Contributing writer for The Artifice.
Junior Contributor II
film Write this topicMarvel Cinematic Universe: Main-Stream Cinema's First MegaseriesFirst coined by comic book writer Dennis O'Neil in his book "The DC Comics Guide to Writing Comics", the concept of a megaseries is a narrative that spans multiple subplots within a greater whole, almost emphasizing them over its main plot. The main example used was DC’s first massive crossover event “Crisis on Infinite Earths”. In his description, O’Neil described it more as an art of the creative process and less of the work itself. Much like comics' close relative, television, the megaseries has been used to create immense story arcs that expand across multiple creative visions, giving the audience pieces of a larger world. The MCU is special because this is cinema's first time at this, at least on a theatrical-level. The article could go into the cultural impact these films have had and how their inter-relativity might have contributed to their success. It could also go into the relationship of the main plot (“Avengers”) and how it contrasts to its multiple "subplots". What's most interesting is how film –as a medium– works within this design. Within a megaseries prose, comics, and television use subplot in heavily passive ways. For the most part, they're shorter. In comics, one issue could suffice for an important arc. In television, one episode. But with film, one would need to use an entire movie that could range hours. Within the same time-frame that almost every other film creates and concludes its universe, the MCU simply builds a tiny piece upon theirs. Regardless of how people feel about the quality of these movies, volumes can be said of their importance both culturally and structurally. The most important thing to take away is their success. No studio or creative property has been able to support this investment. Very few stories (ever) have the wealth of content, cultural impact, and audience recognition of current mainstream comic books. So despite the IP’s strength, could this paradigm be used for a completely original concept? And could cinema ever have its own megaseries, birthed and intended only for the medium’s use; not as a cash-grab, but as a testament to its own art?
|
Warner Bros. and the Infamous Censored Eleven | |
Nope, they’ve released collections and have openly admitted to their historical merit. | Warner Bros. and the Infamous Censored Eleven |
I always found it oddly romantic how films like Akira, Godzilla, and Metropolis (the anime) show how a culture has struggled in a post-WWII world. Just how we wished we had a Übermensch to stop the Nazis (Captain America, Superman, and every other comic produced in that era), the Japanese created their heroes to cope with the bomb. Also found it ironic that Rock resembled a Nazi the most out of everyone, yet didn’t believe in the idea of a Übermensch, or that it could be a robot. | Akira, Metropolis, and the Quest for the Übermensch in Postmodern Japanese Animation |
That is definitely the heart of the series, the idea of balance. It’s great that you mentioned spiritual awakening too though, because that’s a reoccurring theme in both series. This idea that everyone is searching for some sort of enlightenment or redemption, which are things more spiritual in nature. Though that might be my main qualm with Brotherhood. Brotherhood’s villain (I won’t spoil), as a character, despite their origin, was the only one to really defy this theme (which made them a great villain). But the original series’ antagonist worked better within the theme and really showed how far equivalent exchange could go. Even citing historical examples. | Full Metal Alchemist: Science vs Religion |
VERY well put! I never put much thought into is use of clutter. This is used heavily in his short “Good Morning”. | Satoshi Kon's Otaku: The Dangers of Technological Fantasy |
You’ve brought up a very very good point with the caricatures. That was a huge part to WB’s style, especially with celebrities. But where I disagree is that one can be offensive when lampooning the enemy. Not every single German was an enemy and the same goes for the Japanese (especially those in internment camps), yet the portrayals were exploiting the physical distinctions between these people. It was meant to degrade our perception of them on a physical level, not a political one (for the Japanese at least). The Germans were made fun of as Nazi’s because, I’m guessing, that was easier to recognize and exploit.