Superheroes!

[Plotinus]

Ha, I love Last Action Hero, mainly because it's a great example of a film with a wonderful screenplay that somehow doesn't quite work on screen. I think because the kid just isn't very good, unfortunately.

I'm not very good at thinking in terms of acts - in the case of The Batman it felt by the end like it had gone into double digits, and even The Return of the King didn't feel like that for me. The problem was that it just felt tacked on. The Riddler's scheme made sense up to that point - he was forcing Batman and Gordon to uncover official corruption of increasing severity and extent - and then - suddenly he's flooding the city and killing the crowds. Why, exactly? And how did he come to have seven vans (or however many it was) full of explosives parked along the sea wall at all, given that he seemed to be a crazy loner? Don't they have any security along that wall? It felt like a plot device from a completely different film, one that was more about big explosions that don't really make sense rather than a single-minded serial killer. Up to that point, the film had been mostly quite unpleasant but had a certain logic to it, but afterwards it remained unpleasant but lost whatever logic it had had.

The Penguin was good, though really, I think I've seen enough versions of the Penguin now to last me a lifetime. That goes double for Catwoman, who is annoying and cliched no matter how she's done.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I'm trying to think of a movie that had a 4th act that really elevated the story, and I can't, off the top of my head. Maybe I'll Google it later, to see if there's any good examples of good 4th acts. There can't be none, or it wouldn't be a thing.

I thought "TV Tropes" might be a good place to look.

They don't actually have an entry for "fourth acts" as you are conceiving of them (which maybe is a sign that there are, in fact, none).

But I did learn about this, which was interesting to learn about in its own right:

Kishōtenketsu - TV Tropes

Kishotenketsu (èµ·æ¿è»¢çµ, pronounced "kee-show-ten-ketsu") is a traditional plot structure in Chinese, Japanese, and Korean literature and poetry, derived from the …

tvtropes.org

 

[Patine]

I thought "TV Tropes" might be a good place to look.

They don't actually have an entry for "fourth acts" as you are conceiving of them (which maybe is a sign that there are, in fact, none).

But I did learn about this, which was interesting to learn about in its own right:

Kishōtenketsu - TV Tropes

Kishotenketsu (èµ·æ¿è»¢çµ, pronounced "kee-show-ten-ketsu") is a traditional plot structure in Chinese, Japanese, and Korean literature and poetry, derived from the …

tvtropes.org

Just as a minor note, I find it curious they don't include the Chinese and Korean words for it, too, if it exists all three culures.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I thought "TV Tropes" might be a good place to look.

They don't actually have an entry for "fourth acts" as you are conceiving of them (which maybe is a sign that there are, in fact, none).

But I did learn about this, which was interesting to learn about in its own right:

Kishōtenketsu - TV Tropes

Kishotenketsu (èµ·æ¿è»¢çµ, pronounced "kee-show-ten-ketsu") is a traditional plot structure in Chinese, Japanese, and Korean literature and poetry, derived from the …

tvtropes.org

A lot of places describe the 4-act structure as splitting the traditional 2nd act of the 3-act structure into 2 discrete acts:

3-act structure: Setup-Confrontation-Resolution.
4-act structure: Setup-Conflict-Consequences-Resolution.

But Kishōtenketsu splits the first act in the 3-act structure into two. Which I find interesting, particularly because I'm always drawn more to stories with characters I really like, and am frequently less concerned with the plot (e.g. the Conflict). Even the name of the 3rd act - what would be the 2nd act in the Western, 3-act structure - is different, suggesting a different emphasis. Instead of the Conflict, it's the Twist. It could be a conflict, but it doesn't have to be. It just needs to be a dramatic change.

