Відео

It took me until the New Year rolled in as I’ve has so SO MUCH keeping me busy, but I finally got around to commenting! First of all, it’s impressive that your video has already soared up to almost 900 views and 30 likes by the time I’m commenting. While I still haven’t yet gotten around to seeing the show myself, it really does sound like one that has very much earned the praise surrounding it! In addition to being a natural expansion of the Gotham universe established in the Mat Reeves movie, that engages with the audience via storytelling rather than pandering to them with fan-service cameos… it truly does sound like the show really took advantage of the opportunity to do a character study of Oz Cob/The Penguin, without faltering by trying to go the “anti-hero” route that other, less-successful comic book movies/shows have taken. Apparently crime dramas along the likes ‘The Sorpanos’ and ‘Breaking Bad’ were just the perfect properties to take inspiration from, in crafting a world that is like a grim look at the dark reflection of ‘The American Dream’. And I have no doubt that because it doesn’t go the “anti-hero” route is exactly the kind of reason that it succeeds, as it seems to recognize that empathizing with villains doesn’t require them to have a turn-around or to have their redeeming qualities shine through in the end. It’s really about getting you to think about how they might possibly have turned out differently (even good) had their circumstances been different. (While also bearing in mind that at the end of the day, even though their society and upbringing has shaped who they have become as a person, it really is their choices at the end of the day that determine who they are and what their fate will be.) Oz’s insecurities and desperate longing for his mother’s love, don’t justify him going to the lengths of murdering his brothers to have it all to himself. But all the same, you do know that feeling he gets, and before he’s pushed to that point where you lose all sympathy for him, you almost want to reach into the world of Gotham and extend him a hand in the hopes that it might motivate him to make different/better choices (even though we know what the tragic inevitability is). And I think this is an example of what you brought up in what you would like to see more of in villains from Disney. And of course you can craft villains this way…even having (successful) character studies of them without having to go for the hard R-rating that the ‘Penguin’ does. The same goes for Sophia and Vic as well, in their dynamics with Oz. Pitting Sophia against him while Vic forms a brotherly (almost familial) bond with him before ultimately being killed by him…The matter that Sophia being an “executioner” for Gotham criminal while simultaneously being a victim of both Gotham society and her family…As well as Vic resulted the destruction of the middle class which he claimed to fight for… …all of it further illustrates how, as you mentioned, “Why doesn’t Bruce Wayne just throw more money at Gotham’s problems?” is such a lazy argument that holds no water whatsoever! That may perhaps be the perfect way to garner the audience’s desire to see justice be served by Batman…not just by his fist, but also by his moral compass.

You have a future in film production. Grade - A

Dude. I haven’t seen the show. As a longtime BatMan fan your review is amazing.

Solid show. The Penguin was adequately protayed as a brutal, cruel, unredeemedable, impulsive yet also calculating, dark tetrad villainous thug.

Top video

18:33 That makes me think the Joker will die in the first episode of Season 2.

Seems odd that people would take issue with Kevin Conroy not voicing Batman, since this isn't even the first show where he didn't voice him.There was "The Batman (2004)" and "Batman: The Brave and The Bold." There were even Batman voice actors before Conroy.

I disagree with you, but I think it's always good to hear the other side of a debate. Personally, I believe a story should focus on enlightening people about life (or just being really fricking cool). Politics should have no place within storytelling. At the end of the day, though, it's purely your own choice to enjoy a particular form of media. I respect your opinions and have listened open-mindedly to your argument. We're all just Batman fans, and it's important to not berate one another because of our contrasting views.

