What will the studios do after they've been through all the supermen and women?
like westerns in the 60's gangsters and cops in the 70's and now wall to bloody wall spandex.
molgrips - MemberSeems like a lot of people didn't get the Danny Rand character. I think we did Chez Grips.
There was nothing to "get". A weak, inconsistently written character, portrayed in a manner which renders him as having almost no likeable or redeeming qualities. I personally could have looked past that if the action scenes and fight choreography were up to snuff but they weren't. It was all paint by numbers generic acrobatics created in a cynical, loveless utilitarian manner.
If any Marvel Netflix series could have and should have had solid fight scenes and a "real" believable, immersive martial arts style, and world, language and choreography it should have been that one.
It was obvious that the writers and creators had no love of, or interest in the martial arts, martial arts films, kung fu films or kung fu comics. They way in which they seemed to pay lip service to the existence of MMA in that universe was also clumsy and gross. And the omoplata/arm bar which Colleen Wing uses to break the mma fighter's arm with wouldn't even trouble a white belt.
The whole thing was a shit sandwich.
There was nothing to "get". A weak, inconsistently written character, portrayed in a manner which renders him as having almost no likeable or redeeming qualities.
You would say that if you didn't get it.
He joined the monastery at a young age and didn't mature. So he became a boy in a man's body. The character is about idealism and naivety vs reality, which is what most of it's about I reckon. He's not being honest with himself nor is he thinking carefully about what he's doing which is why he's not a traditional superhero type character. Like the others, in different ways. Actual people can be weak and inconsistent, after all. He's been used by the monks for a purpose, and as he's come back to the real world he's struggling to hold onto his world view.
I liked watching it, I think all four shows are packed with human issues, all the characters are well written and complex. Even Rand, in my (and my wife's) opinion.
And the omoplata/arm bar which Colleen Wing uses to break the mma fighter's arm with wouldn't even trouble a white belt.
I think you were watching from a totally different point of view. That scene is so not about martial arts 🙂
molgrips - MemberYou would say that if you didn't get it.
Oh Jesus christ molgrips it's not a film by Lars von Triers or Werner Herzog, it's a kung fu comic. Fine if you want to believe that they've crafted some piece of meta screenwriting whereby they contrived to make the main character a completely unlikeable, unrelateable asshole with no consistent character development and an extremely limited arc so as to cripple the whole series and make it a chore. If that was their intentions then they did an excellent job. You got it. No one else did.
That still doesn't escape the fact that the other characters were badly written caricatures, the fight choreography was piss poor and there was no love of, or understanding of martial arts cinema and culture in what is supposed to be an adaptation of a kung fu comic.
Well done to you for sitting through it.
I think you were watching from a totally different point of view. That scene is so not about martial arts
Regardless, the fact that no one on set, not one person knew how to execute either of the two techniques she was doing a piss poor job of misrepresenting, or that no one cared enough to check whether or not it looked laughable speaks volumes to lack of detail and depth in the show overall.
And it still has to look plausible to sell the scene. Which it didn't.
I agree with molgrips. I enjoyed the series, not the best of the MCU, but still pretty good.
A weak, inconsistently written character, portrayed in a manner which renders him as having almost no likeable or redeeming qualities.
Yeah, he's a fish out of water.
understanding of martial arts cinema and culture in what is supposed to be an adaptation of a kung fu comic
You may be overthinking things at little. Try and enjoy it for what it is.
Never mind all the telly stuff, that argument a couple of posts up is classic STW. Maybe you should battle it out over a game of Klin Zha (I had to look that up).
Iron Fist is the only Netflix MCU thing I haven't watched yet, but it strikes me that they all (up until Defenders at least) work to subvert the genre in some way. Maybe Danny Rand is just another expression of that? FWIW I thought the character worked quite well in the Defenders and I guess we had been spoilt by the Daredevil fight choreography.
Need to find time to fit The Punisher in now. Still got Stranger Things and Preacher series 2 on the list too...
You may be overthinking things at little. Try and enjoy it for what it is.
I tried, it failed. Not even remotely overthinking it.