Looking at these structures laid out next to each other like this, I'm wondering now if the reason I struggle with 4-act structures is because they give more "screen time" to the middle of the story, and less to the beginning. This is assuming each act, however many there are, is given roughly equal weight, and therefore equal time & attention. I mean, what other reason would we have to split "Confrontation" into "Conflict" and "Consequences"? Therefore, the Setup and the Resolution each go from getting 1/3rd of the story to 1/4. In Kishōtenketsu, you're giving character development even more time, basically the whole first half of the story, then Conflict, Consequences & Resolution become the 2nd half.

Just as a minor note, I find it curious they don't include the Chinese and Korean words for it, too, if it exists all three culures.

Probably because Japanese stories - manga, anime & film - have been dominant in the West for 60-70 years, far longer than Chinese or Korean. Kurosawa and Godzilla hit our shores in the 1950s; anime in the 1970s. Chinese cinema was around since the '70s, but it didn't make a wide impact until the 1990s. Korean movies and television are really recent, over here. Maybe the last 10-12 years.


EDIT: I went looking for the U.S. release dates of Kurosawa's movies, and couldn't find a comprehensive list. But Wikipedia notes that Rashomon won the Venice Film Festival in 1951, and that Seven Samurai was released in the United States in 1955. Interestingly, it says that 50 minutes were cut from the movie because distributors thought it was too long for American audiences - in 1955, so this "short attention span" people bemoan today is not a new thing - and that the title of the film in US theaters was originally... *drumroll*... The Magnificient Seven. When John Sturges' remake was released in 1960, the original film went back to being titled Seven Samurai in America.

 

[Patine]

A lot of places describe the 4-act structure as splitting the traditional 2nd act of the 3-act structure into 2 discrete acts:

3-act structure: Setup-Confrontation-Resolution.
4-act structure: Setup-Conflict-Consequences-Resolution.

But Kishōtenketsu splits the first act in the 3-act structure into two. Which I find interesting, particularly because I'm always drawn more to stories with characters I really like, and am frequently less concerned with the plot (e.g. the Conflict). Even the name of the 3rd act - what would be the 2nd act in the Western, 3-act structure - is different, suggesting a different emphasis. Instead of the Conflict, it's the Twist. It could be a conflict, but it doesn't have to be. It just needs to be a dramatic change.

Looking at these structures laid out next to each other like this, I'm wondering now if the reason I struggle with 4-act structures is because they give more "screen time" to the middle of the story, and less to the beginning. This is assuming each act, however many there are, is given roughly equal weight, and therefore equal time & attention. I mean, what other reason would we have to split "Confrontation" into "Conflict" and "Consequences"? Therefore, the Setup and the Resolution each go from getting 1/3rd of the story to 1/4. In Kishōtenketsu, you're giving character development even more time, basically the whole first half of the story, then Conflict, Consequences & Resolution become the 2nd half.


Probably because Japanese stories - manga, anime & film - have been dominant in the West for 60-70 years, far longer than Chinese or Korean. Kurosawa and Godzilla hit our shores in the 1950s; anime in the 1970s. Chinese cinema was around since the '70s, but it didn't make a wide impact until the 1990s. Korean movies and television are really recent, over here. Maybe the last 10-12 years.

Wuxia films out of Hong Kong were very popular significantly before the '90's, if mostly on the ripplingly-muscled, spray-bottle, "sweat," covered, bare back of Bruce Lee.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Wuxia films out of Hong Kong were very popular significantly before the '90's, if mostly on the ripplingly-muscled, spray-bottle, "sweat," covered, bare back of Bruce Lee.

Not really. Bruce Lee of course had a moment, but not a huge impact, and most of his influence arrived in the form of co-option or outright theft. You would find Shaw Bros. movies on syndicated television channels and in 'arthouse' and 'grindhouse' theaters, but that's about it. "Kung Fu movies" had some influence on 'Blaxploitation' cinema in the 1970s, but that was a niche genre itself. Was Chuck Norris the first major American movie star to incorporate kung fu in his movies? David Carradine's tv show Kung Fu was an attempt to capitalize on the popularity of kung fu, but obviously that wasn't a Chinese production (Linda Lee claims the idea for the show was stolen from Bruce, and it wouldn't surprise me).