Continued from my last comment… I have no idea what specifically all the discourse surrounding ‘Caped Crusader’ spawned from (other than nostalgia-bias and the usual “We live in the age where the internet is running rampant with cynicism!”) As you and I have both discussed, the word “woke” has been used and abused so much that it’s pretty much lost all its meaning. I suppose that if everything is “woke” in this day and age, then essentially NOTHING is. (Like how Syndrome says, “When everyone’s super, no one will be.”) Speaking of ‘The Incredibles’, I kind of envisioned a similar scenario with ‘Caped Crusader’ regarding the setting. The way you interpreted ‘Caped Crusader’ using the aesthetic of the 40s rather than it being explicitly a 40s setting…that was akin to my interpretation, like how the ‘Incredibles’ uses the aesthetic of the 60s rather than a real 60s setting. (In fact, I think it’s been interpreted broadly, if not outright confirmed, that ‘Incredibles’ is set in an imagined alternate timeline of a modern future inspired by the retro setting of the 60s. Either way, I’m not going to make a big stink about the accuracies of the (supposed) time period and what sort of things modern audiences would expect it to reference. One famous/infamous animation reviewer whom I used to watch religiously, called “The Mysterious Mr. Enter”, went down that territory a couple of years back with ’Turning Red’, saying that the fact that the movie was set in 2002 and contains no references to 9/11, makes the movie feel “exceptionally ignorant of the time”. The take blew up overnight into thousands of memes and even became the subject of a Forbes article! (I assure you I am not making that up; you can do a quick Google search under his name, and that is bound to be the first thing that comes up.) I mean, whether you like ‘Turning Red’ or not, I think you and I can both agree that it would be an understatement to call that sort of take a reach, to say that the movie needed to mention 9/11! And I think if anything, that’s only a testament to how these “woke” complainers/grifters are the ones making bigger fools of themselves than anyone working in the industry! (BTW, I just feel I should mention that I had stopped watching Mr. Enter YEARS before he made that take.) And the matter of “Why can’t Bruce just donate all his money to fix the problems in Gotham, rather than doubling as a vigilante?”…Haven’t people learned already that not all the world’s problems can be solved just by throwing money at them? (And in fact, more problems have arisen from them, considering how it’s recently surfaced just how corrupt the US is due to the capitalist system.) Some people will do the wrong thing because somebody paid them an offer they couldn’t refuse. No matter how much money Bruce has, that might just compel somebody who has opposing morals/motives to try to get richer so they can bribe others to do their bidding. And as you’ve pointed out, this is an issue that has been pointed out MULTIPLE times in the Batman lore. Even in one of the darkest, most daring episodes of ‘Batman: Brave and the Bold’, “Chill of the Night”, that take on Bruce’s origin story revealed that Joe Chill, the killer of Thomas and Martha Wayne, was hired to do so when he already made a living selling weapons to criminals. I think you can still have nostalgic/emotional connection with the Animated Series, while still making room for a new Batman…especially when it comes to wanting to add dimension to Batman’s villains. (Kind of interesting to hear how people complain about the absence of dimension from Batman’s villains in ‘Caped Crusader’, while Disney gets slammed for focusing too much on giving dimension to their bad guys and lost touch with what made their villains so memorable.) In both cases, I believe there’s room for all types of villains to exist, and make clear right-and-wrong areas while also having the “grey areas”. Let’s not forget that while “humanizing” villains can make them more interesting and identifiable, there are those types of cartoony-like villains in real life who will step over the corpses of common people to chase power and “look out for number one”. Somewhat related to what I mentioned in my comment on your video about Disney’s Twist Villains, I think that adding dimension to villains really works best when it’s used as a juxtaposition to the protagonist. That’s why it’s always been so prominent across the storytelling landscape, including superhero stories. It’s when the villain serves as a representation of the path of corruption that the protagonist could go down depending on the decisions they do or don’t make. Going back to the Sam Raimi Spiderman movies, that’s been something that has been prominent with every Spiderman villain in that trilogy. With the exception of Sandman, all the villains who die share a similar plight to Spiderman/Peter Parker, and they die either redeeming themselves or falling prey to what they couldn’t escape from. In movie one, Green Goblin/Norman Osborne tries to appeal to Spiderman at one point with his cynical worldview of: “The one thing people love more than a hero, is watching a hero fail.” In movie two, Peter has to remind Doc Ock his philosophy about intelligence being a gift that’s meant to be used for the good of mankind. Even movie three, for all its faults, carries this over with Venom and Hobgoblin (Hobgoblin/Harry Osborne going through a similar arc of letting go of the desire for vengeance that Spiderman/Peter did throughout the movie, and Venom being an embodiment of an evil Spiderman as Eddie Brock is like the kind of person whom Peter could become if he just abandoned all his morals.) Both Doc Ock and Hobgoblin do die redeeming themselves, while Spiderman lives on bearing the cross of everything that made him who he is (just like Batman does). Finally, regarding the absence of Alfred (or the matter of Batman having a strained relationship with him) in this series…as beloved as Alfred is, I don’t think that alone should be such a big deal-breaker. If this wants to appeal to older audiences, then I for one would fully welcome such dynamics between these characters we’ve come to know so much. Even though he has a larger role in the Batman lore than say Uncle Ben to Spiderman, Alfred does essentially serve a similar purpose as Batman’s voice of reason. Or perhaps even more accurate a comparison would be Uncle Iroh from ’Avatar: the Last Airbender’, who did have a whole subplot of a rift between his relationship with Zuko. Or even yet another example could be one of my favorite DC-inspired action cartoons growing up, ‘Ben 10’, with the character of Grandpa Max! …These are all beloved mentor/father-like characters who are favorites to fans of each of these franchises, but at the end of the day, it’s about the protagonist’s journey (or secondary protagonist, in Zuko’s case) with the mentor being there to support/guide them along their arc. And if part of that is about their relationships being put through the wringer throughout the series, then that only makes for the outcome of their bond at the end all the more satisfying! That’s all I have to say right now. Until next time!

Excellent video! I’ve only seen the first episode of ‘Caped Crusader’ as that was the only one that was available to view for free. And maybe it wasn’t the best episode to start the series off with. Maybe the series gets better the further it goes on (like I’ve heard was a common consensus with ‘Bojack Horseman’). Of course, there’s the saying that “You only get one chance at a first impression.” But I think those who bide to that mindset are doing themselves a disservice, Because they’re shutting out something that they might not even realize that they need in their lives. That’s why I have a lot more respect for reviewers who are going into something willing to give it an honest shot, rather than just talking about something for the sake of being relevant or getting the most clicks. And moreover, since this is introducing Batman to a new generation of audiences (at least older ones who are only just getting to know the character for the first time, it’s perfectly fair for to be it’s own version, while still carrying over some of the spirit/inspiration from ‘Batman: The Animated Series’. I mean how many shows have you and I grown up with were ones that were based on/inspired by a previous iteration that they were trying to be a love letter/evoke a similar feeling to? There’s nothing wrong with BTAS being some peoples’ definitive version of Batman. Previous generations had their own definitive version of the character that was THEIR introduction, and later generations will do so likewise. I think would should make room for all of it, even the ones that turn out to be “average” like ‘Caped Crusader’. How else are we going to uncover new gems in the future? If anything, I think that stubbornly attaching ourselves to “our definitive version” I think it does a franchise (ANY franchise) more of a disservice than favor. For me, Sam Raimi’s ‘Spiderman’ movies are my definitive version of Spiderman, as they are for many others. They were my introduction to the character, and the But I DON’T regard them as some sort of untouchable holy grail, as I will acknowledge that for all their masterwork, they’re not perfect. And other tellings of Spiderman’s origins can allow for things that couldn’t work in the Raimi series. So I like to be open-minded to that. I’ve had people in my life telling me that “they feel sorry for my generation who didn’t grow up with the stuff they grew up with”…and I try to avoid doing that sort of thing as much as possible. It’s not a very pleasant feeling being made to feel like “you were born too late” or that “You will never have (or make) anything as good as what came before.” Because A) that only robs a person of any incentive to try at all, and B) it blinds them to the beauty that exists right before their eyes where they stand. After all, nostalgia isn’t all it’s cracked up to be when you remove the rose-tinted glasses. I couldn’t agree more that it’s perfectly fine to get an actor besides Kevin Conroy to play Batman/Bruce Wayne. It’s been going on for decades! BTAS wasn’t the first time the character was brought to the medium of animation, so it’s totally fair game to give a chance to other actors to fill the role (which I think Hamish Linklater definitely did a sufficient job in this case). Conroy’s Batman was indeed very distinct, so I know it’s hard to imagine that sometimes, especially for those who have such a distinct attachment to BTAS. But regardless, it’s just another part of life that people need to accept (especially in a world that is often so unkind to new talents just breaking into the field). I’ve grown to make peace with letting go of the idea that it’s “sacrilegious” for a distinct/iconic role to be handed to a different actor. As understandable as it is when the performance is so memorable that the individual actor has made it so distinctly THEIR definitive role in a way…AND as understandable as it is that it would seem (and sometimes is) disrespectful for said actor to be treated as “replaceable”…praising them like they’re the holy messiah carries it’s own set of unfortunate implications. Not to mention that sometimes, just because a beloved actor returns to the role for said project (like a sequel, spinoff, or remake), that doesn’t guarantee that the result will be gold (or even that they’ll be as great the next go-around in the performance). I know lots of people have felt that nobody but Robin Williams could play the Genie, but if you’ve seen ‘Aladdin’ on Broadway (or at least are open to the idea of seeing it), then you’ll probably just accept the Broadway version of the Genie is probably just considered a different iteration of the character with the actor giving it their own unique identity that isn’t merely trying to duplicate the magic of Williams. Likewise, in my case, when I first heard the announcement of a sequel/remake to ‘Mary Poppins’, I myself was skeptical about anyone filling Julie Andrews’ shoes. But considering that Andrews herself was perfectly happy to make way for Emily Blunt, I felt it was only fair for me do so too. And the result was that Blunt felt like she was delivering her own personal rendition that captured the spirit of the character, without ever once trying to replace/upstage Andrews. Plus, considering what you brought up about Mat Reeves’ involvement as executive producer, I think it’s very appropriate to be seen as a companion piece to “The Batman”…especially if they want to explore concepts for sequels to “The Batman”. That’s all I have time to comment on right now. Be sure to keep your eyes open, as I will have more to say later…

