Doctor Strange (Scott Derrickson, Nov 4, 2016) Movie • Page 7

So after that first post credits scene, does that mean Cumberbatch has a significant role in Thor: Ragnarok?

 

Saw this last night. was pretty dope but it wasn't the best movie in the cinematic universe imo

 

Stop reading my mind! This is exactly what I thought to the T. It was fine but the same as all the other Marvel films down to the crappy villain.

 

I thought Mads Mikkelsen's character at least had a motivation that made sense compared to the others and fit in with the message of the movie. And I like that it didn't end up in a Big Bad punch-out-fest. I'll go with an "Edge of Tomorrow"-like sequence in any superhero movie.

 

I assume this will play out like the Ant-Man post credit scene did. It will be in the movie, but as soon as he finds who he is looking for he will be done in the film.

 

The Doors of Perception by Aldous Huxley, it's a drug fueled philosophy that inspired Jim Morrison to name his band The Doors

 

This was very enjoyable. I wish Dormammu looked like his comic self though

 

I thought it was good. Some of the complaints on here about "a cold character ends up turning good" are odd. You all know you were going to see Doctor Strange, right? I think everyone could tell from the trailers that he was going to be a giant asshole and belief-skeptic who ends up doing a 180 during the film. I never expected the character to be a super nice guy.

 

That wasn't his point at all though.

 

Same. That kinda bugged me.

 

Which person? I was referring to more than one post

 

I thought all the posts generated from the sentiment that this has been seen in previous Marvel films. I completely expected him to be arrogant and do the 180. That wasn't why I was commenting.

 

I loved the pace. It didn't get bogged down like other origin stories and I didn't realize it was two hours long. Th visuals were far and away the best in a Marvel film. Not just the visual effects/action scenes but the entire movie. Favorite scene was Strange and the ancient one talking at the hospital towards the end.

 

Haven't really fleshed out my feelings on this one. I can say that I left the movie with a shrug. I think this is a movie where Marvel's 3rd act and villain issues really effected my overall enjoyment of the movie. There were a few clunky pacing & editing decisions as well.

 

I liked it. Would give it a solid "B". My only gripe would be the same as it is with 90% of marvel films in that the Villain was rather weak. And to learn than once again Loki is going to be a primary villain again (sigh) is frustrating.

 

Yea, I am done with Loki as well. They should have just let him actually be dead in Thor 2. But nope.

 

That's the thing about Marvel, when something works, they milk the shit out of it (RDJ, Loki, guys named Chris).

 

You're not wrong.

 

I find it hilarious that people continue to pretend villains are distinctly a Marvel Studios problem. Sure, looking at their films in a vacuum, engaging villains are maybe their second biggest weakness (inclusion/representation is undoubtably #1). But, if you compare MCU villains since 2008 with all comic book villains since 2008, the MCU is at least at the same level as everyone else. Where are all these comic book film villains that Marvel needs to catch up with?

 

I agree. It seems like they are always building up to something that never happens. I know that Thanos is finally going to have his time, but it just seems like there has been so much filler villain wise so far.

 

Not to go off on a tangent or anything but if James Gunn is to be believed Thanos won't have much of a presence in Guardians 2, Make Ragnarok the last opportunity to actually introduce Thanos before IW.

I sometimes wonder if general audiences are connecting the dots with the Thanos/Infinity Stones plot. How many people do you think remember the scene between Thor & Odin in The Dark World where Odin introduces Thor to the concept. I wonder if, come IW, people are going to be thoroughly confused.

 

I don't think it's distinctly a Marvel problem, but I would say it's a consistent enough criticism. "I liked Ant-Man except..." the "except" always being the weak villain.

Other than that I think First Class and DOFP had good villains, Nolan's Batman movies, Zod was a good villain. Pre-2008 I think Spider Man 1 & 2 had good villains, Singer's original X Trilogy had good villains.

 

First Class, really? I totally disagree. Shaw was forgettable, and I don't know if Magneto counts as one of the film's villains. I'll give you Magneto in DOFP, but that also had Trask, who was forgettable. I left out pre-08 because I think it could be fair to argue it's a more pronounced modern issue, but if you must bring up Spider-Man, I do NOT think Green Goblin was good. I'm on the fence with Zod and would argue that a lot of MCU villains get included if he does, too.

I challenge you to make a comprehensive list of comic book movie villains 2008 to today and tell me that the percentage of good villains in Marvel Studios' output is outside of the norm for comic book films. And, I'm not saying that makes this criticism totally unwarranted; I said it's one of their top areas that have room for growth. But, when people emphasize "Marvel villains," they make it seem like Marvel is stumbling in that area compared to their peers, and I can't help but find that argument ridiculous.

 

What makes a good villain? Really curious on takes.

 

Realistically terrifying and not inadvertently funny, I thought Mads was not that bad except for the fact that his big speech just reminded me of Let's Go Crazy