Oh Jesus christ molgrips
Hold on a minute.
We're talking about TV here, which is a sort of art form, and I'm allowed to interpret it however I like. You don't get to tell me I'm wrong. I saw all that stuff in it - you didn't. But you cannot categorically say it wasn't there and call me an idiot who 'wants to believe' something that's not there. That's not how this works!
I didn't see any problem with the martial arts, but that's because I'm pretty ignorant of martial arts. Of course I can see how they set up and coreograph things which are clearly unlikely, and the baddies leave themselves open to the hits and behave in all sorts of other daft ways, but that's cos it's TV and not an actual fight.
Iron Fist is the only Netflix MCU thing I haven't watched yet, but it strikes me that they all (up until Defenders at least) work to subvert the genre in some way. Maybe Danny Rand is just another expression of that?
Yes, this is absolutely the case. They are all messing about with the genre. Jones doesn't want to be a hero, Cage is just a black man in a hoodie, Murdoch is a little bit insane, and as Defenders they piss each other off. That's why it's good. If you want square jawed heroic stereotypes watch some of the DC shows.
And so what if Rand is weak? People can be weak in real life.
Ok try not to read this as adversarial, that's not how it's meant, although I'll probably fail to convey that.
molgrips - Member
Oh Jesus christ molgripsHold on a minute.
We're talking about TV here, which is a sort of art form, and I'm allowed to interpret it however I like. You don't get to tell me I'm wrong. I saw all that stuff in it - you didn't. But you cannot categorically say it wasn't there and call me an idiot who 'wants to believe' something that's not there. That's not how this works!
First off the idea that there's no such thing as objective truth when it comes to art and media is a fallacy which imo is a conflation of advice given to people to help them understand modern art, and to help people buy art.
"I like it" is not a compelling argument compared to a well reasoned, well argued deconstruction and analysis. People love to say they hate Mark Kermode and yet if most of us had to debate him for an hour and take a contrary opinion against him on a piece of cinema he would make us look like mental midgets because he is an expert in his field. I like it, or I don't like it does not stand up. I do feel that if I re-watched the entire series I could probably put together a pretty solid argument as to why it's a failure but I don't think that's a worthwhile use of my time as I found watching the first 6 or 7 episodes a chore and it seems that most critics have already done this.
I am not calling you an idiot for liking it, but saying it is good because you saw what others failed to see isn't a valid argument. I believe I did see what you saw, and I still didn't like it.
I don't want to ramble on anymore but just as a basic comparison take Batman Begins. When Bruce Wayne/Batman returns to Gotham he has already been through much of his developmental arc - he is Batman. His playboy alter ego asshole is a facade. In the context of the hero's journey he has already answered the call, crossed the first threshold and the film is focuses on "Batman" dealing with the trials of a hero. The film's flashbacks inform us about his initial call to adventure, his refusal, and his development from juvenile to manhood.
By contrast, Danny Rand starts off as an asshole and continues to be a petulant asshole. The flashbacks only serve to tell us what we already know, and they don't inform his development. He starts off as a billionaire manchild with magical fighting skills and continues as a billionaire manchild with magical abilities.
Back to the punisher upto episode 4
Very very interesting and enjoyable, lots going on.
Recommended.
Kind of disappointed at how violent the punisher is to be honest.
stevious - MemberKind of disappointed at how violent the punisher is to be honest.
Too much or not enough? I started watching episode one but Netflix 4k hdr is killing monthly data usage so I'm reluctant to get into it.
2 episodes in and I'm loving it, certainly seems to be enroute to being as good as Daredevil.
Kind of disappointed at how violent the punisher is to be honest
Really no more than the comic books, they did break a bit of a glass ceiling back in the day on the violence level though.
Regarding Iron Fist, not my favourite of the Netflix Marvel stuff but it was OK. Character worked really well and came on in Defenders imo. I doubt I'll watch it again but I'll watch a second series.
To Vondally and others who’ve started watching, how necessary/useful is it to have watched Season 2 of Daredevil prior? I understand that there’s a Frank Castle arc in it, so wondering whether I should hold off until viewed DD2.