This show is trash but also sorta good if it wasnt woke it would be peak

Yeah I thought the show was fine, definitely a few weird ass choices but overall I just enjoy seeing a new interpretation of Batman. BTAS and JLU are my comfort shows so I don’t think it’s fair to compare this to the DCAU because that’s like 5 shows with multiple seasons vs this which is just trying to find its footing. Hope they get a season 2

BATMAN CAPED CRUSADOR DONT EVEN HAS BATMAN AS MAIN CHARACTER

LAIR LAIR PANTS ON FIRE

NO ITS NOT

Great video. I do feel the magic has been faded. Also I would look forward to a Wish video.

Great video discussion, and I was so happy to be able to help you with the editing of this great series! I have no doubt that “Wish” would give you plenty to talk about, in its own video! But right now, I have a LOT I’d like to say on this particular matter… I have no doubt that Disney is capable of picking themselves back up and turning themselves around. Like you’ve said, they’ve already proven before that they could do it. And that’s what made them such an integral part of Western culture. That said though, I won’t deny that exactly HOW Disney is going to rekindle their magic (and how long it takes for that matter). I do remember how you and I had a little one-on-one discussion about how Bob Iger has apparently re-modeled the structure of the company so that only he could do it. Heck, there’s even heard some reports that the only reason Chapek got the position of chairman/CEO in 2020 was because nobody else was willing to step up to the challenge (unless Peter Rice might have been able to have something to do with it, hence the largely-overlooked detail about Chapek firing him, in discussions about Chapek’s legacy as CEO). I can certainly sympathize with the plight of how difficult it is to have that level of power and responsibility. But we’ve also seen more than a few examples of how having that level of status, changes people for the worse overtime. (One could argue that it’s like treating the position as “all power, no responsibility”.) In addition, while I do believe that Disney is capable of finding their magic again, I’m still currently questioning my loyalty to them. I feel that they have to do a lot to earn back my loyalty to them as a fan AND as an aspiring artist who wants to work in the field. It’s already become no secret that in addition to all the other afore-mentioned problems with Disney that you’ve mentioned, they’ve only shown that they don’t exactly have the well-being of their workers in mind (both those who make their entertainment, and those who run their parks). The recent announcement of layoffs at Pixar hasn’t helped matters either. Even voice-actor Brian Hull, a lifelong Disney enthusiast, has recently expressed his grievances with the current state of Disney, as well as how his experience doing voice work for them, while it was a great experience for him (and good to add to his resume), he still felt less-than-fully compensated for his work for them: ua-cam.com/video/0N2lIbBf36I/v-deo.htmlsi=APqayA9NW-XpdCFP There’s also the matter of if Disney comes back and finds their magic again…will they just fall prey to the same mistakes as before? I mean, I don’t doubt that profits is always going to be a primary motivator for Disney as a company, with us living in the capitalist system that we currently do. And I’ve tried to play devil’s advocate and say that money as a motivator is not a bad thing in-and-of-itself. But in addition to what you’ve mentioned about there being plenty of evidence to suggest that Disney’s reasons for trying to push for inclusivity are disingenuous, Iger’s response to the SAG-AFTRA strike being semi-reminiscent to Walt’s attitude towards the 1941 strike (and other instances like Michael Eisner viewing himself as the re-incarnation of Walt himself) do seem to push further this idea that Disney prefers to continue indulging in their dominant image on the face of the entertainment business, even if its at the expense of others (including those working for them). I do think that for anyone to be able to genuinely change, they have to do it for more than just superficial reasons, otherwise they’ll just relapse back into their old habits. If someone wants to change their diet to lose weight for example, then they need to demonstrate interest in changing itself, rather than just only want to outcome/reward for it; because otherwise, they’ll likely just forget their reasons for wanting to change as soon as things get hard, and they’ll just relapse back into old habits because they are easier for them. That’s also part of the philosophy of Disney: that you have to do the work to make your dreams come true and get to a better place in like. There’s this article I recently came across, about John Musker’s take on Disney’s trend of remakes being symbolic of Disney’s “Woke” problem: facebook.com/DisneyisourLife/posts/pfbid027hW15B3n9oV2xGQ3yMM3vsXRADfGepTE6P3a1xvmtyb7QTeCbFQRfpsizM8hhKX2l He says: “We weren't trying to be woke, although I understand the criticism. The classic Disney films didn't start out trying to have a message. They wanted you to get involved in the characters and the story and the world, and I think that's still the heart of it. You don't have to exclude agendas, but you have to first create characters who you sympathize with and who are compelling. I think they need to do a course correction a bit in terms of putting the message secondary, behind entertainment and compelling story and engaging characters." It kind of reflects a quote from Walt Disney that goes: “I’d rather entertain and hope my audience learn, than teach and hope my audience be entertained.” I think there's also something to be said about how if you live by the brand, then you die by the brand. I strongly believe that another reason that Disney has been able to evolve with the times, is because of how experimental they’ve gotten, rather than pigeon-holing themselves to the specific identity that they've fashioned for themselves. The Wacky Delhi made an excellent in-depth look at the problems with ‘Wish’ (and Disney as a whole, and I highly recommend checking his video out: ua-cam.com/video/-IPbLj-pykg/v-deo.htmlsi=6r7F_HVQPkuc_Vrm He described the movie as the embodiment of Disney in the eyes of cheap, pale imitators. When people look at some of Disney’s biggest game-changers like ‘The Little Mermaid’, ‘Beauty and the Beast’ and ‘Frozen’, there definitely seems to be that impulse to want to dilute those films down to bare bones to think that they successful because “They are musicals”, “They are about Princesses”, “They are about good and evil”, etc. But as Delhi describes it, the thing that made Disney so interesting (as well as what has contributed to them being able to be around so long) was how they were more than just a one-trick pony. The princess movies were nice, but they were never the end-all-be-all. They appeared in a sea of variety. And even the princess flicks that we did get had a lot more to them under the surface, than just the brand name that Disney has arguably been relying too heavily on to do the heavy-lifting for them the past few years. Strangely enough, some of the projects that didn’t entirely fit the studio mold, were the ones that made history. That’s way, say what you will about even films like ‘Atlantis’ and ‘Treasure Planet’, you’ve still got to respect them from…even if the result didn’t 100% pay off. (Because let’s face it, film is an experimental art at the end of the day, and what may look like lightning in a bottle to many, may still be seen as a mediocrity to several others-especially those who have very fixed mindsets.) That’s partially why I’ve even given some defense to some of their movies that I’ve seen no shortage of detractors for; even ‘Raya’, ‘Strange World’, 'Lightyear', or ‘Elemental’, I didn’t think were bad movies (if still paled in comparison to the other masterpieces). Heck, I’m even one of those people who enjoyed ‘Ralph Breaks the Internet’ on the big screen, and to this day consider myself to be one of the seemingly-few people around who doesn’t hate it even after all these years. And that's why when it comes to " 'Everything' isn't an identity!", Disney expanding their business by buying up more properties, really worked best (I feel) when it was done in the interest of showing versatility (and even if potentially benefiting the properties themselves, financially AND creatively), rather than just buying up IP's for the sake of having them and flaunting them.

