TF Views

The problem is that the Avengers do not solve a problem so much as they create a much worse problem. And, the movie ignores this entirely.

Dominic wrote:The problem is that the Avengers do not solve a problem so much as they create a much worse problem. And, the movie ignores this entirely.

I think we have to assume that most people would be happy to have missing family and friends back, and that it will be worth all the problems that situation creates. Scott Lang's daughter certainly doesn't complain about "another mouth to feed" or anything along those lines. She's just glad to see her dad alive.

Shockwave wrote:I don't think structures or infrastructure would be the main problem. There's a whole show about derelict homes being renovated into livable properties and some of those are in nice neighborhoods. The biggest problem would be for people whose homes fell into disrepair or otherwise became unlivable and needing somewhere to go while it's being restored. Some people might have jobs waiting for them. Most probably wouldn't and that would probably be the biggest strain. Also, people's homes probably wouldn't be theirs anymore after years of not being able to make mortgage payments and what not. It would be a pretty big disaster and I definitely think having the world's population suddenly double would be a strain no one would be prepared to deal with. Losing half the population would be bad as well, but would be easier to manage in terms of available resources.

Finding temporary housing until their homes could be fixed up really wouldn't be a big issue. Again, pointing to Fukushima as an example, Japan's government set up for the people that had to be evacuated to stay someplace else until their homes were safe to return to (while many understandably chose to move elsewhere). Really, given the unprecedented nature of having half the population disappearing, I'd have to imagine the government and other organizations would set up various programs to forgive things like late mortgage payments, finding new jobs and the like. And it's really not a situation of the population just suddenly doubling. That makes it sound like that population never existed before. Rather, it's the population returning. A lot of what had been in place when they disappeared would still be in place when they returned, making the transition a little bit easier. I'm not saying it wouldn't be with out difficulties, but it wouldn't be any more or less potentially disastrous as half the population disappearing in the first place.

Also, I haven't seen Endgame, my comments are solely based on the context in the discussion here.

Like andersonh1 said, the movie understandably doesn't really address it all that much.

andersonh1 wrote:

Dominic wrote:The problem is that the Avengers do not solve a problem so much as they create a much worse problem. And, the movie ignores this entirely.

I think we have to assume that most people would be happy to have missing family and friends back, and that it will be worth all the problems that situation creates. Scott Lang's daughter certainly doesn't complain about "another mouth to feed" or anything along those lines. She's just glad to see her dad alive.

Exactly. And it's obviously very much debatable the situation would be a "much worst problem". Plus, I'd have to assume the upcoming movies will address some of this.

Sparky Prime wrote: Plus, I'd have to assume the upcoming movies will address some of this.

I think they will, though how much is up for debate. With all the ongoing narratives in the movies so far, they're not going to stop that approach any time soon. We already know

Spoiler

Tony Stark's death

is a plot point in the upcoming Spider Man movie. There's one consequence of the fight with Thanos that's front and center. I'm reasonably sure it won't be the only one.

andersonh1 wrote:

Shockwave wrote:Also, I haven't seen Endgame, my comments are solely based on the context in the discussion here.

Are we still doing spoiler tags? I think I'll just be mostly vague.

It's very good, so don't let these questions about the implications of the plot make you think it's a poorly thought out movie. It just doesn't always hit some of these big questions head on, preferring to focus on the reaction of the main characters and how they attempt to deal with the problem, which is understandable. We're not going to a superhero movie to find out about the social problems of a devastated universe, but to watch superheroes tackle that problem.

You do see some indications of abandoned housing and how loss has affected the the population, confined to some brief scenes early in the movie. Apart from Captain America at a sort of group grief counseling session, we mostly see the situation through Scott Lang's point of view. He missed Thanos and the five year aftermath for reasons that come from the what happens to him at the end of Ant Man and the Wasp, so we get to see what he sees as he tries to learn what happened. But the movie never delves too deeply into the logistics being discussed here, and to be fair, it would probably bog down the plot if it did.

I don't think that's necessary. I've been mousing over them anyway. I'm still going to see it and enjoy it and reading what happens isn't going to affect that.

Regarding the Fukushima example, those people were still there and alive and didn't just disappear presumably never to return again. I think banks and corporations and even governments MIGHT forgive some of the debts, but they'd more likely go after any surviving kin, which could potentially put a lot of people into poverty.

Shockwave wrote:Regarding the Fukushima example, those people were still there and alive and didn't just disappear presumably never to return again. I think banks and corporations and even governments MIGHT forgive some of the debts, but they'd more likely go after any surviving kin, which could potentially put a lot of people into poverty.

You're missing the point. Under a crisis situation, such as needing to evacuate a 12 mile radius around a nuclear power plant due to a nuclear disaster, the government (among other organizations) provided for the people. This would be no different. There'd be programs and the like set up to ensure people got the help they needed.

