The Multiverse Curse: A Response to Critical Drinker
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 січ 2024
- Support my work on Subscribe Star: www.subscribestar.com/dave-cu...
Follow me on Bitchute: www.bitchute.com/channel/hybM...
Check out Drinker’s video here: Why Modern Movies Suck - The Curse Of Multiverses: • Why Modern Movies Suck...
KEEP UP ON SOCIAL MEDIA:
Gab: gab.ai/DaveCullen
Subscribe on Gab TV: tv.gab.com/channel/DaveCullen
Minds.com: www.minds.com/davecullen
Subscribe on Odysee: odysee.com/@TheDaveCullenShow:7 - Розваги
“A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths are a statistic”- Someone modern writers admire.
It's not that they admire the man. They admire the bureaucratic system he represented that would provide so many well paying jobs for people with useless degrees.
He also called himself the man of steel. Joseph Stalin.
@@GovernorStaten This quote originates from Rybakov "Children of the Arbat". There is no evidence that Stalin even said it.
@@sjent
He reimagined it into reality.
@@sjent Well I remember playing Command and Conquer Red Alert in the 90s and Stalin said it in that. 😀
I think it's really cool that Dave and The Drinker exist in the same universe.
but....do they? 🥴
😆
Now we need a crossover at Open Bar.
but in another timeline, they are not in the same universe!
Imagine alternate versions of the drinker who respects and adores Brie Larson....
@@user-xx6vy9ri8pAlready happened once. I suggest both of them on FNT together.
Put simply, the Critical Drinker is one of the best movie critics on UA-cam.
He’s certainly the drunkest…and the most critical while drinking…so I hear
He's still not gonna date you, bro
@@docsavage8640 🙄👏 real original...
The best IMO.
😂😂😂😂😂 wait your serious ?
Remember films like Taken when what was at stake was one thing, his daughter. Everyone can identify with that. It's a great film. Then we have to up the stakes to save the planet, then the universe, and now the "multiverse". It's no wonder we're all fatigued with this crap.
A point made years ago by L Sprague de Camp (in his _Science-Fiction Handbook_ )relating to the dangers of writing series was that a character that starts out with a story saving the world will eventually wind up in stories trying to save his boss's job. Thus suggesting that writers should start with small goals and work their way up. This "multiverse" thing is Hollywood's way around the problem - Yet it still ultimately makes the character trivial...
Many anime do that very well. Sure, there are stories like Gurren Lagan and Dragon Ball, where the whole universe is indeed at stake, but usually the stakes are far more relatable, even in other shounen properties like Demon Slayer, where the goal of the Slayers is to protect the general population from the Demons (basically super cops for super-criminals) and the goal of the MC is to turn his little sister back into a human. Or Delicious in Dungeon, airing now, where the goal is to save the MC's sister before she's digested by a dragon who swallowed her. Anime VERY seldom goes after the gigantic universe or world saving goals, and I can't recall a single one that uses multiverses as a gimmick. There must be, but I haven't watched it. @@_XR40_
It can work, it just requires good writing. Nobody seemed to complain about half the universe being at risk with thanos. They just need to give you individuals to care about as the world or universe is too big.
The world was at risk in the terminator, Armageddon and independence day. Those movies worked as they never focused on the world as a whole. They were about the individuals.
The multiverse turns literally everything it touches in to a fanfic.
The reason the original Spider-Man movies connected so well with audiences back in the day was the fact he was the one and only friendly, neighborhood Spider-Man.
You're right. That's also what I liked about Iron Man and Captain America.
The Raimi movies felt like the character from the animated series come to life.
Also, while it dealt with the multiverse, the stakes at the end were, the multiverse is coming HERE. For this universes Peter Parker. If anything, every other multiverse will be better off as any of their bad guys who know peter parker is spiderman will dissappear from their world and start messing up ours.
So then why did Back to the Future connect so well, when it had 2 Marty McFlys? You see these types of arguments are easily debunked, when you have a rich knowledge of cinematic history. The problem isn't multiverses. The problem is the creative team.
@@briskettaco But they are not alone (except for the first movies), there are other superheroes.
I agree with Critical Drinker. His "Why Modern Movies Suck" series is the definitive breakdown of everything wrong with the entertainment industry today. IMO it should be mandatory viewing for everyone in that industry.
For my part, I DISAGREE with the drinker when he says some multiverse storytelling is good. NO. Likewise, MAGIC is equally stupid and ridiculous. (Hello, Dr. Strange).
@@jameslovell8682 What's wrong with magic?
@@jameslovell8682 Nope, the fantasy genre is awesome.
I agree with the initial comment that it should be required viewing, but the egos of these DEI hires could never handle it.
As for magic depends how it’s done. If it’s done well like in LOTR then it’s attached to the lore and has limits. Gandalf can’t just zap away the Balrog or Sauron any time he wants, he’s the best good guy but some things are just stronger than him or he doesn’t know how he’d do against them.
I’d argue that by contrast in Harry Potter, regardless of how popular the series is, it’s often used as a lazy narrative cheat. No matter what problem they run into there is always just some magic spell or object that can be written in to get them out of it, and the main kids can do some pretty advanced seeming stuff which is just explained as if they just learned it in class the other day. It comes off as more of a Mary Sue like plot armor.
@@jameslovell8682 laughs in Harry Potter.
I want to see Dave Cullen in the Open Bar with Drinker and Mauler.
He has before. When they were discussing the first and last episodes of season 3 of Picard Dave joined them for their discussion.
Second. -Scruffy
Anything is possible in the multiverse!
then go watch the one he was in then
I will. Didn't know he was in the Open Bar. Thank you for informing me and I will now go look it up.@@jacobmatthews7524
The irony about Crisis on Infinite Earths is that it was originally brought about in Defective Comics in order to clean up the convoluted continuities they'd accumulated over the years and bring it all back down to one universe, so it was indeed about a near-infinite number of alternate realities and countless quadrillions of people being wiped out of existence.