I never got around to adding this until now. But I would like to expand upon what you said about the Florida bill, further down, repeating some points I brought up during my extended discussions with Jacob Below… For starters, I think this controversy became so messy and alienating to everyone on all sides, also in-part because of how individual media/activists on both sides of the political spectrum were oversimplifying/mischaracterizing the bill (in terms of both what bill itself calls for at face value and the potential problems its vague language could indirectly become a loophole for). *Just to be clear, I remember reading the bill myself and concluding that I would NOT support it in its current state, if I was a member of the committee in charge. Though, my reasoning would follow what some of the more moderate liberal people/outlets were suggesting, rather than what the much more vocal members of the Left were saying.* When certain celebrities/commentators/UA-camrs on either side tried to get on their pulpit about it, they would start preaching about the bill with these oversimplifications/mischaracterizations in mind. In turn, I believe this impeded them from saying something constructive about the bill’s potential motivations/problems, and their commentaries on it would further encourage people on both sides to approach the discourse with this “us versus them” mentality. To have the best opinion on a certain law, it is not enough to simply be right about whether it is good or bad. Rather it is also important to correctly understand why a certain law is good/bad, then be able to properly communicate that to others. Otherwise, it just makes the discourse worse, plus makes it easier for those with the opposing viewpoint to be convinced that one’s conclusion is wrong (even if the conclusion has actually been correct all along). To properly get into why I personally felt uncomfortable with Florida’s “Parental Rights in Education Act”, I would first like to differentiate between what the bill says at face value, versus what problems it could indirectly enable with its broad and vague language. At face value, all I remember is the bill basically stating first that certain sex ed material would be barred from elementary schools’ official curriculums, if deemed inappropriate for that age bracket. Also, the teachers/faculty would be required to be transparent with parents, about what personal advice/programs they offered to students related to sexual and LGBT issues (as an exception, though, I do recall the bill outwardly granting teachers the right to withhold such information from parents, if they fear the parents’ knowledge would make the child likely to be abused). However, some of the more moderate left-leaning people have brought up fears of how the bill is so short and full of broad/vague language, that its loopholes could enable things like discriminatory treatment of LGBT instructors, diminished ability for teachers to have normal conversations about it with individual students outside of class lessons, etc. I thought these concerns seemed valid, especially knowing how broad language in other issues have led to harmful consequences, even some which were not intended at face value. One example I recall is how a student once got suspended for bringing in a tiny LEGO piece in the shape of a gun, because of how the school’s broad rules against weapon possession indirectly made that tiny toy piece qualify as a weapon. Unfortunately, it seems many celebrities/commentators on the Right only took into account what the bill was saying at face value, then erroneously concluded that the only reason anyone might be against the bill is if they wanted mandatory sex ed for kindergartners, etc. Meanwhile, some celebrities/commentators on the more extreme end of the spectrum’s left side appear to have erected a straw-man of the bill, presenting the potential issues it could indirectly create as though these were what the bill openly mandates at face value. In turn, people listening only to them were more likely to assume, that the only reason anyone might agree with certain aspects of the bill is if they were “-phobic”. Also in turn, some right-leaning people hearing those would only have their echo chambers further reinforced, believing that all the bill’s detractors simply did not know what they were talking about. That is, while overlooking/ignoring that there were other detractors, who did have well-reasoned arguments for why one should be concerned about the bill. I am reminded of that old quote attributed to Plato, where there is a difference between those who “have something to say” and those who “have to say something”. If people associated with Disney or Hollywood in general were to take up the responsibility of weighing in on this issue, it was important for them to make sure they are knowledgeable and prudent enough to act like the former category. That is, especially if the given issue is full of passionate people talking past each other and not learning anything constructive. However, it appears that many of such people not only acted more like the latter category, but also sometimes spoke before making sure they are ready to firmly commit to that hill. In turn, all they seemingly did by the end was alienate everyone and please nobody. To say one last thing, which is only somewhat related to this issue, another thing I noticed is how hypocritical some of the Florida politicians are, when they champion themselves as being for parental rights and protecting students’ personal boundaries. If those ideals happen to conveniently support their immediate agenda, they will loudly proclaim them. However, Florida is also a state, where many of its politicians are refusing to pass a statewide ban on school corporal punishment (to be fair, though, the majority of its districts have reportedly banned it on their own). Whenever those individuals within the Republican Party condone such punishments, you never see them addressing the importance of students’ personal boundaries or parental rights for those situations. As far as I am concerned, school paddling is not only state-sanctioned physical battery, but also sexual battery. And some of these districts either don’t allow parents to opt their kids out of such practices, or don’t impose consequences for schools blatantly violating those opt-out agreements with parents. There was one particularly unsettling story that recently happened at a rural Florida high school, involving an 18-year-old female student and two grown male faculty, which confirmed some of my worst fears.

