Meryl Streep calls out Marvel Movies

[Creyk 18,377]

Speaking in a recent interview on the Hits Radio Breakfast Show alongside Anne Hathaway and Emily Blunt during “The Devil Wears Prada 2” press tour, Streep criticized what she described as a growing reliance on clear-cut heroes and villains in contemporary movies. “I think we tend to Marvel-ize the movies now. We got the villains and we got the good guys, and it’s so boring,” she said, adding that the most compelling storytelling comes from characters who resist easy categorization.

“What’s really interesting about life is that some of the heroes are flawed and some of the villains are human and interesting and have their own strengths,” she continued. “So that’s what I like about this [film]. It’s messier.”

https://variety.com/2026/film/news/meryl-streep-marvel-ize-movies-boring-devil-wears-prada-1236735833/

[River 124,379]

She's in a Marvel movie confirmed 

[artdoll 46,984]

She's not wrong! 

There's constant discourse about who the true villain is in TDWP. I've seen people say it's Miranda, I've heard others say it's Andy, and there's people who say the real villain is her boyfriend!

[NUTELLA 21,995]

20 minutes ago, artdoll said:

there's people who say the real villain is her boyfriend!

The same morons who say Janice is the real primary antagonist of Mean Girls lol

edit- that was too harsh

edit-- no it wasn't

Edited Sunday at 07:42 AM by NUTELLA

[robboadam 2,471]

A tale as old as time, it’s not exactly a Marvel trope.

[artdoll 46,984]

27 minutes ago, NUTELLA said:

edit- that was too harsh

edit-- no it wasn't

[River 124,379]

29 minutes ago, artdoll said:

She's not wrong! 

There's constant discourse about who the true villain is in TDWP. I've seen people say it's Miranda, I've heard others say it's Andy, and there's people who say the real villain is her boyfriend!

in the first movie the villain is actually our society and the media, because they turned a strong independent woman into the monster, the villain, just because she's bossy, just because she has goals, she wants success, she has a whole business and reputation on her shoulders and she wants it to be top, quality top and the best.. and they don't even notice how much she had to give up in her personal life, how much she scarified to get to this point, family and friendships.

And at the end she lost, she lost Nigel's trust and friendship.

 

And the sad truth is that we still think the same when we see a successful woman who's not playing it nice and cute as the boss.

We wouldn't call "devil" to a successful man who's behaving the same as Miranda, we would idolize it.

[garbage day 11,766]

1 hour ago, robboadam said:

A tale as old as time, it’s not exactly a Marvel trope.

But it's the unfortunate soup du jour to cast blame upon because Marvel is the figurehead. You can get into the minutiae of "well Marvel has anti-heros and sympathetic villains", but you know exactly what she means. Super Hero Movie Culture has become so saturated into our daily lives, and villains are still very much villains, except Loki? Idk. You could argue with Scarlet Witch, but she's "dead?" Meryl is just making a general statement argument to illustrate her point that Miranda is more grey in this movie.

[Addison Rae 17,815]

complicated characters are much more compelling to watch. it’s why miranda is such a beloved character all these years later

[robboadam 2,471]

1 hour ago, garbage day said:

But it's the unfortunate soup du jour to cast blame upon because Marvel is the figurehead. You can get into the minutiae of "well Marvel has anti-heros and sympathetic villains", but you know exactly what she means. Super Hero Movie Culture has become so saturated into our daily lives, and villains are still very much villains, except Loki? Idk. You could argue with Scarlet Witch, but she's "dead?" Meryl is just making a general statement argument to illustrate her point that Miranda is more grey in this movie.

Yeah but my point is, how different is that to Greek mythology? To Shakespeare? To movies from the 20th century? These tropes are everywhere throughout human history.

Were acting like Marvel revolutionised a bad character being bad and a good character being good.

[Ladle Ghoulash 42,693]

17 minutes ago, robboadam said:

Yeah but my point is, how different is that to Greek mythology? To Shakespeare? To movies from the 20th century? These tropes are everywhere throughout human history.

We’re acting like Marvel revolutionised a bad character being bad and a good character being good.

Ns, but these are not great counterpoints. Greek mythology, famously, plays with moral ambiguity all the time. The Gods are neither wholly good or bad. Zeus, in particular, while being the King of the Gods (a role one would assume denotes him being “good”) cheats on his wife, exacts vengeance against mortals, while simultaneously showing benevolence, ensuring order etc.

Same with Shakespeare: even characters you could describe as “evil” or “antagonistic” have fully realized, complicated, and understandable motives and those who are “good” or the “protagonist” often have tremendous flaws and moral shortcomings. Hamlet is a great example: while Hamlet is the “protagonist” (who would be assumed to be “good” in some readings), his obsession with the murder of his father results in a level of cruelty towards his own lover that it results in her taking her own life. These are not morally simplistic texts.