I think Spider-Man: No Way Home did it better than most (except for perhaps the Spider-Verse movies) because of character. Tom's Peter didn't just encounter the Raimi-verse & Webb-verse characters & go on about his way. He made decisions & was put to the test because of these encounters. He broke his own MCU formula of being "mentored" by another hero by going against Dr. Strange when Strange wanted to send them back to the points where most of them died. His character was revealed & solidified in that scene. And when the Goblin beats the brakes off him & killed Aunt May, this Peter finally experienced serious consequences for his actions. It's through the Maguire & Garfield Peters that he's able to find his way, but he also leaves something on them. Peter 2 got to experience working on a team, plus he guided his "youngest brother" when Peter 1 was about to cross a line he couldn't undo. Peter 3 got to see a version of himself who was in as much pain as he was when he lost Gwen & he was able to impart some warning. Of course, he got his redemption saving MJ, so when he goes back, he can presumably move on. To me, NWH's multiversal elements helped the MCU Peter finally grow up & take full responsibility as a young man.
Tobey’s version already teamed up with Harry. I think Sony forgot continuity.
Part of why it worked is because they are all distinct characters. That in the dame scene they are clearly each their own Spiderman is part of what makes it work.
@@GodwynDi exactly
@@ParkerCS2Harry got killed almost immediately when that happened so I wouldn’t count it
@@matityaloran9157 I do count it. Lol and it wasn’t immediately he fought for 20 or 30 mins against Sandman and Venom
3:29 "And it's the reason Kang will never work as a villain."
They appear to be dropping him anyway, but for...different reasons...
Lucky them really, imagine if he had been a massive success…
Kang couldn't punch his way out the M She Uterus.
The post office scandal is a good example of this. A thousand postmasters suffering people couldn't relate to but a TV show showing them as individuals and their plight caused outrage.
Hollywood is creatively bankrupt at this point and not worth the time I would use in my day to see a movie. I think writers today were brought up on television while writers in the past read literature and it shows in the inept writing today. Not to mention, no one at a studio will buy anything that doesn't conform to the favored narrative of the day. I knew Hollywood was over when they stressed that non-diverse casting is required to be considered for an Oscar. Over. Done. We now pick based on the superficial qualities of a person over their actual abilities.
"...non-diverse casting is required..." _Non?_
@@_XR40_ I don't know what this guy's talking about, apparently the reason modern movies suck is because there's black people starring in them (??). Sounds like a typical (deep) critical drinker take (WOKE)
Well, maybe it is because of those communist diversity ideas, or perhaps, just perhaps, it's because they are out of ideas, Do you think? Maybe?
Tell me, would that Ghostbusters movie have been better if there 3 white male and 1 black male actors in it instead of 4 women? Would the last Terminator movie have been good if the good-terminator was played by a man? Of course not. And now there's a new sitcom out called Frasier, and another one called Night Court, wonder where they got those ideas from...
If I want to watch Ghostbusters I'll watch the mid-80s version, if I want to watch Terminator I'll watch T2 or the first. Stop re-doing what's already been done and try to come up with something new, just try it
2:44-3:24 "One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic."
A quote from many of the writers' favorite author and inspirational figure.
@@MrReubenTishkoff Why would they admire Rybakov?
@@sjent Not the Russian I was referring to... 😉
@@MrReubenTishkoff>Calling a Georgian a Russian
In the original Star Wars (the new hope) Leia's reaction to her home planet getting destroyed always seemed cold and kind of dethatched. Now it makes sense as she couldn't fathom the death's of all those people. It was just too much to comprehend even for her. For Obi-Wan it was different as he could actually FEEL all those lives being snuffed but even for him it was such an unbelievable thing that he had no emotion to go to to express it. A lot of people said that Carrie Fisher's acting was bland and somewhat wooden but accidental or not she nailed that scene. Maybe that's also why we have Holocaust deniers, they simply cannot conceive of so many dying in specific places by anothers hand so fast.
When Gamora was killed, or when Black Widow sacrificed herself, those scenes had weight. They felt important, like we were witnessing something that would change the story. Now, it's all a sham and they can just go and get a different version of whomever gets slain from another universe. It took all of the drama out of the movie and replaced it with a gimmick.
In the defense of Guardians of the Galaxy series, Quill did acknowledge that the alternate timeline (is that what she was?) Gamora he knew now was a totally different person with unique wants, needs, and connections. In a way, it preserved the tragedy of Soulstone Gamora.
@@Psirosyeah at the end, the entire time he kept saying she lost her memory or some crap, that was cringe
…Yeah no. The character may have the same name, face, powers, and maybe even the same backstory, but in the end it's a different person who just happens to be similar. The one who died will stay dead, no matter how many doppelgangers are introduced as a "replacement".
@@Psiros that's the important thing to remember, both for the audience and the writers. Treating the character like it's just the same character is not only a mistake, it's insulting to the character, other characters, and the audience.
@@LeXofLeviafan This is something more people need to understand it seems. On both sides of the screen.
LESS is MORE.
The main problem I see with multiverses is most writers make the scope way too big. If the scope was a lot smaller, then there already wouldn't be nearly as big of a problem. Higurashi When They Cry actually implements a multiverse really well, as not only is it not an easy solution to the main character's problems, but also the scope of it is entirely focused on just a small village, and not the entire world or multiverse or whatever
I've been toying with the idea of making B movies, and it's surprising how a simple plot with original characters do not require a multiversal threat or interaction to tell a story.
The TV show Sliders did parallel universes well for a while - the audience followed the same four characters through alternate Earth after alternate.
Sliders was great, and it had a genuine heart... for a while. That show might be the first and most important reason why I like alternate universe material. Therefore I dont necessarily think multiverse is a problem on its own. Its how theyre handling it. You can still have stakes and progress in a story like that. But its all lazy writing in the cinema, of course its gonna come off awful.
