied without feeling like I've been cheated. I've never understood it as a complaint about anything, but that's just me.

[madhair60]

The tease at the end of this is no different than Doc Brown turning up again at the end of Back to the Future.

Of course it's different. I mean, it seems different to me.

[elliszeroed]

Does it feel like a film whose only purpose is to set up another film?

[Famous Mortimer]

Well yeah, because it's a sequel teasing another sequel. That's the majority of genre films made since the 80s. The tease at the end of this is no different than Doc Brown turning up again at the end of Back to the Future. I can still watch it and be satisfied without feeling like I've been cheated. I've never understood it as a complaint about anything, but that's just me.

One of the reasons that genre sequels always feel like diminishing returns (why bother getting excited at the end of Slasher Movie X, you know he's going to be back provided this one makes a profit). Also, one might say, why some people get bored of comics, as there's never a final resolution. You were entirely accurate when you called them soaps.

To carry on the "Back To The Future" comparison, there's nothing in the first film that's a reference that you'd only understand if you were familiar with the BTTF extended universe, and no scenes that are intended to lay the groundwork for future movies. Even the ending feels like "these characters that you've grown to love are going to carry on having adventures", not "please come back for a sequel". The conflicts that are set up are entirely resolved.

Perhaps this is just how things are going to be now. And it might work for the next generation of moviegoers, who don't have the same background and expectations as us. I don't know.

[colacentral]

One of the reasons that genre sequels always feel like diminishing returns (why bother getting excited at the end of Slasher Movie X, you know he's going to be back provided this one makes a profit). Also, one might say, why some people get bored of comics, as there's never a final resolution. You were entirely accurate when you called them soaps.

To carry on the "Back To The Future" comparison, there's nothing in the first film that's a reference that you'd only understand if you were familiar with the BTTF extended universe, and no scenes that are intended to lay the groundwork for future movies. Even the ending feels like "these characters that you've grown to love are going to carry on having adventures", not "please come back for a sequel". The conflicts that are set up are entirely resolved.

Perhaps this is just how things are going to be now. And it might work for the next generation of moviegoers, who don't have the same background and expectations as us. I don't know.

That has never bothered me personally in genre sequels or comics, I just take it for what it is and assess whether it entertained me on its own merits. In the past I would have watched the fourth film in some horror franchise on Bravo or something and been intrigued by the idea that there were a bunch I hadn't seen rather than put off by it.

I think that element of slight confusion is part of the appeal of comics for some. You pick one up and you don't necessarily know who that guy is or that guy, but you get the gist, and there's even a certain appeal to the convoluted lore of it. The first Star Wars film is sort of playing on that - it's part 4 of something that at the time had no parts 1 to 3.

I think that thing of not knowing what's going on if you haven't seen such and such is greatly exaggerated. You pick these things up in the middle and you know basically what's going on after 10 minutes.

This film, in my opinion, works as its own thing; it's a campy and entertaining two hours, whose plot has a beginning, middle and end; and it ending on a tease for another film is just par for the course.

[stonkers]

I think that element of slight confusion is part of the appeal of comics for some. You pick one up and you don't necessarily know who that guy is or that guy, but you get the gist, and there's even a certain appeal to the convoluted lore of it. The first Star Wars film is sort of playing on that - it's part 4 of something that at the time had no parts 1 to 3.

This is absolutely true. The first US comic I ever read was part 2 of 5 of an X-Men / Avengers crossover (also featuring Nick Fury and SHIELD), I had no clue what was going on but loved it because it really gave the sense of the broader Marvel Universe.

[Famous Mortimer]

Re: Star Wars, not really? There's nothing about any of the characters or the situation you need to know that isn't in the film. I don't think the same can be said for this one, or many recent Marvel ones.

And re: your point on comics, while I tend to agree, there's a reason they get rebooted fairly regularly, or particular issues are sold as good jumping on points for new readers. It's not because the element of slight confusion is part of the appeal - at least not to everyone. Marvel wouldn't make a movie just of @stonkers ' part 2 of 5 X Men / Avengers crossover, though.

As far as the rest of the argument, you seem to be responding to someone else. You said: "I think that thing of not knowing what's going on if you haven't seen such and such is greatly exaggerated" to my point of "there's nothing in the first film that's a reference that you'd only understand if you were familiar with..." It's not a matter of not knowing what's going on; it's like reading a book where every now and again, they drop a few background detail paragraphs in French. I've never not understood a Marvel movie.