The point I’m making, and the point I think Meryl is making as well, isn’t about the concepts of good and evil/protagonist vs. antagonist being invented by Marvel or existing as broader tropes, but rather that Marvel in particular tends to lean into them in a more black and white way and doesn’t seem to tolerate moral ambiguity or complication. It’s not that superheroes can’t be morally complex figures, it’s just that they’re not often treated that way by mainstream film adaptations and, even when these films gesture to moral nuance or ambiguity, they seem to want to compulsively clean it up as quickly as possible.

Edited Sunday at 11:41 AM by Ladle Ghoulash

[Sepsami 20,313]

5 hours ago, Creyk said:

Speaking in a recent interview on the Hits Radio Breakfast Show alongside Anne Hathaway and Emily Blunt during “The Devil Wears Prada 2” press tour, Streep criticized what she described as a growing reliance on clear-cut heroes and villains in contemporary movies. “I think we tend to Marvel-ize the movies now. We got the villains and we got the good guys, and it’s so boring,” she said, adding that the most compelling storytelling comes from characters who resist easy categorization.

“What’s really interesting about life is that some of the heroes are flawed and some of the villains are human and interesting and have their own strengths,” she continued. “So that’s what I like about this [film]. It’s messier.”

https://variety.com/2026/film/news/meryl-streep-marvel-ize-movies-boring-devil-wears-prada-1236735833/

Love the quote but that's a lot for a movie like TDWP2  I saw it last night and enjoyed it but let's not pretend there is any depth to the story. I chuckled exactly once and I don't even remember at what. Gaga's performance ate me alive though and was worth going to theaters for. It made me question what a true Gaga concert film in theaters would do to me.  I hope she does it for Requiem. 

[bxr 1,509]

In immediate retrospect, it felt like Gaga’s villain arc was one of the more intriguing cultural indicators … (again, just one-off on the blink conceptual association musing) pop music culture iconography in context: “because you don’t like me” … the dynamic between people and profit as assets in late stage culture industry capitalism … Runway needed Gaga’s star power, Gaga “needed” the cover/s but it wasn’t necessarily predicated on money or budget (ex. John Legend’s piano, publisher’s ad revenue, etc.), it was about access to the audience/readership that Runway holds—the attention economy and court of public opinion … anti-establishment (counterhegemony?) from the position of subversion coercion … fashion, tech, legacy media all effectually fell in line under a sort of new patronage model, but Gaga never kisses the ring in reconciliation in that way … “Break a leg,” “Bye bye…” …

Spoiler

Also, something about the low-key Network undercurrents on the cinematic imagery / cadence, but it feels like TDWP2 flipped the power dynamic between executive and entertainer …

“‘It is the international system of currency, which determines the totality of life, on this planet, today… and you have meddled with the primary forces of nature. … The world is a business, Mr. Beale. It has been since man crawled out of the slime. And our children will live, Mr. Beale to see that perfect world … one vast an ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock, all necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused … and I have chosen you, Mr. Beale, to teach this evangel.‘ ‘Why me?‘ ‘Because you‘re on television, dummy; 60 million people watch you every night of the week, Monday through Friday.‘”

That the scene from Network literally closes with “I have seen the face of god…;” and that Gaga’s face-the-network-exec scene segues into “Shape of a Woman” … Oh, Gaga, make that face …

 

Edited Sunday at 12:51 PM by bxr

[Ladle Ghoulash 42,693]

58 minutes ago, bxr said:

In immediate retrospect, it felt like Gaga’s villain arc was one of the more intriguing cultural indicators … (again, just one-off on the blink conceptual association musing) pop music culture iconography in context: “because you don’t like me” … the dynamic between people and profit as assets in late stage culture industry capitalism … Runway needed Gaga’s star power, Gaga “needed” the cover/s but it wasn’t necessarily predicated on money or budget (ex. John Legend’s piano, publisher’s ad revenue, etc.), it was about access to the audience/readership that Runway holds—the attention economy and court of public opinion … anti-establishment (counterhegemony?) from the position of subversion coercion … fashion, tech, legacy media all effectually fell in line under a sort of new patronage model, but Gaga never kisses the ring in reconciliation in that way … “Break a leg,” “Bye bye…” …

  Hide contents

Also, something about the low-key Network undercurrents on the cinematic imagery / cadence, but it feels like TDWP2 flipped the power dynamic between executive and entertainer …

“‘It is the international system of currency, which determines the totality of life, on this planet, today… and you have meddled with the primary forces of nature. … The world is a business, Mr. Beale. It has been since man crawled out of the slime. And our children will live, Mr. Beale to see that perfect world … one vast an ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock, all necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused … and I have chosen you, Mr. Beale, to teach this evangel.‘ ‘Why me?‘ ‘Because you‘re on television, dummy; 60 million people watch you every night of the week, Monday through Friday.‘”

That the scene from Network literally closes with “I have seen the face of god…;” and that Gaga’s face-the-network-exec scene segues into “Shape of a Woman” … Oh, Gaga, make that face …

 

TDWP2 aside, Gaga always felt like something of a cultural villain/anti-hero to me, especially from TFM-BTW 

[Controversiaga 13,259]

Marvel movies are trash , fast food of movies imo