Higurashi was terrifying and beautiful.
YAY! HIGURASHI! I'M GLAD THAT THIS ANIME GEM IS BEING MENTIONED!
SG1 managed to pull off the multiverse thing pretty well. The kept it to a minimal though and never used it to write themselves out of a corner.
So many Sam's 😅
Yup, Stargate did it good, even with time travel and alternative dimensions. 😊
It was always a look at how slightly different decisions could have drastically different consequences. Basically, an analysis of who the characters themselves are at their core. Sci-fi usually gets it right and doesn't overuse it. Comics just insist on overdoing everything to death it seems.
Star Trek had multiverse too, going all the way back to TOS. But TOS, TNG, and DS9 used it pretty sparingly, so it never got to the point where (most) fans would ask why they don't just solve their problem by jumping into another universe.
It may have also helped that the prime alternate universe, the Mirror Universe, was totally evil and messed up, so for obvious reasons you usually wouldn't WANT to go there if you didn't have to.
@@SepticFuddy they often run longer then for their own good. They need to get wiped and Restart at some points.
The concept Multiverse or Parallel Universes were handled better in Stargate SG-1. In one episode, Dr. Jackson and Teal'C are discussing which reality is the "Real" one, and Teal'C says "My own reality is the only one I'm concerned about". In various other episodes, dopplegangers from alternate realities have no problem sacrificing "our" reality to save their "own" reality.
Picard vs Vader, Luke Skywalker vs the Doctor, Ellen Ripley vs the Terminator… you’re right, Dave the possibilities are seemingly endless. Unfortunately none of those would be great stories.
You can make good and amusing fan-fiction out of cross-overs like that, but anyone in charge of canon should avoid it at all costs as it rapidly becomes ridiculous and makes it difficult for the audience to suspend disbelief.
There is a Mathematical possibility of 82,500,000,000,000,000,000 songs that can be written. The number of songs that can actually be enjoyable to listen to is far, far lower.
It’s a way to avoid accountability for writers, their characters, and the audience. No reason to care. I have a similar proble with the Cree/duplicate/imposter trope. I cared about Peter Parker developing relationships with Fury and Hill after Stark’s death, only to find out that Fury and Hill were not Fury and Hill. So now I don’t care about anyone in that continuity because why should I? They may or may not be who I might care about. I’m out
Exactly this. Writers giving themselves a "get out of plothole jail free" card with these tropes removes any incentive for the audience to connect with the characters. Why bother caring about a character's journey or story when, at any moment, all of that could be rendered irrelevant because they're a duplicate, replacement or imposter?
A quirk of this academic concept (and it's subsequent embrace in our culture) is the reduction of empathy because nothing matters. It's tragic and destructive, not just to movie franchises.
I feel that multiverses work better when the other universes are their own unique realities, not just infinite duplicates of each other.
Yeah, but that requires creativity, a quality in short supply among Hollywood executives, directors, and writers
Yeah, which is something that you'd think would be they're reason to even make a multiverse but no, they just want the same character but with the thing that's "wrong" with them now "fixed".
I think one of the reasons No Way Home worked was because it was as much about the Peter Parker’s as the “The multiverse is collapsing”. I was WAAAY more invested in the characters stories; Garfield’s Spider-Man settling his guilt, Holland’s Spider-Man protecting his friends and not succumbing to revenge and Maquire’s Spider-Man (also ‘my’ movie Spider-Man) being able defeat the ‘big-bad’ and save his mentors in Octavious and Osborn.
It also helps that all the actors seemed invested in genuinely producing something worthy of all three movie series’.
Yep. It felt more like a sequel to all three movie series (SpiderMan 4, Amazing Spider-Man 3 and Disney's Spider-Man 4) wrapped up into one movie.
It was like good old saturday morning cartoons, very fun nonsense. But the problem is Hollywood now wants that kind of story over and over again
I'm going to give one example of a multiverse done right: Crisis on Two Earths. It's small, relatable, and introduces a memorable villain who doesn't get overused or get to be invincible in Owlman. James Woods played him in a tiny studio on the east coast, and the performance is one of the best in the industry. Watch it and see what the DC Universe used to be.
To echo this, Kang was one of my favorite villains in Avengers EMH, he was a single Kang seeking to save his wife and he traveled back in time to figure out the sequence of events that led to her being incapacitated. It's not that Multiverses don't work, it's that restrictions need to be placed upon them both conceptually and narratively.
Owlman also shows that Batman can be a very dangerous oponent regardless which side he is.
Are you talking about the animated DC film which used the same characters/ voice actors as in Justice League/Justice League Unlimited? That was a cool film.
@@veganconservative1109 I don't think it was in the same continuity, but yeah a lot of the same VAs. DC animation has been mostly great for the last 30 years, even their new 52 stuff is pretty good, despite people generally hating the comics as far as I can tell
@@____________________519 He was really good in that. As a classic comic fan, I felt he fit perfectly. He was a credible threat and everyone was below him in his eyes. That was a great series.
James Gunn quoted the term "Cameo Porn" when he talked about the multiverse films. And he's right; too many executives use the idea of the multiverse as a "brand recognition" idea to bring back old actors. That's the mindset you should have for business and marketing, NOT the mindset you should have for writing.
I LOVE the Spiderverse films. They use the multiverse really well; they DON'T focus on old actors or stories, and they DON'T dilute down tragedies by bringing back dead characters. Instead they use it to add new challenges for the protagonist, in a way that better develops his character.
The right way to use the multiverse idea is the way science fiction writers (novels and short stories, NOT screenwriters) do: to play "what if" with critical junctures in human history. Harry Turtledove made a career out of this sort of thing, and it avoids all the problems discussed here because you only ever encounter the alternate history. Another way is to have the protagonist(s) traveling between universes (e.g. the TV series sliders, or Heinlein's novel "Job: A Comedy of Justice."); the focus remains with the same set of people, even as universes come and go; alternative versions of our protagonists, if we meet them, may also come and go, but it is always the versions we first met that remain the protagonists.