DD2 not really needed - one bit with one of the Daredevil characters might spoil DD2 a little.
4 episodes in too, I think it's up there with DD, better than LC, not as good as JJ.
I'm liking it, it's not an amazing show, would probably say it's settling abotu a 7 or so out of 10. holding my interest a good few eposides in.
I recall from Punisher War Journals where Frank steps on a man's throat and notes how it sounds like crushing a wasps nest and snapping a man's forearm by trapping it between a door and door frame.
Is it more violent than that?! 😆
Is it more violent than that?!
Yes.
But works in the context. And it's 18 rated.
I thought it would be obvious that I was joking up there ^^^ but it was clearly a crap joke.
Only one episode in and I like it so far. Less violent than I expected in terms of volume but he certainly isn't very nice to the baddies.
Thanks for responding jimjam, and sorry for being short earlier.
I believe I did see what you saw, and I still didn't like it.
That's clearer. And you are of course welcome not to like it. But I still don't think the character was poorly written because he's so plausible - I've known people like that. It's an interesting question as to whether or not he's an asshole. He does do some altruistic things, he wants to make his company do good things after all - but he struggles with a bit of darkness which is totally counter to his whiter than white self image. Colleen was set up (by the writers) to challenge this.
I guess I don't mind watching shows about weak characters as long as they are well written weak characters. I am enjoying the writing more than anything else. I feel like I've read a book when I finish a series.
I guess I don't mind watching shows about weak characters as long as they are well written weak characters.
Didn't give the writing of the character much thought but was mostly put off by the acting. THink the whole thing would have been much better if there was a bit less reliance on him looking all seriously at his hand before he punched the bad guys tits off.
Just watched ep1 of Punisher. Pretty good, and not completely what I expected which is a good thing.
Obviously (given the character) looks like it's going to be another Netflix subversion of the genre to an extent.
Up to Ep6 here, very good so far and in keeping with how it should be, nice air of conspiracy, some definite double characters and a bit more going on...
Re re not really Punisher is fairly still self contained.
The violence is far more than a usual ' hero' marvel series but that this point, he takes it to the next level, frightening so for us and the characters, that balance between sanity and insanity - what is good and bad - what is a hero -
LC is still the series I have enjoyed the most then Jessica and DD tying second, iron fist bearable, the defenders good but not as good as it could have been.
The DD part is the Castle back story so does explain where some of his rage comes from but it then re explains it for this one.
what is a hero
They all deal with that question. Each one takes a different part of the traditional superhero stereotype and puts it with the shite and flaws of real life.
molgrips - MemberBut I still don't think the character was poorly written because he's so plausible - I've known people like that. It's an interesting question as to whether or not he's an asshole.
I guess I don't mind watching shows about weak characters as long as they are well written weak characters. I am enjoying the writing more than anything else. I feel like I've read a book when I finish a series.
stevious - MemberDidn't give the writing of the character much thought but was mostly put off by the acting.
So there's the dialogue, but there's also the overall story. I could handle a petulant and imperfect character if he then demonstrates development in a small enough window to hook me as a viewer (7 episodes is too long for this). I found the actor to be quite annoying, and then I've already mentioned the action scenes. So for me it was a triple whammy of annoyance. The Colleen Wing character demonstrated more development, but she's not the main character.
An obvious arc for the character would be him arriving back in NY from his absence, pretending to be a petulant billionaire and then 3 or 4 episodes of pure flashback that show his development into a man.
There's a reason super hero films/tv shows etc model the traditional hero's journey narrative structure so well - it's because they are heroes. And if they don't conform it leaves the audience cold - because they have super human powers/skills/money etc which ordinary people do not. Without human failings, and human struggle they are unrelateable - especially if they are portrayed without charisma.
The first Daredevil series is a good example of a hero doing his thing, getting a call to action, refusing the call, dealing with adversity then going on his journey. Iron Man is another obvious example, and Robert Downey Jnr does an excellent job of being flawed, arrogant, selfish, materialistic billionaire ....but he's still whitty, charming and very likeable.