I have not seen “True Detective” myself, but your analysis here makes it sound like a very intriguing show. Regarding your contrast between Rust and Marty’s behavior at points, I wonder if this Gospel parable could sum it up. It appears that Rust could be likened to the son who works in the vineyard despite initially saying no to his father, while Marty’s behavior could sometimes be likened to the son who refuses to work in the vineyard despite initially saying yes to his father (though perhaps not always, seeing how Marty does still apparently help take down the Yellow King at the end of Season 1).

One Last Scene Playlist: ua-cam.com/play/PLd7v7nQLQGwJDu11IQtTbh1-1i__UfKhf.html

To refer to the wise words of Uncle Iroh from ‘Avatar: The Last Airbender: “Sometimes life is like a dark tunnel. You can’t always see the light at the end, but if you keep moving, you will get to that better place.” I haven’t yet seen ‘True Detective’, but your video has certainly incentivized me to! (And I think it might be something that some of my other family members could get into as well.) It sounds to me like the character of Rust parallels Batman in some ways, as both do seem to be strong examples of antitheses to nihilism. (So in that respect, I suppose it’s not too surprising that he’s a character whom you connect so strongly with.) Both have suffered such severe personal losses (of family in both cases) that they have used as a primary motivator to channel their actions and help the world around them, rather than sitting and stewing over the feeling that neither of them will never be truly happy at their center. “A lot of people use “nihilism” as an excuse for not care about anything…and the closer we get to truth, the further we move away from meaning.” Truer words have never been spoken. You remark how Rust, as he’s experiencing all this pain and is going through existentialism, has suffered a spiritual death. But in my opinion, it doesn’t sound at all like he’s lost his sense of spirituality, if he believes that there is a force in the universe greater than himself that motivates him to keep doing the right thing (even if he doesn’t consider that force as akin to a “God”). In fact, I think that’s a major defining difference between “spirituality” and mere “piety” that a lot of Jehovah’s witnesses and people with Messiah complexes abide by. If one uses “being a Christian” as a defining factor for living by good practices and principals, it seems like their letting their identity be defined by their peers, rather than carving out their own (especially if they let Christian practices be their primary motivation). So in that sense, Rust’s mindset, while not ideal, is rather liberating in its own way. Which I feel is a good transition comparing Rust to Marty, who is completely motivated by a sense of duty to family, faith and career. We know that love for those closest to you (living or dead) is a powerful thing, but if it’s what determines your actions, who knows what that could drive you to do? If you are set on doing anything to try to hold onto whatever you are so strongly attached to that you still have in the world, maybe it could drive you to make some grave mistakes before you even realize it! (Like the classic villain motif of using a hero’s loved one(s) as leverage against them, to get them to do the villain’s bidding.) If you have become so attached to something that it’s the driving force behind all the decisions you make, then in essence, it seems to me that what you’re acting out of fear of losing something, more than anything. And Rust’s mindset can be liberating in that way, knowing that he himself has nothing left to lose, but still refuses to walk away from what others may be at risk of losing. So every cloud has its silver lining, but clouds being clouds all roll by and reveal the sun and the sky.

I look forward to watching your third and final part. Both Disney (a lot of Hollywood in general, like you said) seems to be in serious decline due to a combination of misguided strategies with streaming services, too much emphasis on content-quantity versus content-quality, production costs allowed to become too bloated/inefficient, mishandling of major franchises which alienate long-established fanbases, and controversial ways in which studios involve themselves in public discourse (further alienating customers on multiple sides of the aisle). As a side-note, when you brought up the "streaming wars", it reminded me a lot of what's going on with "live-service games" in the video gaming industry. In both cases, you seem to have a select few cases where a business model becomes highly successful and popular, yet is not sustainable for more than a few such platforms to be marketed at any one time. That is, especially when most companies fail to even deliver on the very quality, which made the "streaming service"/"live-service game" work for those few instances in the first place. The latest prime examples of the latter are arguably the Avengers game and more recent Suicide Squad game. I had something to add for your Part 1, but I just never got to it because my thoughts on it were complicated and I was busy. In the near future, I might get a chance to comment what I have been wanting to add to your first part.

Looking forward to part 3. I have mixed feelings about Disney not doing well in 2023. On one hand, they had it coming with the scummy business practices, but on the other hand they deserved better for the 100th anniversary.

Im not sure why, but I had to turn my volume all the way up for the intro.

I look forward to the rest of this series.

omg someone else seeing the absurdism in it!!! I was literally searching "absurdist analysis on barbie" bc I knew someone else had to see it.

I’m sorry I’m a bit late to the party here! I’ve been busy with a lot of things (including the update for my website). But it’s great to see you make a comeback to UA-cam! And it’s even greater to see that your video has already garnered this many views in this amount of time! I haven’t seen either ‘Barbie’ or ‘Oppenheimer’ yet. (And regrettably, with my current schedule, I don’t know if I will have the chance to catch them on the big screen.) But I think ‘Barbie’ has just as much potential to be a masterpiece that can appeal beyond its target demographic, just as much as ‘Transformers’, ‘My Little Pony’ and ‘Legos’! So it’s great to hear that can joint the club of “Films that turn out far better than they have any right to”. And really, who’s place is it to say that boys should never be allowed to play with Barbie (even if it is just with their little sisters)? My favorite toy was my Raggedy Ann doll when I was growing up, believe it or not. And I can’t wait to see what potential future videos you have in store, after you review ‘Oppenheimer’! On a side note, I’ve been hearing some positive things Disney’s new movie adaptation of ‘The Haunted Mansion’ (more favorable than the Eddie Murphy movie anyway).

I lost it when with the sunglasses!

I'm curious to hear what he's got to say about the Barbie movie because unless Magot Robbie is basically naked throughout the entire thing, there's just no way it can be anything but complete garbage. 😂 I couldn't get through 5 minutes of this guy talking about it. He's reviewing it like it's a real movie - with layers, sub-plots, and a storyline that's deeper than a comic book or a Disney channel TV movie - that's supposed to be taken seriously. It's Barbie not The Godfather or Citizen Kane.