There already was a multiverse mashup between Disney and WB. It was called Who Framed Roger Rabbit and it taught them both one thing: THEY WILL NEVER WORK TOGETHER AGAIN.
Two of the best Multiverse stories worked because they were done on a small scale. "Mirror, Mirror" on TOS was mainly concerned with getting our heroes back home, while "Inferno" on "Doctor Who" had the Doctor trying to save an alternate Earth (and failing), then trying to save his Earth (and succeeding). And in each case, it's made clear that the alternate universes are separate, and must remain so. Still, as always, the main point is that if the story is good enough, you can use any plot device and make it work.
I enjoyed Jet Li's movie The One and its take on the multiverse. I feel the story played the trope well ...
Marvel and DC already did a crossover with the comic books back in the 1990s as well had some crossovers dating back to the 1970s in the form of treasury size magazines (Superman/Spiderman, Hulk/Batman, Superman/Hulk etc.). In the 1980s, there was a failed attempt at having a Justice League vs. Avengers that fell through. There is already plenty source material for a DC vs. Marvel movie.
The best of those wasn't Marvel vs DC though it was Superman vs Muhammed Ali. It actually had a good story done by Dennis O'Neil and Neil Adams. But that was when the writers and artists working at DC were there because they loved the industry and not because they could preach while getting paid.
There was a one off graphic novel X-Men/Teen Titans crossover with John Byrne at the helm. It was really well done, but was, not to my knowledge, repeated.
Sometimes, things just gel because of the time, place, and people involved are just in sync. Attempts to repeat this success fail because all the forces in the universe just were in alignment at one moment in time.
Hey, remember Amalgam Comics? Yeah, neither do I.
@@tonyjanney1654I own that one. Huge Titans fan here.
If it can be done. Comics have done it. There is a precedence for everything.
@@AmartharDrakestone Dark Claw, I remember. I had to think at it by his pitch. 😅
For years I worried that Disney and Paramount would "cross that line" and do a cross-over between STAR WARS and STAR TREK... Now, they've ruined both franchises so badly that I don't really care what they do with either! Both have been dead for years! They practically played hopscotch with "lines" for so long that both franchises have essentially degraded to the level of bad comedy! So "cross-overs"? "Multiverses"? Go ahead! It couldn't possibly be worse than anything they've already done!
Your special effects are laaaaaaaaame
There are already Star Trek crossovers with other properties in the comic books with the TNG characters and even the original series characters. There have been crossovers with Dr. Who, Transformers, and X-Men just to name a few. I've never read any of them, though.
It's a symptom of a bigger problem that's even more critical than a lack of creativity (though that is certainly a factor): you either have respect for the rules of your story -- and good storytelling in general -- or you don't. Modern writers don't.
When it comes to multiverse or alternate universe stories, I tend to prefer the "mirror universe" concept over the "infinite alternates" one, mainly because in the mirror universe concept, the alternate timeline is treated as an obstacle to the main characters or a puzzle to be solved, not a "get out of plothole jail free" card. Exploring the idea that a character or group of characters could be vastly different people if certain decisions were made differently can be a very creative way to introduce character development in the main characters. "There but for the grace of God go I" can be a powerful motivator for someone to want to avoid that fate by making better decisions, or if the writer wants to be a bit more cynical, they could turn it into a self-fulfilling prophecy by having the character accidentally become their darker version by trying to avoid that path.
There is still potential for creativity and character growth with multiverses so long as the writers avoid the pitfall of jumping straight into the "all of existence across infinite realities is at stake!" and keep the focus on one or a small handful of alternate universes.
Imagine getting to the point where having the fate of the known universe at stake just isn’t dramatic enough 😂
The fate of the known universe at stake will never have the same weight as getting your deteriorating father figure a boat he wants so you can both have a peaceful life in the ocean.
That’s why Logan is still celebrated and all this is already forgotten.
Much like time travel as a storytelling tool, it is immensely useful because it gives new capabilities. But the temptation for overuse is too great for normal writers. Ronald D Moore specifically ruled out time travel for Battlestar Galactica 2003 and it was for the best.
I like a lot of things about that show, and I highly dislike a few things about it. I agree that Time Travel would not have helped that show whatsoever.
BSG 2k3 was a excellent remade series.
Now this is a crossover I approve of.
Short, self-contained, out-of-continuity stories, like those in Marvel Comics (not Disney+) “What If” and DC Comics “Elseworlds” one-shots can be quite interesting, telling alternative stories with heroes and villains with whom readers were familiar, but to have the multiverse concept always in play renders any postential story outcomes moot, since there are always other timelines out there (in the multiverse) where things went differently. People have all but forgotten, but DC’s original “Crisis” series in 1985 wasn’t about exploring the different universes but by the end, it did just the opposite - it consolidated the various realities into ONE timeline to streamline the history of its characters for the readers (and, one would assume, the writers). Sadly, DC couldn’t help themselves, and they went back again and again, with predictably diminishing returns. The existence of the multiverse, whether in comics or movies or television, nullifies any real stakes in a story, since there are infinite alternate versions of the same characters “out there.”
The elseworld series was So awesome. They could do anything and it wouldn't hurt the main storyline!!!. You can have any dark version of any character or medieval characters and it didn't hurt anything.
@@ashleysanford8645 I have example of good elseworlds stories: - justice league gods and monsters batman not Bruce Wayne, but Kirk Langston aka man bat, Superman not Klark Kent, he is general Zod child, wonder Woman not Amazon, she is Bekka- God from new Genesis
There actually have been DC/Marvel teamups. These were essentially graphic novels back in the late 70's. The stories were decent and in general a decent twist.
There was also the Amalgam universe, where they combined characters. One of my favorites was Lobo the Duck. Trapped in a world he never fragged!
