Marvel's Act One Problem

so, something funny about these three movies: they're all about grooming victims. and, as a survivor of grooming (albeit for different ends) I can tell you that that kind oftreatment kind of breaks your autobiographical memory. your experience of time becomes non-chronological, unable to place memories in time and distinguish between memories and the current moment. so I actually found the storytelling of all three of these movies extremely relatable and accurate to my experiences.

The problem with your proposed structure for Shang Chi is that it establishes him as a foreigner running from his past as opposed to an American trying to live his life but beholden to his cultural heritage. The way way the movie is laid out speaks to the Asian (or more generally immigrant) American experience of being an American first but trying to find where your heritage and family fit within your true self.

The idea of keeping important information for reveals for no reason is an old problem. The original writer for Finding Nemo wrote the script so that we didn't find out about Nemo's mom until later in the script, but the director - a smart guy - took on look at that and said, "But then everybody will hate Marlin" and put that reveal as the prologue.

This strikes me as Marvel trying to sidestep the "origin story problem" and in doing so creating stories with weaker foundations. Like, they heard all the fans complaining about every new supehero movie being an origin story, and oh it's all the same thing. But they decided the solution was to skip to the middle "cool" part of the story and just gesture vaguely to what should have been the first act . Turns out maybe origin stories are actually just good structures for these kinds of stories?

Billy Wilder said it well: “If you have a problem with the third act, the real problem is in the first act.”

Your question about Black Widow actually has an answer, and it's never occurred in film history: It's because this movie should have been made a decade ago. The reason Natasha's backstory is glossed over so briefly is because we already know this story. She's been hinting at it, revealing key pieces of information and showing flashbacks ever since her first appearance. Eagle eyes fans who paid attention to and remembered these scenes had almost everything they needed to piece it together. So Marvel Studios essentially wrote themselves into a corner in which showing her full history would be repetitive, but simply reminding you of the lore that's what been established would be confusing. If they hadn't waited so long this could have hit a lot harder by all being revealed at once, but as is we even knew most of the Bulgaria mission before the film even began

ironically, end game had a really fine, slow paced, character driven first half and people loved it. ofc with fresh characters it can't be that much of a slowburn but generally speaking, i think audiences are prepared for a solid build up if it means a fantastic pay off and walk into theaters with a degree of faith

I don't want to speak for everyone, but I've definitely noticed that watching these Marvel movies consistently over the past few years has affected my perception of pacing. I watched Kimi last night and kept thinking that it was taking way too long getting to the point of the story, but then by the time I got to the third act, almost every piece of information from that first 20 minutes had paid off in some way and the final conflict could play out really efficiently. The movie didn't need to stop and have a flashback or an exposition scene to reestablish the stakes, it can just *go*.

Im glad you called out the algorithmic pressure that has been guiding movie analysis channels to drift into taking endless, repetative potshots at popular properties like marvel and star wars. I like how this video is framed less like "the reason why shang chi was... underwhelming" and more like "hey i noticed this trend, lets take a closer look at it"

I sorta disagree. I have found the first acts to be the most enjoyable parts of recent marve movies. But you did touch on the real problem. Marvel wants to explore some difficult themes, but Disney wants to avoid any depiction of these topics on their films which leads to writing hurdles and cinemanarritive dissonance.

When you keep saying "Natalie" in Black Widow, do you mean... Natasha? lol Anyway, another great analysis. Solid First Acts were ABSOLUTELY a strength of the MCU in the early days! And while I understand the desire to mix things up a bit, the storytelling does suffer when they don't do it right. As for the sudden rise in folks criticizing Marvel in general, I'm fine with it. When you're the dominant form of action blockbusters in the industry, and you're coasting so much that you're starting to get lazy, that kind of thing warrants a closer look. These films have an influence on young up and comers, after all. We want them to know what they're doing, and not make the same mistakes. Besides Marvel is so big and popular enough that if criticized, I think they'll be ok.

I feel like black widow should have been about nat's training as shown in in the credits and then her meeting Hawkeye, her defection after he doesn't kill her and finally Budapest (A tense cat and mouse game with Nate and Hawkeye against an insurmountable force hunting them in the city instead of big CGI freefall sequence)

Shang-Chi isn't perfect, and I have a hard time caring about the big CG battle at the end, but the structure makes sense to me. He's not just an unambitious loafer at the beginning, but someone who's tried to make a new start for himself after the suffering he endured before coming to the U.S. Over the course of the film, he learns to confront the consequences of his decision to leave, especially the abuse he left his sister to endure, while still maintaining his own identity and sense of self. I don't think it's a great film, but it got the family interactions right. For that reason, I think it's different from Black Widow and Captain Marvel.

I really really like the choice to not show Shang-Chi killing his target, because the reveal that he went through with it totally recontextualizes his character going into act three. You think you’ve got the guy all figured out but then it turns out he’s got a whole raw emotional nerve that’s been festering under the surface and suddenly the emotional closure of confronting his father means even more. It’s an effect I really dig.

I feel like in Shang Chi we are following the POV of Katy knowing Shawn and learning more about him. We the audience and Katy only know so much about him and as Katy learns more about him the more we the audience learn.

8:30 I agree that Captain Marvel’s a media is a better reason to have it in flashbacks. But I think Shang’s assassin background IS meant to be a mystery until the bus fight scene. We’re meant to be as shocked as Katie that Shaun is an assasin

I was literally thinking "this is a lot like with Book of Boba Fett" and then you say the same at the end haha. Both BoBF and Hawkeye hold back on a villain reveal that would've made waaaay more sense to develop the whole time but they think (wrongly) that twist and reveals and cameos are all we want.

You nailed the reason for my vague dissatisfaction with the recent crop of Marvel movies and specifically my great disappointment with Shang-Chi in particular. The entire comic series was about Shang hating his father for his hypocrisy, turning him into an assassin while espousing the values of the Tao and Zen. And the character arc was about Shang finally able to come to terms with the Tao within himself, a good man who is capable of evil.

Its kind of like how Ant Man keeps telling you that Scott Lang is a big jerk and a criminal but the character is just this super nice, likeable guy. there is a serious disconnect between the character and what the movie tells you about the character.

Billy Wilder: "A problem in act three is really a problem in act one." Just Write: "A first act problem is really a third act problem." What you did there, I see it.