My oldest daughter really enjoys the most recent MCU Spider Man movies, and prompted by an article about Tom Holland wanting to do a crossover with the other two big screen Spider Men, we binge-watched the Tobey Maguire series over the weekend. It's the first time I'd watched them in a number of years, and overall they hold up pretty well and remain solid examples of a good superhero movie, albeit with more melodrama and less self-awareness than more modern productions. But sometimes earnestness is not a bad thing. The second movie is probably the best of the three, followed by the first, and then Spider Man 3 in a distant third place. A lot of people bash the third one, and while it's not bad, the way it seriously derails Peter and MJ's relationship after the first two movies made such a big deal over those two getting together does end the series on a sour note, even though there's a hint at the end that they'll resolve the relationship going forward. As is typical for so many super-hero movies of an earlier era, the villains often die at the end. I do appreciate the way both Doc Ock and Sandman are given sympathetic moments, while Green Goblin and Venom are just bad all the way through, so there are a variety of opponents for Spider-Man.

Tobey Maguire is very good as the down on his luck science nerd that just cannot get up the nerve to tell the beautiful girl next door just how much he cares. Kirsten Dunst is very much the damsel in distress for the first two movies before getting a lot more to do in the third as she hits a rough patch just as Peter is finally enjoying some success. With the exception of her fiance in the second movie, Peter is the only man in MJ's life who doesn't abuse her in some way. Rosemary Harris remains my favorite Aunt May (I think Tony Stark flirting with this Aunt May would be hilarious), and I enjoy the way her relationship with her much younger nephew is depicted. It's a shame she has so little to do in the third movie. Overall, just about everyone in these films is well cast and bring their characters to life quite well.

One of the big things that works well in these films that the modern movies often miss is the man on the street reaction to the hero, and his relationship with them. The best example is the runaway train scene from Spider Man 2, where the crowd reacts to how young Peter is, and promise to keep his secret, and then try to protect him from Octavius. The first and third movies also deal with public perception of Spider Man and how fickle the public can be, but mostly they reciprocate his heroism by standing up for him just like he does for them. Not many other superhero movies really portray this relationship well, though you get some of it with Superman when you see crowds mourning his death, or Wonder Woman when she's speaking to children at the end of Justice League, but it's nowhere near as developed and satisfying as Spider Man's relationship with the public in these three movies.

I have not seen the two reboot movies with Andrew Garfield. Any thoughts on those?

andersonh1 wrote:we binge-watched the Tobey Maguire series over the weekend. It's the first time I'd watched them in a number of years, and overall they hold up pretty well and remain solid examples of a good superhero movie, albeit with more melodrama and less self-awareness than more modern productions.

I'd have to say that they don't hold up at all personally. I loved these films when they first came out, but I can't even stand to sit through any of them anymore. They just feel so over the top cheesy now. And I never thought Maguire was right for the role of Spider-Man. But I will say I still think they did a good job with the villains. Alfred Molina as Doc Ock especially. And JK Simmons as JJJ was perfect.

I have not seen the two reboot movies with Andrew Garfield. Any thoughts on those?

The first one is... a decent enough film. There's a few things I didn't like about it in terms of the writing. And with Orci and Kurtzman writing the screenplay for the second one... It's pretty bad. Lots of action and stuff that sounds like it'd be cool, but not a lot of thought behind any of it. Garfield I felt was a much better Spider-Man than Maguire.

A movie I used to enjoy but which has absolutely not held up well is Batman Forever. I tried watching it over the weekend, having not seen it in years, but it's just one cringe inducing scene after another, particularly once Jim Carrey turns up. Val Kilmer is not bad as either Bruce Wayne or Batman (though given the overacting by Tommy Lee Jones and Carrey, he's so laid back he almost feels invisible), and I like the material with Chris O'Donnell and particularly Micheal Gough (who is pure class in all the Batman movies where he appears), but it makes this movie schizophrenic. Some heartfelt storylines about family and identity are stuck in the same movie with ridiculous hammy villains who are as over the top as it's humanly possible to be. Nicole Kidman is in the movie to be eye candy and little more.

When I watch the Adam West Batman series, I'm entertained by and greatly enjoy the scenery chewing villains, but they just can't pull off the same thing in Batman Forever, though they were clearly trying to as a reaction against the tone of Batman Forever. Jim Carrey will never be Frank Gorshin. I used to think Batman and Robin was where these movies went bad, but I'm not sure any of them were ever all that good to begin with, and things certainly took a downhill turn with Forever.

I still like Batman Forever. I know I'm in the minority but I really like Jim Carey's performance as the Riddler. There's something about his over the topness that feels appropriate to the character. The one that gets me is Batman and Robin. Arnold's one liners reach cringe worthy levels of awful and the special effects are terrible. There's one scene in particular that always bugs the crap out of me, it's the scene where Arnold has frozen the city and there's a guy getting out of his car. As he opens the door, an icicle is seen on the door that is dangling from the wire inside it. In a movie with a budget of millions of dollars I expect better.