Excellent selections! I was so glad that I could experience ‘Nope’ and ‘Batman’ (and even glad I could catch ‘Glass Onion’ during its ever-so-short theatrical run) on the big screen this past year! I still want to go see titles like ‘The Fablemans’ and ‘Everything Everywhere All at Once’ (and even some like ‘Babylon’) if I can get the chance to go to the theater again soon (as well as the other titles you mentioned)! The last movie I saw in the theater was ‘The Whale’ with Brendan Fraiser making his grand comeback to the big screen! As for Schaffrillas, I’d heard about the accident, and I can only imagine how traumatizing it was for him to be the sole survivor of it! Hopefully he recovers and goes on to still live his best possible life.

Great list! I’ve seen all of these movies except Tar, Triangle of Sadness, and The Fallout. I did a whole series on 2022: m.ua-cam.com/video/h9r31UEtj30/v-deo.html I also did a list of classic movies I saw for the first time in 2022: m.ua-cam.com/video/TL-6uGSWjJM/v-deo.html

Great review. I loved Top Gun Maverick. It is in my top 3 legacy sequels as well.

Box office numbers would disagree

Congrats on this milestone that is your 100th video! And I’m so glad that the subject for it was a Marvel movie that really felt like a comeback in full swing (pun partially intended, hint hint) and exists to be a movie that tells a story, rather than just an MCU product! And I suppose who better for the job than Sam Raimi? I’m also really glad that this movie presents the kind of moral that it does, about what the key to happiness truly is.

Great video. I liked this film too, I was glad Rami had huge creative control in this movie.

🦇🔥🐐 ur monologue 😂 “I’ve waited 2 yrs …” reminded me of batman yr one -“ I’ve waited 18 yrs, 18yrs since Zorro”. Honestly, the batman is my fav movie ever, this is a love letter to us Batman fans worldwide

I saw this movie as soon as it hit the theater, and it certainly did not disappoint! It absolutely lives up to the hype, and would certainly be worthy of the title "One of the best" if not "THE BEST" movies of the year! Like you said, this movie is everything that a Batman movie should be! Robert Pattinsons genuinely feels like he's playing Batman/Bruce Wayne, rather than just some iteration of the character. The rest of the casting is spot-on as well! The cinematography does a stellar job of embracing "dark and gritty" without shamelessly indulging or pandering to it, so that it gives moments of bright and radiant cinematography to shine! And Gotham truly does feel like a real city that people have adapted to living in, even though it has descended into turmoil and high crime rates; it feels very much like the kind of city Batman would reside in, if such a city existed in our real world! I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if this movie took some inspiration in storytelling/visual cues from 'Se7en'; I genuinely believe that one purpose making a big film for the world to see is so that it inspires generations of future artists/storytellers AS WELL as audiences, and it only makes sense to draw influence from the best examples! I can't help but feel like this movie also draws inspiration from old westerns at times too; like the scene where Batman is walking towards Penguin's overturned car and his boots go CLINK, CLINK against the pavement, like spurs on a pair of cowboy boots! And I was even commenting to myself about Michael Giachinno's score and how impressed I was with his; he already set a high bar for himself with 'The Incredibles', and since this is a superhero movie with a totally different tone and approach, he really proves that he's capable of taking on anything! So even though we're only a few months into this year, amongst all the horror and mayhem that's going on in the rest of the world, this is one major blessing we got this year! Heck, this might be the very film we need right now to help us fight through it all! Batman has always been a symbol of resilience in the face of despair, especially in times of global and national hardships when wars and economic collapses were going on, so it's only appropriate that he continue to do so!

Hello, mate!! Great review. I love this movie so much. I can't wait to see the sequel, but we have to wait a few years to see the continuation XD Best regards from Valencia, Spain. 👍

On a final note, I just recently got to see Spielberg’s ‘West Side Story’! And it absolutely lived up to all of the hype surrounding it! I do have to admit it was higher priority on my list than ‘Spider-Man: No Way Home’, largely because I knew the latter was bound to be around in theaters longer, being the major blockbuster that it was and still currently is. Not helped is the fact that ‘West Side Story’ had such a dishearteningly low income of just $10 million for its opening weekend; like you said, it is just criminal that more people aren’t seeing this one! I may have exaggerated a little bit in the past when I said that the original ‘West Side Story’ was one of the most perfect classical film musicals out there, but it was largely as good as it could be for the time being, with most of its flaws deriding from certain Hollywood tethers at the time (namely the dreaded “Hayes Code” which prevented onscreen interracial romances even in the 60s). This movie was always going to have the advantage of featuring an actual Latino cast for Mariah and the Sharks instead of white actors in brownface (God forbid that latter even be up for consideration in this day and age!) But my interest in going to see that was only truly piqued when I found people saying that this movie had a lot to offer in the way of its own accolades, rather than just borrowing all of them from the original! THAT’s what a good remake does! I mean it’s no secret how Disney’s ‘Aladdin’ has been perceived by many middle-easterners as racist (the voice actors are white, the human characters are all largely exaggerated except for Aladdin and Jasmine, and of course that one line from the original ‘Arabian Nights’ opening number “Where they cut off your ear if they don’t like your face, it’s barbaric, but hey, it’s home!” that was excised from subsequent releases). And I’ve heard at least one film fan from the Middle East, who says that amidst the stigmatization the Middle East often gets in the landscape of Hollywood, the remake of ‘Aladdin’ is more sensitive and verse to their culture. I even know there is even some defense for the ‘Lion King 2019’ having a predominantly black cast this time around. But even with that, neither of those remakes could emerge from the shadows of the animated classics. But that’s why this movie succeeds in the venues that Disney’s recent trend of remakes have been void of on the whole (as well as a bunch of other Hollywood remakes)! It’s always good to retell classic stories, and it’s not a bad idea to give them updates here and there to allow for more inclusivity as our society evolves. But like you said, this movie treats the narrative like it’s telling the story for the first time, in ways where it clearly wants to respect its source without being completely tethered to it. It treats it like an actual reinterpretation rather than just an imitation or a mask over what we already recognized. And that’s what a remake should be! This is a movie from which other studios and other film producers and directors need to take notes from, if ever they’re remaking/rebooting something! Now I can swear that I’ve seen Rachael Zegler before somewhere, but for this being her major debut in film, she really knocked it out of the park, as did everyone else! The dance sequences and choreography (like especially in the “I’m in America” number), or even the part where they do a little hot-potato with the gun as a choreograph dance sequence! And there were some other elements that really highlighted Latino/Hispanic prejudice really well, like how every American, including the police, order them to always speak in English rather than Spanish, in their presence. I especially love how diverse the cinematography is! While the original kept all the scenery clean and shiny in classic-Hollywood-fashion, this opens with muted colors and cinematography that makes you feel uncomfortable and intense, and during the moments where you get to experience the world from Tony’s optimistic and dreamlike perspective, that’s when the colors and camera movements all come alive and flourish! (I mean, during the church scene where Tony and Mariah are proclaiming their unyielding love for one-another and how they would not not rest until the feud was over, I was literally tearing up!) And some people have even been saying that there were certain moments that this movie outshone the original. For me, one of those moments was the ending, where rather than Mariah has her monologue about killing with hate and they all disperse as the screen fades to black, she has her rant and then the Jets and Sharks call a truce and carry Tony’s body with all the other still-standing characters in tow. Where the original was basically leaving the audience with that one monologue as a message for them to walk away with and think about, as it was in early stage in battle of race relations, this one recognizes that today’s audience is familiar with this battle and values unity above all else, not just the end of hatred and prejudice.