I don't expect every movie to be entirely self-contained, there are benefits to building a rich story in multiple movies. But I'm not sure that recent Marvel is this. Perhaps, instead of recent classic genre movies, you should be comparing it to "Prometheus", a movie roundly criticised for asking you to come back for the sequel to understand what the fuck was going on.

You called it a soap, which I agreed with. There's a reason soaps aren't $250 million tentpole franchises.

[Famous Mortimer]

I don't want this to go all internet argument-y. I agree with you, largely. I just don't like the rather naked "keep em coming back, keep em subscribing to other things too" mentality of recent Marvel.

[elliszeroed]

Five years ago, I would have e-jacked a plenty at the scene midway through the film:

Serious spoliers! (maybe, i don't fucking know anymore).

Spoiler alert

Reed Richards! Charles Xavier! Mother of holy fuck!

[close]

Now, I just shrugged.

As a lifelong comic book fan, the whole thing left me feeling kinda sad, that I no longer cared.


Boo
Fucking
Who?
Hoo.

[colacentral]

Re: Star Wars, not really? There's nothing about any of the characters or the situation you need to know that isn't in the film. I don't think the same can be said for this one, or many recent Marvel ones.

And re: your point on comics, while I tend to agree, there's a reason they get rebooted fairly regularly, or particular issues are sold as good jumping on points for new readers. It's not because the element of slight confusion is part of the appeal - at least not to everyone. Marvel wouldn't make a movie just of @stonkers ' part 2 of 5 X Men / Avengers crossover, though.

As far as the rest of the argument, you seem to be responding to someone else. You said: "I think that thing of not knowing what's going on if you haven't seen such and such is greatly exaggerated" to my point of "there's nothing in the first film that's a reference that you'd only understand if you were familiar with..." It's not a matter of not knowing what's going on; it's like reading a book where every now and again, they drop a few background detail paragraphs in French. I've never not understood a Marvel movie.

I don't expect every movie to be entirely self-contained, there are benefits to building a rich story in multiple movies. But I'm not sure that recent Marvel is this. Perhaps, instead of recent classic genre movies, you should be comparing it to "Prometheus", a movie roundly criticised for asking you to come back for the sequel to understand what the fuck was going on.

You called it a soap, which I agreed with. There's a reason soaps aren't $250 million tentpole franchises.

I said star wars was playing on that notion of being dropped into the middle of a serial with no background knowledge, which it objectively was.

There's nothing about any of the characters or the situation you need to know that isn't in the film.

That's the same here. Everything that you need to know is explained for you if you haven't seen anything else.

you should be comparing it to "Prometheus", a movie roundly criticised for asking you to come back for the sequel to understand what the fuck was going on.

I don't follow your comparison here based on your first point. You understood everything that was going on in this film and all Marvel films, but it's also like Prometheus where you have to see a sequel to understand it? You don't have to see the sequel to this Doctor Strange film to understand anything that happened in it.

You called it a soap, which I agreed with. There's a reason soaps aren't $250 million tentpole franchises.

I'm not sure what point you're making. Is that reason that they're not very good so they wouldn't make much money? Because the Marvel films are making a lot of money. And if the reason is that they're too difficult to follow to justify the budget, then again, that also doesn't stand up to scrutiny since enough people are still paying to see them that they are making back those budgets.

I don't expect every movie to be entirely self-contained, there are benefits to building a rich story in multiple movies. But I'm not sure that recent Marvel is this.

No, it's not. It's a series of mostly self contained stories that reference each other, and occasionally do a crossover.

Again, horses for courses but I genuinely don't get the annoyance with the serialised element. So what if "the occasional paragraph is in French?" I guess what you mean by that are small references to other things. It's a bonus for you if you know it but meaningless if you don't. The people that do get it get a bit more enjoyment from it and it flies over your head if you don't. It just seems harmless to me and again, I grew up watching plenty of sequels to things I'd never heard of on TV growing up and it never occurred to me as something to gripe about.


Edit: and yeah I was originally responding to BritishHobo about it "making fuck all sense."

[colacentral]

I don't want this to go all internet argument-y. I agree with you, largely. I just don't like the rather naked "keep em coming back, keep em subscribing to other things too" mentality of recent Marvel.

Agreed, me neither. I just genuinely don't get it being something that would annoy and I'm not sure there's much distinction between the teases in this sort of thing and say the end of Evil Dead 2. But if it annoys you then it annoys you.

[elliszeroed]

So who is America Chavez? What are her aims, hopes, ambitions, loves, fears?