If I Google "first Chinese movie wide release in the US" everything is about US movies getting released in China, which is the opposite if what I'm trying to find. I think I remember Zhang Yimou's Red Sorghum (1988) being in theaters - I see that Roger Ebert wrote a review in the Sun-Times - but then Box Office Mojo puts its international box office at $108,000, so I guess it couldn't have been as big as I remember it being. Mojo also tracks how many theaters new releases get, but it doesn't say, for that movie. Raise the Red Lantern (1991) made $2m in the US, so maybe that was the first Chinese film to get a wide release in US cinemas? Under 'Domestic' it says Red Lantern's initial release was 1 theater, and eventually it went 'wide' to 40 theaters. So I guess that wasn't that big, either. Probably I'm just remembering my mom and her friends talking about those movies.

For myself, I remember Supercop in '93 being in a 'regular' theater, and that was what set off my own interest in those movies. But then I really had to hunt for them. It became almost its own hobby, which I have to admit was kind of fun, looking for those movies in 'art house' theaters and tracking down the one or two video stores in the city that had a good collection of VHS tapes for rent. Rumble in the Bronx was '95 and Broken Arrow was '96. Obviously, those were American movies, but I think they prompted people to go looking for those guys' previous movies. I think Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was probably 98% of Americans' first exposure to Wuxia. (Well, technically, The Matrix was 98% of Americans' first exposure to wuxia, but most didn't know it at the time, and if we're talking an actual Chinese movie, I think it was Crouching Tiger.) Just anecdotally, I remember reading interviews with Chow Yun Fat and Maggie Cheung in the 1990s, each of whom spoke to how little attention they were able to garner in the US. iirc, Chow went back to China because he couldn't get the roles he wanted here; Cheung said that she loved visiting New York City, because nobody knew who she was there, and she could walk around freely. In China and other Asian countries, she literally couldn't leave her house or hotel, 'cause she'd be mobbed in 5 seconds.

 

[Patine]

Not really. Bruce Lee of course had a moment, but not a huge impact, and most of his influence arrived in the form of co-option or outright theft. You would find Shaw Bros. movies on syndicated television channels and in 'arthouse' and 'grindhouse' theaters, but that's about it. "Kung Fu movies" had some influence on 'Blaxploitation' cinema in the 1970s, but that was a niche genre itself. Was Chuck Norris the first major American movie star to incorporate kung fu in his movies? David Carradine's tv show Kung Fu was an attempt to capitalize on the popularity of kung fu, but obviously that wasn't a Chinese production (Linda Lee claims the idea for the show was stolen from Bruce, and it wouldn't surprise me).

If I Google "first Chinese movie wide release in the US" everything is about US movies getting released in China, which is the opposite if what I'm trying to find. I think I remember Zhang Yimou's Red Sorghum (1988) being in theaters - I see that Roger Ebert wrote a review in the Sun-Times - but then Box Office Mojo puts its international box office at $108,000, so I guess it couldn't have been as big as I remember it being. Mojo also tracks how many theaters new releases get, but it doesn't say, for that movie. Raise the Red Lantern (1991) made $2m in the US, so maybe that was the first Chinese film to get a wide release in US cinemas? Under 'Domestic' it says Red Lantern's initial release was 1 theater, and eventually it went 'wide' to 40 theaters. So I guess that wasn't that big, either. Probably I'm just remembering my mom and her friends talking about those movies.