Anyone remember Timecop? It wasn't a multiverse movie (time travel), but it had a rule integral to the plot that gave it much higher stakes than Disney's multiverses, and ironically, could easily be worked into a multiverse film.
"The same matter cannot occupy the same space at the same time". If person A from timeline 1 touched person A from timeline 2, they would both cease to exist. It's an easy to understand rule that raises the stakes if said person from Timeline A and B meet, and in Timecop they had a simple and easy to understand reason as to why they met: in order to manipulate stock markets and so on (IIRC; please correct me if I'm wrong). You've got the reason A & B would put themselves at risk (by being in close physical proximity), which raises tension and now you want to know what happens if they touch.
The difference between one person and group of people tragically dieing is that when it's one person you see their picture, hear their name age, occupation, marital and parental status, even hobbies and passions so it becomes much easier to identify and empathize with them and their surviving loved ones.
Yup. My grandfather was a Colonel in WW2. He killed many people in the war. The one thing he could never get over was a one to one fight he had with an Italian. After he killed the Italian, he found pictures, drawings and letters of the man’s family in his bag.
That’s what haunted him the most until his death, not the dozens of other nameless, faceless soldiers he had to take down in defence of his country.
Same thing in storytelling, we identify with more personal stakes far more than world ending catastrophes. We take it more seriously when we can picture ourselves in that scenario, even if we’re nothing like the character we follow.
A great example of dialling it back is Bond. It had escalated so much that Die Another Day was a video game that threw you out of the movie. Casino Royale brought it back to where a man with a gun was a threat again.
No one did the multi verse concept better than the old TV show Sliders.
I'm looking forward to the multi multi multiverse
That's when its really going to get good
I too love sarcasm
Even as a 6 year old kid i refused to mix my Legos with my Playmobil, Star Trek or my He-Man figures when playing with one of them. Even back then i knew it's nonsese to mix everything, because each of the toys only work within their own world. Why this isn't obvious to modern (allegedly adult) writers is quite puzzling to me.
Because they’ve been conditioned to think that mixing everything with anything is actually a good thing.
They dont have common sense and dont care about destroying integrity for the sake of appealing to moron audience members
Yeah, I'm calling BS that 6 year old you refused to mix your toys lmfao. You're a liar through and through it's quite puzzling to me that you would tell such a lie.
I will say that SONIC PRIME did a good job handling the multiverse as a concept. Among the things it does that work are:
1) There are only five alternate realities including the original. That's it, no more.
2) Not every alternate reality has the same characters in it, and those who are present are very different.
3) There are no alternates of either Sonic or Shadow, so if something happens to one of them, they can't be replaced.
Granted, the show still isn't perfect, but compared to recent MCU fare, it's a masterpiece.
Not gonna lie: I came to comment something similar. xD Its amazing how Sonic's staff did a better job. :p
The interesting thing Star Trek did with the multiverse was that these universes were used sparingly and in a way that actually mattered to the characters involved. In the terran empire episodes, for instance, it was the first and one of the only times we heard Scotty call Kirk "Jim", and also forced all four members of the crew to try to blend in with this savage society. the DS9 episodes did much of the same but also shined a light on the different ways the lives of everyone involved could have gone.
TNG did a good one in Session 7 with Wolf being thrown around multiple Universes.
@@richardvernon317 That's probably one of my favorite episodes, yeah. Since they were working on DS9 at the time it would have been cool to see Worf teleport to a Vor'cha cruiser fighting Terrans with no explanation, but I can understand not wanting to confuse audiences like that :)
All DC has to do to win at this point is bring back Zac Snyder and Henry Cavil...
There is a simple joy in watching a fun movie or TV show.
Once it becomes a convoluted corporate mess the fun goes out the window...
The delight and excitement as a kid of watching Star Wars a New Hope or Star Trek the Motion Picture was a thrill. Now, when I think of Trek or Star Wars or Marvel, it's like seeing an old girlfriend at the supermarket and hiding in the bread aisle because you don't really want to talk to her. It's uncomfortable. That's what modern entertainment is right now, something you want to avoid because it's awkward and sad.
Stargate were the only ones able to do this. They made it so you could NOT spend time in a different universe. It was limited by the writers so as not to be a lazy way out of actually writing a story.
DC Comics Flash did something along that line too when Wally West's counterpart Walter West came to Wally's world and wanted to stay, but it was shown that his presence was warping reality and drawing the two universes together to their mutual doom. It was a really good story arc which contained the idea of mixing universes to a once-in-a-great-while-but-catastrophic area best not done at all.
Stargate at least has the excuse that the protagonists we follow, modern-day humans, know about as much about the intricacies of the stargates as we do, thus it never becomes a crutch for them.
The irony is the multiverse is the only thing that can save Marvel because it allows you to recast the original cast.
It will never be the same....
Yeah but even if that happened, would anyone care at this point? OK, go ahead and recast Iron Man for example, you think whoever is cast will be able to replace RDJ in people’s minds? Will he have to go through a new arc, will he be doing the same stuff? Simply bringing a character back isn’t enough, they have to also have a reason for it.
Stark’s decade long journey in the MCU was that of absolute selfishness to absolute selflessness, can we really go through that again? But if it’s something else, then it’s not the same character, that’s been his character since the beginning.
This is what makes Across the Spider-verse good. The Audience cares about Miles Morales as an individual, and there are variations between the spider people. We are invested in a way that while the fabric of reality might unwind, we care more about miles and his family.
I think multiverse can be fun but needs to be used sparingly. One of my favorite examples is GI Joe Worlds Without End. Fascinating one off story.
Physicists and philosophers should ponder the multiverse. Storytellers should stay away.
If there is an infinite number of Kangs then every story results in success and failure. An infinite number of instances
@@alexedwards6509 Who said the multiverse HAS to be infinite?, DC limits theirs to 52 for a reason.
Multiverses are a narrative tool, and like any tool the quality of the result is dependent on the craftsman.