Molgrips yes but the punisher goes beyond the bounds of all the others and questions judicial law for ' natural' primordial law.... The punisher could be described as anarchical, his laws - again goes beyond all the others in this respect
Jimjam I was thinking about this whilst doing housework and I agree with lots of what you say. The question addressed by the writers is what it means to be a hero; but another question is what it means to the audience. Do we want to watch characters that don't redeem themselves? Do we want a happy ending? Most of us do of course.
I'm giving the writers the benefit of doubt of course. They may have just been crap 🙂
Decent enough I think it ends well. Could maybe have been a bit darker I reckon. Less of the human pish for my liking! 😆 would probably have condensed it to 10 eps I think. But overall decent enough show. 7.5/1
I knew nothing of the character before hand, never been into comics beyond films/TV shows.
Any of the films any good btw?
Jessica Jones is pretty selfish, but it's easy to forget that by the end of the show because yay heroes and bad guys...
molgrips - MemberThe question addressed by the writers is what it means to be a hero; but another question is what it means to the audience. Do we want to watch characters that don't redeem themselves? Do we want a happy ending? Most of us do of course.
The traditional structure pretty much has to be adhered to. Even if it's not obvious at first glance, it'll be there. This is a typical breakdown of the monomyth/hero's journey structure.
A character is in a zone of comfort or familiarity.
They desire something.
They enter an unfamiliar situation.
They adapt to that situation.
They get that which they wanted.
They pay a heavy price for it.
They return to their familiar situation.
They have changed as a result of the journey.
You can have a psychopathic degenerate character and the audience will still want to see the resolution of their arc. It's basically an elaboration on every story having a beginning, middle and end. Of course some stories will push that structure around a bit, but it's almost always there. Deviate from it at your peril.
With tv series it's doubly complex because each episode has to follow that structure, but it has to maintain that arc over the series too. That's why it's common to have side characters carrying out subplots in a grouding arc - moving background plot points about to facilitate the hero's journey. Part of the reason why I feel DD2 was less succesful than the first was that Karen and Frank Castle/ The Punisher were more interesting than Matt Murdock. Dare Devil had already completed his arc, but he's still the main character. It's a common issue with sequels for that reason.
Similar issue with Colleen Wing imo.
I'm giving the writers the benefit of doubt of course. They may have just been crap
Interestingly, at a glance at least it seems that none of the key creatives involved with the writing and Development of Daredevil were involved with Iron Fist.
Edit: apologies to anyone not interested in my ramblings with Molgrips but I find it interesting.
I find it fascinating too so sorry everyone else.
The traditional structure pretty much has to be adhered to
I can see why you would say that, and I think for a successful TV show you are right, but one of the things that sets all these shows apart for me is how much they bends these principles. Along with other Netflix shows - did you see The OA?
I'm fed up of normal. I want to feel the need to talk about this stuff, I want to be blind-sided and have to think about the characters. Otherwise I'd watch Arrow on Amazon Video...
molgrips - Member
The traditional structure pretty much has to be adhered to
I can see why you would say that, and I think for a successful TV show you are right, but one of the things that sets all these shows apart for me is how much they bends these principles. Along with other Netflix shows - did you see The OA?
I haven't seen the OA but it is on my list. Anyway, here's the thing the vast majority of these Netflix (and HBO) shows still follow these structures very very closely. It's no minor task to pull off since the main characters have to have a developmental arc, each episode has to have a beginning middle and an end, and a cliff hanger to entice you to watch the next episode, but the basic structure is still there.
As I said earlier, in Dare Devil S1 Matt Murdock's arc follows the mono-myth to the letter. Take Walter White in Breaking Bad and think about his character arc, and how even he adheres more or less to my earlier post. Jon Snow...same again.
What these new programmes are doing is they are stretching the mono-myth hero's journey over a season, or even 5 or 6 seasons and combining it with the episodic soap opera cliff hanger. It's not brand new, but it's something that is coming into maturity. A lot of people credit Buffy as being the first show to feature this complex overarching narrative and continuous, character development. It wasn't the first but it was one of the first big successes. We're now seeing a level and quality of writing previously reserved for big Hollywood films being applied to TV and rolled out into a longer format and combined with massive budgets which allow them to realise fantastic content in a realistic / believable way.