In all seriousness, I loved this list! Just as I was glad that you got to see my video with some of my selections on it, I loved listening to you listing off some of your selections that I haven’t gotten around to seeing, like ‘Suicide Squad’ and ‘The French Dispatch’ (or even some titles that I wasn’t aware of, like ‘Licorice Pizza’). ‘Dune’ is one that I’ll have to catch on streaming, now that it’s available; I remember you mentioning how it gave off strong vibes of wanting to be another great cinematic franchise, one of my friends saying that it felt to him fairly akin to ‘Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows’, where this film established the setting and characters and ended on an apparent cliffhanger to a second part/follow-up. It’s no secret that I absolutely agree with your stanz on Tik, Tik, BOOM! It seemed at first like either ‘In the Heights’ or ‘Encanto’ would be Lin Manuel Miranda’s magnum opus for the year, but TTB just stood out in so many ways that I was not expecting it to. Obviously, I was engaged so much in the “Artist Journey” story that resonated with me and rekindled some of my own creative AND personal sparks (in ways that Pixar’s ‘Soul’ didn’t quite, though that’s not to discredit that movie at all). But the movie was also full of so much energy and aesthetic appeal that it kept me engaged, and Andrew Garfield (and yes, Vanessa Hudgens as well) bring so much energy into the musical numbers where you wouldn’t expect it, and really is a testament to how truly versatile they are as actors! BTW, I don’t know if you’ve heard this recent news, but “We Don’t Talk About Bruno” just beat “Let it Go” as the most charting Disney song since the 90s! That’s a damn impressive feat! (Although I’m also bracing myself for the potential backlash that is sure to arise from people who are so sick of hearing the song!)

Out of morbid curiosity, are there any two particular disparaging names you can think of that stand out to you more than others?

I am glad that you enjoyed this one. I am sorry that it was a disappointing finale to such a long build-up. I know for certain that there were viewers of the movie who had the same reaction as you, that while they had fun, it was accompanied by a big "but". Basically, is was no 'Avengers Endgame' is the ultimate concurrance I've gotten from some audience members, even ones who are die-hard Spiderman/MCU fans. And a big part of it may be to do with the movie succumbing under the weight of all the anticipation and build-up surrounding it. 'Now Way Home' was a movie that I was definitely anticipating as something for our traditional family get-together for the holidays (one thing that we commonly enjoy is going to the movies together, and the Marvel movies were ones that we could all get invested in at the same time). Having heard some of these things in mind hasn't "deterred" me from going to see it per se, but it does make me a bit more skeptical, and does make me have second thoughts as to which of two movies I should chose between going to see with my family, if I could only go with one: this one, or Spielberg's 'West Side Story'. The latter has made my list of movies I want to see, as I've been hearing across the board that it's absolutely fantastic, which is a revelation, considering that a lot of people, including myself, were skeptical and worried that it might end up being a copy-paste remake of the original Robert Wise-directed film, which is already regarded as one of the most perfect and timeless film musicals ever (and is especially relevant in the more recent wake of battles regarding "race relations"). I am certainly glad that the film delivers where it does, especially giving Tom Holland the ability to shine in his own spotlight, without the aide of Tony Stark, and ESPECIALLY when it comes to doing justice to Willaim DaFoe as 'Green Goblin' and Alfred Molina as 'Doc Ock'! I am sorry to hear how the areas where the movie falls short most invlove it just trying to "not take itself too seriously", like it sounds almost ashamed at times of being connected to the earlier Spiderman movies. Like why would it ever even WANT to apologize for the moments where it gets heavier? Have they never even read the Spiderman comics? Do they think that Spiderman's origins involving Uncle Ben's death and the "Great Power, Great Responsibility" philosophy are just something that need be disposed of? I defintiely want to get bringing together the widest audience size possible after accumulating it through all the build-up, and I get wanting to give them a great time with it right off the bat. But giving them a great time does NOT mean back-pedaling and making everything just all pleasant and "happy, funny, action" throughout it's whole running time! If an audience is invested in the universe and the characters, then what should really show it is their willingness to stick with said characters through thick and thin, and follow them through their darkest hour so they can watch them come out on the other side! It makes it almost sound like this movie doesn't have as much faith in its audience as it once did! Another aspect that seems to indicate this lack of faith, based on what you descirbed to me, is just the sheer amount of fan service this movie is trying to cram in. There is the saying goes that fan service is fully allowed to accompany the substance in the telling of the story, but it should not be mistaken FOR substance. Pleasing fans with nods to Easter Eggs or ahering to a specific request of what fans say they would like to see, isn't bad in-and-of-itself. It's just that the fan service needs to accompany/deride from the story organically, rather than be the crux of the storytelling. Maybe it's all the hype that caused the film to fall in on itself in these areas, maybe it's another symptom of Marvel fatigue. I wasn't sure if you saying that this was the 1,000th product to come out of Marvel this year was an exaggeration, or if there really just was that much to come out of Marvel and most of it just went past me without notice. I haven't been in tune with everything Marvel has given us, but if it was really a thousand products at this time, then they'd have to put out an average of over 300 Marvel-related products per day! (In which case, DAMN, they really are exhausting their resources!) Of course, despite these shortcomings, I will bear in mind that this does not make the movie bad. And should I go see it with my family, I have no doubt that I will at least enjoy the ride. But after this, we'll see if 'Across the Spiderverse' does better, and lives up to the hype surrounding it. As a final note, I'm defintiely with you on the whole "Spoilers" thing and how it's getting way out of hand with people being so "vocal" about avoiding it on the internet. It's something that a firend of mine has spoken about, and it's something that I might dedicate a video talking about in the coming months. Because I agree with you that this whole "fear of spoilers" thing is starting to become toxic.

