So I'm reading articles with quotes by Kevin Feige saying that watching this in 3D is essential to really getting this movie, but it doesn't look like the actual filming was in 3D (someone correct me if I'm wrong). Why not film it in 3D then?

Called out for "Cumberpatch" but not the Harry Potter credit?

Considering how trippy Strange's world gets... it probably lends itself really well to a PC. Now if they REALLY work on it... I can see it being an amazing experience.

From Kimmel last night:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/CzQktI1d1zs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Because filming in 3D is more expensive and post conversion technology keeps improving. Also, I have to assume that the scenes where 3D is most essential is in the magic realm (or whatever it's called in Dr. Strange lore) which is likely 95% cgi anyway.

Good call, I totally glossed over that.

The reviews I've read hit that it's a good movie but that its faults lie in... formulaic structure that FEELS too formulaic and ... a weak villain. That isn't around enough.

*eye twitch*

Marvel really really needs to write better villains. It's their weakest elements. They write the fuck out of their heroes but a lot of the baddies aren't all that unique on the page. Shit. Loki isn't even that great if you think about it. It's all Hiddleston by that point and the amount of screen time he has to use.

the need to acquire Dr. Doom. he's their best villain by far.

^ Implying they'd actually know what to do with him if they had him.

All the villains they've used are alright to great villains in the comics, for the ones that are clear adaptations of their source. What matters is that the writing of these characters in the films... suck. It ain't the talent that's the issue. It's what is on the page. Luckily.. Loki has enough exposure in the films that Hiddleston can do something w/ it. And.. well, he's the best thing in the Thor films cuz the Thor films ain't hot.

Some Villains make out of it at times or mostly... or they just don't.

Obadiah Stane (aka Iron Monger): Fucking badass till the whole fight at the end is overlooked/rushed development. Stane himself is badass the whole way cuz Bridges sells it so well.

Emil Blonsky (aka The Abomination): The guy is a tough motherfucker who has a mission. Wants to amp it up. And he is. Superpowered Blonsky is badass. He's going over the edge. Then.. he becomes CGI. That whole film had issues cuz it was an infight w/ Norton and his agreements that Marvel overtook for itself. There's a great film in there w/ what is in the deleted scenes.

Red Skull: Classic baddie in a serial. He's evil, we know he's evil. Etc etc. I like him fine but this is where the script and the actor sell what it is. He's alive.... somewhere. Cuz... he transported... somewhere w/ the Tesseract.

Loki: On the page? He's a crap villain. W/ the way they set him up and the things he does.. they're generic as fuck. Any sense of ingenuity w/ him is from Hiddleston. This is the best example of the actor having enough on the page to do something w/ it. To the point that he's the best thing to come out of the baddie bag. He's the crutch for Marvel.

Ivan Vanko (Whiplash/Crimson Dynamo): He's crap. Just crap. Rourke is a good actor, when he wants to be. But that whole production was just rushed to hell cuz of how big IM1 was. This villain was mediocre and generic to the point that Rourke didn't give a damn for whatever reason.

Aldrich Killian: He is an interesting character that, well... has shit reasons to be a baddie. A baddie that was a sub baddie but turns out he's the main baddie and then falls into the generic.

Malekith: Probably the most generic one. If there was a checklist for being evil... he might be it for Marvel. Also..the Thor films are the worst of the sequeled franchise properties here. So many reasons for it.

Winter Soldier: Badass. Just pure badass. Marvel's The Terminator... pretty much. He's all kick assery till his revelation for Cap. Then we get some nice dramatic emphasis on his character and especially Cap. He's probably the easiest one to develop cuz we know him as Bucky... then we meet him unknowingly, for some of the audience, as this mysterious badass.

Ronan: Some tyrannical baddie on a damn near religious bent on destroying those that hurt his people. We barely get anything of him aside from being a meanie and then he gets taken out like a very generic method of CGI killing. All noise but barely there. Solid actor.. but meh character.

Ultron: A robot. A robot w/ an idea to succeed in his programming, originally. But also like a child w/ a temper tantrum. Shitty ass plan in the end cuz it just leads to another fight a bunch of drones, that are also Ultron, but also are just drones... I like the character... not so much what Marvel/Whedon wanted for him.

Darren Cross (aka Yellowjacket): The perfect type of failure of going all over the spectrum to being cringeworthy. The character is only of value when he's in the YJ suit. Even at that point.. it's not the character. It's the fight that makes him cool. The character is just generic.

Helmut Zemo: Now...some of you didn't like him cuz... Well, you have your different reasons. He's not a physical threat. Lengthy and complicated plan. But I liked it. He had some specific skills, time, and dedication.

96% on RT so far, 22 positive and 1 negative.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/doctor_strange_2016

Damn reviewers not knowing how to review comic book movies and their Marvel bias.

Scott Mendelson basically said that this was Marvel's Green Lantern (in terms of formula) but that it was slightly better than GL as a film.

^ Scott Mendelson can chew my shorts. I'm really looking forward to this movie, moreso than several of the Marvel movies that have come out recently (even though they turned out to be better than I was expecting).

He's also the sole voice of dissent so far. 97% with 35 positive, 1 negative.

It would certainly be better than what FOX has done with him.

That still doesn't automatically make him a good character either. Cuz... Marvel.

Maybe it's because he's a lesser name, but Thursday's (Tonight's) first showing was at 9:45pm compared to Ultron and Civil War's 7:00pm showing. I hope this isn't the end of earlier time slots!

It's old news I guess, but I just learned that Dan Harmon (of Community and Rick and Morty--he did a reddit AMA today) was brought in to write/advise for some extra shooting that was done on this. I hope after the movie is out he'll be able to talk more about what he contributed.

Mendelson can suck a dick and choke on it. Shit tons better than GL. Jesus. GL offended me w/ how generic that shit was even w/ the fantastical nature of it. Strange was not boring at all, unique as fuck.

Rex Reed didn't like it.

But I think he was prejudiced against it before he saw it.

"another in a long line of..."

yeah, sounds like he's just not a fan of the genre.

Rex Reed is second after Armond White for reviews that I would never read.

Yeah it sounds like this a-hole went in with his review already written in his mind and just wanted to bash it. There are a lot of reviewers who just don't have a clue and its one of the reasons that i listen to very few at all. These are the kind of morons that slag off a movie and then 20 years down the line if it becomes a classic they are quick to change their mind and make it sound like they always supported the film. Not saying that Doctor Strange will be a classic, but i have seen movie bashing time and time again only for the reviewers to realize years later they were way off base with their assessment.

Shut up! It's real!!

I thought this was great.

Loved the homage to Ditko especially when they go into the Dark Realm with those bubbles that interconnect.

Dormmaamuu Looked great to.

Only part I kind of hated was the ghost fight.
Yeah I know it wasn't a ghost fight but that's what it was to me.

4.5/5