Fantasy, action, horror, super hero themes in tv used to be relatively low budget, relatively basic, and not brilliantly written.
Of course there are films and tv shows which have non linear timescales and narratives, but even then you can still map the monomyth and 3 act structure (divided in 5/7) on to them.
First 'major' show I remember doing that trick effectively was Babylon 5?
colournoise - MemberFirst 'major' show I remember doing that trick effectively was Babylon 5?
Hill street Blues is one that gets mentioned but I didn't really watch it. Maybe Miami Vice? X Files is an obvious one (Vince Gilligan was a co producer on there and Breaking Bad). I think Babylon 5 was around the same time.
If you compare the kind of characters, depth complexity etc that you find in those shows and compare them to traditional soap operas there's a massive difference. Once upon a time TV was just the springboard for people trying to get into movies, it was definitely the poor relation.
We're now seeing a level and quality of writing previously reserved for big Hollywood films being applied to TV
I think few Hollywood films are written as well as the most recent quality TV series. It appears to me that Netflix are giving far more creative license to writers than traditional TV. I suspect because their costs are lower and they don't have to pander to studios who in turn have to pander to advertisers and funders.
Netflix has its own money and owns its own distribution which I'd guess is cheaper. Same for Amazon. And they have mire creative freedom. They don't have to drag a story out for the standard number of episodes; and the episodes don't even need padding out to the standard 42 minutes. Stranger things episodes were not all the same length, which means no filler is required and each segment can follow its own course and pace. Netflix etc are growing and need more shows so need to attract writers, perhaps by giving them what they want which presumably is creative freedom.
I'd love to know if this is true, because it is remarkable how.much better online stuff seems to be. At least in what I am watching.
I agree re X-Files. We re watched it (or the first few series at least) and we agreed it was pretty seminal.
molgrips - MemberI think few Hollywood films are written as well as the most recent quality TV series. It appears to me that Netflix are giving far more creative license to writers than traditional TV. I suspect because their costs are lower and they don't have to pander to studios who in turn have to pander to advertisers and funders.
Yeah the average Hollywood cinema release is something like 60-80 million. A lot of cooks. Plus the longer format gives writers more time and space to develop characters and stories in greater detail.
Netflix has its own money and owns its own distribution which I'd guess is cheaper. Same for Amazon. And they have mire creative freedom.
I think a key thing might also be the demographics - Netflix and Amazon, by their nature will have a "young" user base. Until very recently with them being pre-installed on smart tvs bother services required a degree of tech savy'ness. That probably means more openness to new themes and genres that were traditionally seen as schlocky or marginal - comics, horror, sci-fi, fantasy etc
Stranger things episodes were not all the same length, which means no filler is required and each segment can follow its own course and pace.
I hate to harp on but consider 11/Elle's character arc in Stranger Things S2 - It follows the hero's journey so closely that it kicks you in the face.
I'd love to know if this is true, because it is remarkable how.much better online stuff seems to be. At least in what I am watching.
There are still great films out there but they are falling through the cracks and getting shaded by blockbuster franchises imo. I also find the Netflix/Amazon mini series model better and more interesting at present.
All I ever saw was that modern movie THE PUNISHER which was pretty kak tbh.
If no one’s played the punisher on xbox original, I recommend that as highly entertaining
Dolph Lundgren's Punisher FTW.
@ the flying ox - nice find, that was alright ya know if a little longwinded but suspense then loadsa brutal action is the name of the game with the punisher
Dolph Lundgren pah! None pf them have been great, but there's only one movie Punisher. And he's still at it.
I hate to harp on but consider 11/Elle's character arc in Stranger Things S2 - It follows the hero's journey so closely that it kicks you in the face.
Oh I agree about the hero's journey idea. Although 11 didn't really start in a place of comfort... That was unresolved from the end of S1..
What I am wondering is how much can a TV show diverge from the standard themes and still be good? Or be a success? Can a Netflix show appeal to a smaller audience and still be a commercial success for the company?
I would like to hear your opinion on the OA.