For myself, I remember Supercop in '93 being in a 'regular' theater, and that was what set off my own interest in those movies. But then I really had to hunt for them. It became almost its own hobby, which I have to admit was kind of fun, looking for those movies in 'art house' theaters and tracking down the one or two video stores in the city that had a good collection of VHS tapes for rent. Rumble in the Bronx was '95 and Broken Arrow was '96. Obviously, those were American movies, but I think they prompted people to go looking for those guys' previous movies. I think Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was probably 98% of Americans' first exposure to Wuxia. (Well, technically, The Matrix was 98% of Americans' first exposure to wuxia, but most didn't know it at the time, but if we're talking Chinese movies, I think it was Crouching Tiger.) Just anecdotally, I remember reading interviews with Chow Yun Fat and Maggie Cheung in the 1990s, each of which spoke to how little attention they were able to garner in the US. Chow went back to China because he couldn't get the roles he wanted here; Cheung said that she loved visiting New York City, because nobody knew who she was there, and she could walk around freely. In China and other Asian countries, she literally couldn't leave her house or hotel, 'cause she'd be mobbed in 5 seconds.

Although, it seems, before the 1997 handover, movies from the PRC were mostly propaganda pieces and docudramas. Those later movies were, admittedly, a hybrid of the Hong Kong film machine with Post-Deng mainland sensitivities.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Just as a minor note, I find it curious they don't include the Chinese and Korean words for it, too, if it exists all three culures.

Likely nothing more than the first site participant to make an entry on the matter was either Japanese or steeped in Japanese culture (but aware of this form in the others). TV Tropes is far from scholarly, rigorous or systematic.

 

[Patine]

Likely nothing more than the first site participant to make an entry on the matter was either Japanese or steeped in Japanese culture (but aware of this form in the others). TV Tropes is far from scholarly, rigorous or systematic.

Well, I guess, TV tropes, being user-contributed, like Wikipedia, it would makes sense. Altough, I only said it was, "curious."

 

[BenitoChavez]

The new Deadpool trailer is awesome. But I feel like I've been deceived a lot by trailers in the past couple years, especially with superhero movies.

Oh and it's Deadpool so even the trailer is super NSFW, hence the spoiler.

Spoiler :

 

[Gorbles]

Really can't wait for Deadpool & Wolverine. As someone who also really enjoyed both The Marvels and Loki, should be fun to see how the timeline / dimension-hopping stuff brings the X-Men through into the franchise.

Spoilery? Thoughts ahead:

Spoiler :

I like that Jackman is playing a Wolverine variant, and I suspect the difference in character is how Reynolds persuaded him to come back for one last-last-last(?) time. I also like that it's apparently from the Old Man Logan future where the villains won (which is presumably why we see a bunch of them at a point in the trailer).

I like the Void (no, not the Sentry's dark half, the Loki temporal Void realm) is back, along with Alioth (wondering if this is pre-Loki, post-Loki, or how the timey-wimey stuff works considering the events of that show). It seems that the Old Man Logan characters were all pruned there, or maybe get pruned there as a part of the story.

Also, Cassandra Cain is such an interesting choice for the villain considering what's happening in X-Men 97 at the moment.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Really can't wait for Deadpool & Wolverine. As someone who also really enjoyed both The Marvels and Loki, should be fun to see how the timeline / dimension-hopping stuff brings the X-Men through into the franchise.

Spoilery? Thoughts ahead:

Spoiler :

I like that Jackman is playing a Wolverine variant, and I suspect the difference in character is how Reynolds persuaded him to come back for one last-last-last(?) time. I also like that it's apparently from the Old Man Logan future where the villains won (which is presumably why we see a bunch of them at a point in the trailer).

I like the Void (no, not the Sentry's dark half, the Loki temporal Void realm) is back, along with Alioth (wondering if this is pre-Loki, post-Loki, or how the timey-wimey stuff works considering the events of that show). It seems that the Old Man Logan characters were all pruned there, or maybe get pruned there as a part of the story.

Also, Cassandra Cain is such an interesting choice for the villain considering what's happening in X-Men 97 at the moment.

Cassandra Nova (Cassandra Cain is from DC Comics, one of the Batgirls) is entirely new to me. Wikipedia says she was introduced in 2001, and she'll be played by Emma Corrin (A Murder at the End of the World). I'm intrigued. This movie had to have been in production well before the Jonathan Majors affair hit the fan, so she couldn't have been conceived of as a replacement for Kang, but depending on where this movie leaves her, that could be an interesting choice. That is, make her the central villain of Secret Wars. Too early to say, obviously.