Also, I'm not sure if you're able to see the first comment I submitted to your video here, since as I'm typing this one, the comments number is reading zero. I guess UA-cam hid it for some strange reason.

I went and saw ‘Encanto’ on its opening night, and it’s lovely! I’m especially happy to say that the theater I went to was packed with families! It seems like having a family to go with you is the kind of experience that people prefer to go to the theaters for nowadays, which I think is a very justifiable reason for family-oriented movies to be made, despite how a lot of animation fanatics will say that the need to be “family-oriented” is the main thing that keeps animation from getting the respect it deserves. The film was very visually-pleasing to look at, which is to be expected from Disney, but I especially love the way they designed the clothing and furnishings of the architecture to make it perfectly capture the aesthetic of South American/Latin American royalty! I really appreciated how, rather than the protagonist have these amazing powers and abilities right from the get-go that they are ostracized for until they find exactly where they fit in, Mirabel’s journey is about being the odd-duck-out because of her lack of an extraordinary gift, and how she will end up being the one who brings the family together in the end despite never really finding one (kind of reminding me of ‘Sky High’, just without the reveal of unforeseen superpowers late in the game). Another aspect of the movie that I appreciate Disney for tackling is the subplot regarding Bruno, and it being a theme of being disowned from one’s family (in a way that’s different from Hector in ‘Coco’, because it happened to Bruno while he was alive). As you mentioned, the movie does tease the audience with the idea that Bruno might be a villain, which this movie didn’t need. (On a side note, I kept thinking to myself that now was a perfect opportunity for Disney to bring up a “Silencio Bruno” reference to ‘Luca’. XD) But as the story unfolds, it becomes clear that no one is the villain, just an imperfect human being who is carrying his/her own burden for the sake of the family (especially exemplified by Mirabel’s biggest sister). The musical numbers in the movie are top-notch as well! Maybe they’re not as instantly memorable as “How Far I’ll Go” (except for “Bruno-No-No” in my case, as I’ve still got the theme for that one in my head), but I think only time will tell how they fare on the scale of Disney musical numbers. Maybe Lin-Manuel Miranda did have only a short time to write these songs, as you suggested. That could be indicated given how he has taken this year by storm with this movie, his big-screen adaptation of ‘In the Heights’ (one of the best musical-adapted films in recent years), his animated passion project ‘Vivo’ on Netflix, and most recently ‘Tik-Tik-Boom!’ on Netflix, which is just about as perfect and unique a musical movie as you can get (trust me)! (And I’m sure that there is at least one other thing he has contributed to this year that I can’t remember right off the top of my head.) And I loved the short ‘Far From the Tree’ as well! I loved its message of “the way you were raised should not necessarily be the way you raise your children”, and I loved the fact that it was classic hand-drawn, but had enough touches of uniqueness to feel both fresh and familiar at the same time! And I dearly hope to see a day when Disney officially uses that style for a feature-length project! And I do consider myself in the same boat as you of considering Disney and Pixar two separate entities, although it is easy to see them as being inseparable nowadays, ever since they joined forces. (Adding to this is the year 2012, which many have deemed as the year where Disney made a Pixar film with ‘Wreck-It Ralph’, while Pixar made a Disney film with ‘Brave’!) But I guess that’s not a bad thing, as it means that we get more high-quality products from both studios rather consistently, which I think we all prefer over the time of the mid-2000s, where Pixar was on a roll while Disney was stagnating. And it is especially a blessing, as you mentioned, given Bob Chapek’s methods of leadership, and how a history seeing Michael Eisner fall from grace did affect Disney in all departments (including animation), to fear for those same concerns. But for the people who go to Disney for their animated projects, I don’t think they’ve got a lot to complain about right now, given the consistent quality of both the animated features AND the shorts that are both theatrical and exclusive to Disney+. Now the current direction of Star Wars (excluding ‘The Mandelorian’) and the current Marvel fatigue, I can understand peoples’ concern for. But the animated stuff definitely seems to be in full swing and in (more or less) total control of the creators/directors in these instances, which animators/animation fans have been fighting so hard to advocate for so many years!

I wouldn’t imagine that you would get many MCU fans coming after you for saying that you didn’t like ‘Eternals’ (unless they were to-die-for-level fans who were absolutely obsessed with the MCU to an unhealthy degree), because I’ve seen quite a bit of talk this year about Marvel showing signs of fatigue, be it with this one, or ‘Falcon and the Winter Soldier’, or ‘Shang-Chi’, and ESPECIALLY ‘Hawkeye’. It does seem like they’ve reached that point. And I certainly agree with you that we wouldn’t fault Chloe Zhao for anything, because she’s very talented and very worthy of the acclaim she’s garnered as a director, and as you said, she probably didn’t have as much creative control as much as the execs and the press wanted the public to believe. Maybe part of it does have to do with audiences getting so invested in the MCU and how everything fits into it, that eventually for focus was put towards that, than how each individual entry, show or movie, works as a stand-alone product.

This movie is on my list of films to see before the year is over. This year has provided no shortage of marvelous (and even original) entertainment, but it is going to be curious to see if this movie will go on to become another addition to the land of iconic film series! Also, I did just see your announcement on Patreon regarding what it is you've been up to! I am eager to check out your new album! (I should let you know that do to something going on in my life, my Patreon membership is a little muddled, but I'm working to get it resolved as best as I can!)

Great video!

I can't wait to see what this big project you've got in store is! I've only seen the first episode of this series so far, and OH BOY is it intense! I await to see where it goes from there, not only as I watch the rest of the season, but also in future seasons! And it's definitely a blessing that we live in the age of streaming that give us access to foreign cinema that can rival what Hollywood gives us, that way we are not just relegated to narrow venues of entertainment!

First off, I definitely think it's not only a good thing that a large number of American audiences are capable of getting invested in movies that feature a cast that is NOT predominantly white, but also that they are willing to listen to characters speak in foreign languages throughout and read the subtitles. (Other countries do it all the time with American movies that aren't easy to dub, so I think we could stand to put up with. our share of it.) That said, I'm sorry this movie didn't speak to you the way it did others, and falls squarely in Marvel's category of "Average".Regarding what this spells for the future of Marvel movies, and whether or not this is a sign of them getting fatigued and this will gradually start their downfall, it's hard to tell right now. (It's always easier to tell that sort of thing in hindsight.) A lot of people might still be so caught up in the hype for them they don't see any fatigue in it.