Home Artists Posts Import Register

Content

So! I usually cover all the Marvel stuff for all those fun watercooler reasons. But given that I’ve gone onto one of the Eternals old podcasts and literally known for like a decade now (jeezy petes time flies), I’m not comfortable writing about a whole big thing about. But that doesn’t mean we can’t have space to talk about it!

There’s obviously an inclusive spirit and generosity to what it’s trying to do with so much, but there’s also a lot of those familiar storytelling approach conversations to be had. To which, I think there’s three subjects worth centering on.

Flashback Structuring - You know me and my usual fondness for telling a story directly and dramatically. But ideally, when using flashback structure you want it to be something that illuminates on something just introduced and then lends drama and better understanding of their motivations in the current moment (Shang-Chi is actually pretty good at this, think of the sister kicking him moment). Where you get into trouble is when they feel like retroactive explanations to the moments of drama that have already passed, or needless mystery boxing of sometimes basic information (sometimes being something that effects your understanding of what “the rules” and struggles at hand really are).

Abstract Motivations / Conflicts - There’s this phrase I’m trying to remember about conflict (and it’s surprisingly ungoogle-able thanks to the phrasing) where you’re facing the difficulty of having characters on screen go through a complex problem that the people in the audience will never, ever have to deal with. I mean, a lot of times this is true in comic-book-y stuff when it comes to literal world saving or villain battling, but good ones attempt to center the core conflicts around a human struggle or relationship at the core of it, which in turn makes it “about” something far more relatable within those larger constructs. But the more abstract and philosophical those core things stay? The less impactful.

Characterization Demonstration vs. Dramatization - I wrote a lot about this with Man of Steel (and flashback structure too come to think of it) but it’s about the difference of dramatizing a character through the evolving story itself (which makes it feel more like a vital part of choices affecting the narrative) versus the “demonstration” of traits along the way, where it feels like singular attempts to show who a character is through explanation that isn’t part of the integral effect of the story. There’s a whole push / pull of how this can work in terms of going through afforded moments of dalliance, but it’s a place where economy is often crucial for giving your narrative a sense of propulsion.

Anywho, hope these are good frameworks?

Happy Convos and Keep it Kind To Each Other!

<3HULK

Files

Comments

Anonymous

I'm late to the conversation but I'm finally up to date! I actually really, really enjoyed this film. I think due to the response surrounding it. (MCU) fans and critics were saying it's bad but not the way you would think. Nearly everyone was calling it DENSE. I'm not sure if it was my curiosity that played a part in my enjoyment but I came out of it with the wish that all marvel movies going forth would at least try and aim for what Eternals aimed to do. My biggest love for the movie was it felt like it was truly trying to be its own thing. Simply made by the opening scene where the movie goes, "you know how every marvel film kinda just does the marvel panel then BAM go go go! Well... let's start with a nice deep breath." For most of the movie, I felt I was watching a film that was focused on itself. It wasn't always trying to beat down on how it is connected to everything else (for the most part). I think my biggest complaint is the fact that it is a marvel movie! Like Shang-Chi, the annoyance of having to have a stupid battle at the end against a stupid faceless cgi monster is incredibly frustrating. I LOVED how there were barely any big battles, but the one at the end kinda fell apart for me expect the conflict with ikaris and the rest of the gang - I wished the movie was just about that! More of that, please MCU! I wanted to get everybody's opinion on something: A lot of the complaints I've heard about this movie is regarding a) the eternal's mission and how they only interfere with deviant problems conflicts their own mission b) how the "rules" of their world works and functions doesn't make sense. I'm in a conversation with myself regarding how much that really matters with story itself. When I look at Eternals I see this: Cersi looking down on Earth and noting how beautiful it is. Ikaris remembers this after he fails to stop his family from defeating the celestial and in the (legitimate silence! I'm so happy they actually used silence in a film when most of their films are just too much filled with noise) silence of his memory tears up realising that she is human and not a robot made for one purpose only, and so he flies into the sun understanding his purpose is complete. I mean, it truly moved me. BUT people get caught up in the mechanics of a story's world and don't look at the heart of the story. YES, this movie has problems for me too, more due to it being held back by being a marvel movie, but it was the heart of the story which I fell for. What do ya'll think? Does a thing like the eternals mission being contradictory ruin the film or does it really matter?

Anonymous

Another complaint is if these celestials are all mighty and powerful, how come one of their eternals is deaf? Again, I don't think this matters at all to the story they are trying to tell. But what do you all think?

Anonymous

I saw this today - first movie in theaters since the pandemic hit! I wish I was more positive on it. To follow Hulk's discussion guidelines - it seemed a large part of the work of character motivation was over and done with in the first act or just offscreened - Ikaris' and Sersi's story choices hang on what happened between them in Babylon, and Ajak reverses her policy because of what happened in those other two movies. The line about protecting what you love only really applied to Phastos - and I wonder why he wasn't in the movie earlier, so they could bring his love of family to the fore, and also because he had the most visually interesting and unique ability. In the absence of any driving motivation, this made much of the movie awkward - just a lot of traveling here to there and what decisions and emotional cruxes did happen seemed really weak. They never address Druig's points - he just comes with them. Sprite joins the Uni-Mind because... she's near enough and conscious? I dunno. The choice that didn't work for me the most was that Sersi's encounter with universal truth was her just floating there while Arishem exposited at her. Some other observations: - I really like Christiana Ellis' thought that this could be read as a family divided along religious lines, and wish we could send that idea back in time to Chloe Zhao's brain. - Why was Thena's mind thingum first portrayed as a terrifying blind berserker frenzy but then became paralyzed helplessness when the Deviants attacked in the Amazon (and then stopped being a factor all together)? They could have balanced that better - a blind rage that ends with a comatose state would have given them a reason to protect her. - One of my favorite movie genres is "Ma Dong-seok punches things" so I do appreciate that he got to fight the Divine Bull Gugalanna at the Ishtar Gate - but who was Enkidu supposed to be when Sprite retold the story? - I hate that they're tying Thanos into this. I support every adaptation that simplifies the dumb convolution of comics to make them digestible - so what good does it do anyone to tie him, retroactively, into this story about star gods and mythologies and Harry Styles in a stupid robe chest-piece combo? - I do not think Marvel has the ability to transmit awe in their movies? The Celestial bit with the star forging was like a game cutscene. Arishem's voice sounded like someone reading a bulleted list. Tiamut rising was designed to have zero impact because otherwise it would have had to been treated like a total ecological disaster.