 

[Gorbles]

I keep typing Cassandra Cain for some reason. I think it's because I know the DC character better haha. Nova passed me by a lot, comics-wise. I know a lot about Moira MacTaggert (heck, I binged X-Men Legends and its sequel on the Gamecube, back in the day, and she features a bit in both, and that's before we get into the films) and Legion, but not so much Cassandra Nova.

 

[Synobun]

Saw Black Adam yesterday since I have Netflix again. Pretty brutal. 3/10? At this point I'm impressed by how badly DC does at movies.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Saw Black Adam yesterday since I have Netflix again. Pretty brutal. 3/10? At this point I'm impressed by how badly DC does at movies.

It is pretty impressive. At first, I blamed it all on Zack Snyder, who I think is not a good filmmaker and doesn't like superheroes. I felt slightly vindicated in this opinion by the DCEU movies that weren't bad, Wonder Woman, Shazam and Aquaman - the movies that Snyder didn't do. Then the sequels to all of those movies bombed, and the MCU began to stumble. I still think Zack Snyder isn't a great filmmaker and that he fundamentally doesn't like superheroes, but I've come around to the idea that the run of success achieved by the MCU from 2008-2019 was miraculous, and that we possibly still don't even appreciate what a time it was.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Because I had too much time on my hands last night, I decided to look at Metacritics' scores for the DCEU & MCU films. DCEU average score = 55; MCU average score = 66. I could certainly quibble with some of the specific scores - at least, in relation to one another - but I think I more or less agree, overall. I've only seen 10 of the DCEU movies. I guess I'm a little surprised that the scores for some of the worst movies in these lists are as high as they are (WW84 got a 60? ). I'm not going to bother looking up the Fox or Sony movies, but I'm guessing they fall well short of the MCU, and maybe even below the DCEU. I imagine the Sony movies are the worst. Fox has Logan, First Class and Days of Future Past, and the Deadpool movies. Sony's only saving grace in the last 20 years has been Into and Across the Spider-Verse.

Spoiler :

Man of Steel (2013) - 55
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) - 44
Suicide Squad (2016) - 40
Wonder Woman (2017) - 76
Justice League (2017) - 45
Aquaman (2018) - 55
Shazam! (2019) - 71
Birds of Prey (2020) - 60
Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) - 60
Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021) - 54
The Suicide Squad (2021) - 72
Black Adam (2022) - 41
Shazam! Fury of the Gods (2023) - 47
The Flash (2023) - 55
Blue Beetle (2023) - 61
Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom (2023) - 42

Iron Man (2008) - 79
The Incredible Hulk (2008) - 61
Iron Man 2 (2010) - 57
Thor (2011) - 57
Captain America (2011) - 66
The Avengers (2012) - 69
Iron Man 3 (2013) - 62
The Dark World (2013) - 54
The Winter Soldier (2014) - 70
Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) - 76
Age of Ultron (2015) - 66
Ant-Man (2015) - 64
Civil War (2016) - 75
Doctor Strange (2016) - 72
Guardians 2 (2017) - 67
Homecoming (2017) - 73
Ragnarok (2017) - 74
Black Panther (2018) - 88
Infinity War (2018) - 68
Ant-Man & The Wasp (2018) - 70
Captain Marvel (2019) - 64
Endgame (2019) - 78
Far From Home (2019) - 69
Black Widow (2021) - 68
Shang-Chi (2021) - 71
Eternals (2021) - 52
No Way Home (2021) - 71
Multiverse of Madness (2022) - 60
Love & Thunder (2022) - 57
Quantumania (2023) - 48
Guardians 3 (2023) - 64
The Marvels (2023) - 50

 

[Sommerswerd]