The thing that really bugs me is how it's basically just a bunch of member berries. All Flash did was bring in a bunch of dead end cameos. It's one thing if they're going to do something with it but what was the point of recreating Nicholas Cage's Superman? They're not going to do anything with it (nor should they) so it's just for anyone who was aware of it to see it. It was dumb.
Disney’s misusing What If by making the episodes not stand on the own and forcing unnecessary overarching plots. They should’ve remained in their own universes and not do stupid crossovers. Disney ruins everything Marvel. F Disney!!!!
What If Season 2 was sooooo bad. Im surprised how many of these critics haven’t done videos on it.
It was just more M She U and now marvel is inventing its own characters.
@@RichSmithson there’s not even a problem making new characters as long as they’re good characters. Agent Colsen, Harley Quinn for BM:TAS, etc. But Disney Marvel can’t do that. They have lost their way.
I agree with you 100%... It`s just lazy writing !!!! And they`ve done enough of that.😠
As I recall, _Crisis On Infinite Earths_ was a device by which DC Comics attempted to streamline the garbled realities from the several comic book companies they had bought/merged with over the decades. Also, this epic story arc allowed them to renew the character copyrights of those that appeared in it, even as a background character. Marvel said "hold my beer" and did same with _Secret Wars_ a year or two later. They kinda sorta worked, but then they both fell back into bad habits and developed a new one, putting them into the same confusion all too soon.
Secret Wars debuted first, in 1984, followed by Crises on Infinite Earths. They were both big crossovers, but told different kinds of stories with different editorial aims. Secret Wars wasn't about copyrights or alternate universes. That said, Crisis was a strange contradiction - it tried for an emotional reaction to characters it killed, while many readers either hadn't heard or connected with those characters, or if they suddenly did, it was too late, because they were officially written out of existence. I think Crisis was a serious misfire, and in some ways is the origin of all these concerns. A reboot doesn't necessarily need to kill off the previous incarnation.
@@matthewwade920 In as much as _Secret Wars_ dealt with character copyright squatting it was by introducing new characters to readers that had 'always been there' like the (at the time) brand new Spider-Woman.
It was also used to explain why there were so many contradictions in their older stories.
A Crossover I did not know we needed, but I love it.
Dave’s been on Critical Drinker’s show before, when they discussed season 3 of Picard last year.
@@Tbonetron1701 I don't know about that, I need proof.
Can you send a link to the video to me?
@@toycarsushiwriter3573 episode 38 of Drinker’s “Open Bar” discussion show
ua-cam.com/video/C6cEzF2YbLw/v-deo.htmlsi=vLboT4W-3MSGMqWs
@@toycarsushiwriter3573 it’s Open Bar #38. I tried to post a link but my response disappeared.
@@Tbonetron1701 I've found that youtube auto-deletes any and all comments that contain links. I found this out when I commented on a (totally unrelated) video (about a certain video game; not gonna say which). My opinion was perfectly reasonable, and I had the gameplay hours and Steam achievements to back up my position and my words. I tried posting links to pictures of the screenshots I'd uploaded to various image-hosting sites, then to my actual Steam account itself. UA-cam's algorithms just kept auto-deleting my comments. So, yeah, it does that. Anyway, God bless Dave and the Drinker. I love them both
Kang worked in comics, a few times, and in the Earth Mightiest heroes cartoon. That said, they were very different mediums than the MCU movies and aimed at a different audience. The toon ended and got rebooted and comics are in a mess as well, not everthing can go into the live action realm, or to the broader audience.
I've been thinking this for some time...no jeopardy = no consequence = nothing at stake = lack of buy in from the movie-watching public. Godzilla Minus One showed how an 'old-fashioned' film can still be made and still be relevant.
Multiverse/alternative timeline/interdimensional stories work when the conflicts and stakes remain intensely personal. No Way Home works not because the fabric of reality is collapsing, but because Green Goblin killed Aunt May and Toby is there to impart his wisdom to Tom. These kinds of things have to remain incredibly sparing or they strip away the essence of character. It's a terrible paradox that multiverses require restraint from the writers, yet are always created because of the unrestrained possibilities they represent.
You joining the Drinker and Mauler on Open Bar for the first time is the best crossover event I've ever witnessed! Nothing from DC or Marvel holds a candle to it! I was thrilled!
The concept of parallel universes and pan-dimensional travel is still a valid one, and has been used by writers for about 150 years! The Eternal Champion books by Michael Moorcock (featuring Elric, Corum and loads more) show the multiverse done right, as well as the World of Tiers and the Chronicles of Amber.
The multiverse is like the movie version of the classic episodic adventure where everything changes and goes wrong but it turns out it’s all been a dream
Only one series ever did the Multiverse where it enhanced the story - Red Dwarf. The Return of Ace Rimmer and the episode where Listers alternate universe one night stand gets him pregnant are classics
There was a crossover in comics with Daredevil and Batman, but no multiverses was required. They already co-existed in that specific same universe. New York still exists in the DC universe. They pulled the same thing with that animated TMNT and Batman crossover movie.
Exactly the same same with those 80's Superman and Spider-Man team-up comics.
@@Dale_The_Space_Wizard 👍👍
It works in comics. But not possible in movies. How would they explain why justice league Didn't react during Thanos or avengers were absent during zod?
@@erenjaeger-qy3yq it doesn’t have to be the MCU and DCEU being in the same universe. Just a live action crossover happens. And it doesn’t have to be the MCU and DCEU.
@@ParkerCS2 still not very believable. They will have to cast new actors for all the roles. Or have to give this lame logic that they all are variants that happen to look alike as their mcu and dceu counterpart.
There's an old word, that's fallen out of common usage recently, which perfectly sums up this modern 'multiverse' concept - codswallop! All things have an ending. If a story or character has been written as ending, let that story or character go. We will always have our memories of the happier times. Stop resurrecting the dead, or playing 'what if' games.
Articulate, intelligent, and to the point. Thank you for what you do.