Answers on a postcard!

Shame, because a great performance by the actress- America, Kate Bishop, Florence Pugh would kill it in a show/ movie together by their charisma alone.

[BritishHobo]

I felt the same about Dr. Strange's character. It all felt so thinly-sketched.

[Famous Mortimer]

I said star wars was playing on that notion of being dropped into the middle of a serial with no background knowledge, which it objectively was.

It absolutely wasn't. Unless serials introduce their main characters (Luke) "in the middle with no background knowledge". You're putting a lot of faith in George Lucas's "episode 4" gag.

[colacentral]

You're missing what I was saying when I first brought it up. People go to films and see part five of a serial or pick up a random comic book and there is an appeal to that, and there's nothing in them that can't be quickly picked up contextually. There's lore you miss but you still get the gist of it pretty quickly.

Lucas was referencing that experience by calling it episode 4 because it's a common experience of watching serials and comic books.

I said "playing on," you called it "a gag." Same thing.

And I don't think what you're saying is quite right. Yeah, Luke is the main character but it's undoubtedly the intention of the opening scene that the viewer is meant to feel like there's a ton of back story we weren't privy to. It begins with Leia escaping Darth Vader like we're in the middle of the story. If you read what the early story outlines were, the stuff that became the final version of the film was only the final tenth of what Lucas wrote. I would argue that intrigue of the missing back story is a big part of why it was so appealing.

Anyway, I'm not arguing about Star Wars as a viewing experience. I'm just saying that Lucas was making a fond reference to that common experience - being dropped into the middle of a story you missed the beginning of.

[13 schoolyards]

So who is America Chavez? What are her aims, hopes, ambitions, loves, fears?

Answers on a postcard!

Shame, because a great performance by the actress- America, Kate Bishop, Florence Pugh would kill it in a show/ movie together by their charisma alone.

Yeah, it was weird that seemingly a decade or so of being flung across realities hadn't made her a hard-nosed survivor type or quippy seen-it-all character or... literally anything else than the blank slate we got.

[dissolute ocelot]

This Independent piece suggests the major UK reviewers have mostly given it 2 stars, The Guardian gave it 3, and only the Evening Standard gave it a 5 star review: https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/doctor-strange-2-multiverse-of-madness-reviews-metacritic-score-b2071142.html

The AV Club rated it a C-, though I've no idea if their film reviewer is any good now that A.A. Dowd has left the building.

I was planning on seeing this at the weekend, but may well now wait for it to turn up online.

Indiewire which is often a bit snooty on Marvel gave it a B, which is pretty good, but the reviewer seemed to really like Sam Raimi. The review makes a case for the film (or at least its second half) having more personality and directorial style than 99% of Marvel, and having nothing to do with the first Dr Strange film, both of which are encouraging. (For when it comes to Disney+.)

[C_Larence]

If David Ehrlich likes something it is 99% of the time an indication that I will hate it.

[Mister Six]

You're missing what I was saying when I first brought it up. People go to films and see part five of a serial or pick up a random comic book and there is an appeal to that, and there's nothing in them that can't be quickly picked up contextually. There's lore you miss but you still get the gist of it pretty quickly.

I think it's fair to say, though, that this appeal is not even universal, and is probably somewhat niche. Superhero comics have been circling the drain for decades now, and a big part of that is a reliance on making the ever-dwindling audience of hardcore fans shell out for dozens of issues a month of the various comics involved in the latest line-wide super event. It has the dual problem of exhausting the existing audience while looking intimidating to newcomers. A big reason why manga is doing so well is that you can just start with volume 1 of whatever you're interested in and go from there, without worrying about other comics interfering with the story.

Early on, Marvel had it about right - each series is mostly unconnected, but comes together for a big Avengers bash, and what crossovers occur are mostly okay because it's the big characters everyone knows (Iron Man, Hulk) making appearances in smaller characters' worlds.

But now you've got a Doctor Strange movie that's feeding off a Disney+ show, a Spider-Man film that needs you to have watched the Andrew Garfield films and an upcoming Captain Marvel sequel that incorporates the Disney+ character Ms Marvel. Plus an anti-Avengers led by Julia Louis Dreyfus comprised of a supporting character from the Falcon show, a supporting character from the online-only Black Widow movie and who knows what else? I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest this is going to wear thin on mainstream audiences fairly fast.

[Lord Mandrake]

Elizabeth Olsen scared the shit outta ma kids.