Because I had too much time on my hands last night, I decided to look at Metacritics' scores for the DCEU & MCU films. DCEU average score = 55; MCU average score = 66. I could certainly quibble with some of the specific scores - at least, in relation to one another - but I think I more or less agree, overall. I've only seen 10 of the DCEU movies. I guess I'm a little surprised that the scores for some of the worst movies in these lists are as high as they are (WW84 got a 60? ). I'm not going to bother looking up the Fox or Sony movies, but I'm guessing they fall well short of the MCU, and maybe even below the DCEU. I imagine the Sony movies are the worst. Fox has Logan, First Class and Days of Future Past, and the Deadpool movies. Sony's only saving grace in the last 20 years has been Into and Across the Spider-Verse.

Spoiler :

Man of Steel (2013) - 55
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) - 44
Suicide Squad (2016) - 40
Wonder Woman (2017) - 76
Justice League (2017) - 45
Aquaman (2018) - 55
Shazam! (2019) - 71
Birds of Prey (2020) - 60
Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) - 60
Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021) - 54
The Suicide Squad (2021) - 72
Black Adam (2022) - 41
Shazam! Fury of the Gods (2023) - 47
The Flash (2023) - 55
Blue Beetle (2023) - 61
Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom (2023) - 42

Iron Man (2008) - 79
The Incredible Hulk (2008) - 61
Iron Man 2 (2010) - 57
Thor (2011) - 57
Captain America (2011) - 66
The Avengers (2012) - 69
Iron Man 3 (2013) - 62
The Dark World (2013) - 54
The Winter Soldier (2014) - 70
Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) - 76
Age of Ultron (2015) - 66
Ant-Man (2015) - 64
Civil War (2016) - 75
Doctor Strange (2016) - 72
Guardians 2 (2017) - 67
Homecoming (2017) - 73
Ragnarok (2017) - 74
Black Panther (2018) - 88
Infinity War (2018) - 68
Ant-Man & The Wasp (2018) - 70
Captain Marvel (2019) - 64
Endgame (2019) - 78
Far From Home (2019) - 69
Black Widow (2021) - 68
Shang-Chi (2021) - 71
Eternals (2021) - 52
No Way Home (2021) - 71
Multiverse of Madness (2022) - 60
Love & Thunder (2022) - 57
Quantumania (2023) - 48
Guardians 3 (2023) - 64
The Marvels (2023) - 50

I don't think I can agree with the Eternals being rated higher than both Quantumania and The Marvels, however, yes MCU > DCU, that is pretty undeniable.

I have observed however, that Rotten Tomatoes is excessively and somewhat unfairly harsh towards the DCU and a little biased in favor of the MCU (and Disney in general).

 

[EgonSpengler]

I don't think I can agree with the Eternals being rated higher than both Quantumania and The Marvels, however, yes MCU > DCU, that is pretty undeniable.

I think Eternals and Quantumania are a wash, but The Marvels was definitely better than both of them. I think The Marvels is rated too low and Wonder Woman 1984 is rated too high. I still haven't seen Suicide Squad (2016), which appears to be the worst-reviewed movie on these lists. I also think people maybe went a little overboard with Black Panther. It's not just the best-reviewed movie on these lists, it's way ahead of the 2nd-place films, Iron Man and Endgame.

I have observed however, that Rotten Tomatoes is excessively and somewhat unfairly harsh towards the DCU and a little biased in favor of the MCU (and Disney in general).

I hadn't noticed any bias, but I prefer Metacritics' score to RT's, in general. The one place where maybe RT is better is when they have to make a judgment about the critic's opinion. If Metacritic includes a review that doesn't provide some sort of numerical score, they have to assign it one based on what they think the writer would give. RT's scores are just a binary "liked it" or "didn't like it." When I'm referring to just one or two movies, I'll often include both scores, but for a long list like this I didn't feel like doing that much research (truthfully, I was regretting doing this one about 2/3rds of the way through, but at that point I figured I might as well finish ).