Well done per usual David…Love to see ya on open bar again!
The concept of the Multiverse is Godless by definition.
💯💯. True
No, it isn't. Not by any classical definition of theism. A multiverse is fundamentally still a contingent concept comprised of both actuality and potentiality, whereas God is fundamentally purely actual with no surd of the potential. The multiverse concept, under its various proposed physics-based paradigms anyway, whether seen as an exponentially expansive or infinite large tapestry of individual stands of universes, is ultimately a tapestry imminent only itself by way the fundamental laws grounding it. But this still does not absolve the necessity of the transcendent priority from which such an existence, whether conceived as a multiverse or universe, is supplied an ontological basis for its existence in the first place.
I appreciate your response. I do, however, disagree.
I'd argue that multiverses only work in self-contained stories that focus more on characters than the actual plot
Everything Everywhere All At Once and Spiderman: No Way Home work so well where Multiverse of Madness doesn't is because the movies use the multivariate as a plot device to explore the core identity of the main characters and the meaning of finite relationships even in an infinite expanse.
I quote Teal’c from Stargate SG1 with regard to their multiversal story…
“As I said O'Neill, ours is the only reality of consequence.”
As expected the MCU is heading toward a reconstitution of the continuity and the multiverses. This was the plan all along. As in the comics they will necessarily have to pair down the realities. This was handled in the Secret Wars storyline. This is where the movies are going too.
The multiverse is like a magic pill where anything is possible.
Well DC and Mavel had a crossover years back... I can't remember if it was a Multi-Multiverse thing... It even saw Darkseid with the infinity gauntlet.. for a short time (he just threw it away)
Multiverse thing might work in the comic books. But on the big screen it's going to get old fast.
It doesn’t work on the small screen either. CW’s Flash imploded as a show because of it. And (even though it didn’t use the term) Once Upon a Time did the same
@matityaloran9157 In general it doesn't work in live action at all
@@SchardtCinematic Aside from the first Spider-Verse movie and Phineas and Ferb, I’m not sure it works that well in animation all that often either
@@matityaloran9157 True. Multiverse stuff should be left to comic books only.
@@SchardtCinematic Full Disclosure: I never actually got into the comics. (Though I like a lot of their adaptations). I honestly don’t know if they handled the Multiverse well or badly (I’ve heard different opinions) so I’m reluctant to comment on that.
When I started writing my books years ago there was going to be a twist where a person who sacrifices themselves at the end of the first book was going to wake up in another universe.
As soon as I saw how badly it was going for Marvel, I was like nope. That character is just gonna be dead at the end.
Multiple times DC and Marvel have done crossovers with their comics and to the point there was a limited time series of DC vs Marvel where the two universes did compete against each other.
Blame Gene Roddenberry. The first time I ever even became aware of a multiverse was from the original Star Trek episode "Mirror, Mirror." Then it started popping up more in comics. Then books. Then cartoons.
@mephistro But it was done very well and most of the pre 2009 Trek did it quite well to boot.
@richardvernon317 Nonetheless, the multiverse concept has always been intertwined with comics and sci-fi. Going way back. It just doesn't really work for long running franchises for reasons laid out in this video.
@@mephistro Sliders seemed to have done OK with it as well in the early sessions but I never saw the last half of it. Big Problem like all issues in the Genre is lazy writers.
One death is a tragedy, a million deaths are a statistic.
Joseph Stalin.
Irony. As ignorant as people you criticize. Stalin never said it. Quote originates from book "Children of the Arbat".
@@sjent Nice to know where it originated, but that doesn't mean that Stalin never said it. It doesn't mean that Lenin never said it. It doesn't even prove that Plato never said it....
Whenever I hear about the "multiverse", it always makes me think it's some sort of hypermart or huge supermarket. I keep thinking that the multiverse is surrounded by a carpark complete with lots of shopping trolleys.
Anything can be good if it's done well, the stakes can still be high if we are following and invested in a particular iteration of a character and their world, just because a multiverse exists doesn't mean it has to be frivolously employed or casually invoked. The Marvel/DC crossover has been going on in the comics since the 70's, I still remember the Superman meets Spiderman comic.
Even the new season of Adventure Time is about multiverse travel.
And it think they actually did it well.
The multiverse gimmick is like any other writing tool, it can be used well or not. With Marvel's current writers, it's likely going to remain firmly in the 'not' category. No Way Home will prove to be an outlier as one of the few (if only) good ones.
Some of the best super hero stories from when I was a kid weren't even about saving the world let alone the universe/multiverse. Superman may stop the earthquake that's threatening millions of people but it's the threat to Lois Lane, the individual, that is the key emotional beat.
Watching both videos, I could only think about the difference between multiverse and alternate reality often used in classic Sci Fi.
I thought about the Stargate episode Point of view S3E6 where Kawalsky is alive from another reality, Sam isn't in the military and married to Jack. The episode didn't lower the stakes of the reality we watched week in week out, it actually raised them for a short period to know there is another threat out there, but that was it. The series didn't dwell on it, much like other popular Sci Fi series, it was written very well to give the audience a throwback and a nice little What If..
That's where Spiderman No Way did well I thought, the stakes were raised, we were entertained, but at the end it all went back to normal. We got some nostalgia, some good screen time and entertainment, Peter Parker learned a lesson from the experience, but then back to the normal story.
Used sparingly, it can be a good device to entertain, but the current obsession means nothing matters and anything can be reset at anytime.
The Multiverse is so…. unimaginably uninteresting
Paraphrasing one of the lines in the video. "The more kangs you add the less audiences will care." Applies to another context of adding kangs too. Lol.
Another great video. The only reason the whole multiverse thing was created was because of a distinct lack of new ideas from these modern writers. It all becomes so hollow after a while.
I think you mostly nailed it. The multiverse stories can work, but does need to be balance with the very issues brought up in the critique of the multiverse concept. I do think, you can get around some of these problems. For example, for Kang, you need to really drill home a unifying concept behind Kang. So, that, we bring with us many familiar personifications to every Kang we encounter. A comparable problem that is different is, Thanos. The big bad of the first big MCU arc, was in the shadow for a very long time. This is often considered a difficult and not worthwhile tactic because the audience will have to do so much mental calculus to keep track of everything that Thanos may be manipulating behind the scenes. However, the MCU by all rights did a very good job. Layering in just enough information and tying all the mcguffins (Stones) together in, at the end. So, yes multiverses can be hard for all the reasons cited, but it is possible to tell good stories, as you have noted. Lets just hope, Marvel can right the ship and pull off a good end to the arc.
I feel like the old time travelling trope has been devoured by this multiverse stuff too. No you can’t just have time travel now, no that creates a new alternate universe and they have to go on and on about that.
I love the drinker. I’ve been watching him for years and always love joining in the open bar with all the guests and common friends to his channel like you and Chris gor. It’s good fun and always insightful and I find all of you together to be really funny
The comics have for the most part handled multi-verses pretty well because it wasn't really about doing something different. It was less about two versions of the same guy.
For example, DC used it to bring back Golden Age versions of characters and place them on a separate world from the Silver Age counterparts. Other than a few exceptions, they were completely different people. Where there were duplicates, not just of hero names but of the actual people (mainly, Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman), they showed them properly aged, semi-retired (or dead) and focused on their heirs. Middle aged Earth Two Dick Grayson got a pretty kick as adult Robin costume long before his Earth One counterpart ditched the short pant and elf boots to become Nightwing. They also used it to bring in acquired characters from companies they'd bought.
Marvel had the Squadron Supreme. The original Guardians of the Galaxy were from and alternate 30th/31st century. Yes, Marvel has What If?, but it was mainly one shots that had no effect on the main universe. Kang was usually just a time traveller and while his multiple versions did come up, he was most often just a solo version. It's when they tried to mess with stuff too much and you got things like "Teen Tony Stark" that it failed.
Edit: In the 80's, we got some great stuff like America vs. The Justice Society and Squadron Supreme.
I'm watching a playthrough of Super Robot Wars 30, and that Mech Strategy RPG Game Franchise uses the Multi-verse concept rather intelligently, in my opinion. It makes for a fun mishmash of encounters you wouldn't normally get. And, THAT is what the multiverse concept should actually be about.
Modern writers don't seem to understand how stories work. I watched Predator recently and couldn't help but think about how awesome it would be to see more adventures with Dutch's mercenary team. Thinking it is a shame they got killed off. But then I realised, THAT is what the story of Predator is about. It is a film about the best of the best going up against someone who is better than them. You don't need to have prequels to establish how good they are, you just need to incorporate that in to the dialogue and their actions in THIS film. And as for thinking that they shouldn't have died...their story was told, there was no need to see subsequent adventures. Modern writers seem to just not understand the idea of a self contained story that tells a standalone tale.
TBF, DC Comics' Crisis On Infinite Earths in the 80's was an attempt to shrink their multiverse into one universe, modernizing origins and characters. It held for a few years.
To Hollywood, "Multiverse" is just another term for Reboot.
From playing The Witcher 3, I understood that the franchise is a multiverse story, where monsters, humans, elves and other races came from their own worlds/universes and are stuck in the one where the story takes place.
The deuteragonist Cirilla and the biggest antagonist The Wild Hunt are these multiverse traveling people in pursue of one another. It's all super interesting, because of being these alternate versions of characters crossing each other, this multiverse consists of unique worlds, that effect one another in various positive and negative ways, such as Cirilla coming to OUR universe and unknowingly bringing the Plague to her universe, causing countless deaths, or the vampires stranded away from their homeworld, desperately waiting for an opportunity to return home.
It's the kind of good writting, that multiverses plotlines should strive for, rather than being cheap ways to avoid consequences and milking fanservice.
Batman Vampire is a very good dark Elseworld story but one of my issues is how because it’s apart of DC’s comic multiverse, they can just bring that version back without any consequences with defeats the purpose of a ending. Same philosophy is applying to movies and it presents a problem that hard to undo
The Plot: "Be Brave! The fate of the Universe is at Stake!"
Superhero MC: "Dude... I'm barely surviving on this reality..."
Writers need to do more of this thing that normal people call *focus*. Focus on one story, one tiny set of characters, one villain.
It's as Drinker said. The multiverse concept, no matter how contrived or lazy people believe it to be, is still a literary tool that can be used to great effect. It's when it's used as a crutch to get out of literary corners is when things get potentially bad.
I liked its use for the Transformers franchise since it doesn't negate any of the medias that fans enjoy. G1, Armada, Bay-verse, etc. They all exist within their own space of the multiverse and really only crossover for special events and series like the storyline where Primus and Unicron (literal gods) war with each other.
The multiverse was even implemented to allow creative freedom for writers since Primus, Unicron, and the Thirteen Primes were considered 'multiversal singularities'. A story was created so that the barriers between universes were strengthened and each singularity character became their own unique variants.
I liked how Chuck Dixon's Batman/Punisher crossover did away with any convoluted multiverse gimmick and just acted like the two existed in the same world and that Frank had come to Gotham on business.
The best movie using the concept of the multi-verse is the anime Project A-ko Vs Gray Side Vs Blue Side. :D
Gail:
Lady Xena, we must now go to the Taiho Sector.
C-ko:
No! No! I wanna blow up more planets! Boom!
B-ko:
The shattered remains of planets. It's a terrible sight.
Gail:
What are the lives a billion heretics?
B-ko:
Most of them were fine people.
Gail:
That's just the problem. They work themselves to death just to get by. They put their trust in greedy leaders, who wage petty wars, and each side believes that THEY are the victims. They're pathetic creatures, heading farther down their own doomed path. Soon, all that will end, once we reach the Taiho Sector. You'll see more than just a few dying planets, the destruction of every universe in existence!