I liked it. I didn't mind that the fight sequences weren't that long, as to me this film and its predecessor (Creed) were more about character development than the actual boxing. (Same with Rocky Balboa [2006]). I also liked how they not only built up Adonis Creed's character, but effectively wrapped up Rocky's story by letting him reconcile with his son and (presumably) get to know his grandson.

I can see this film series, continuing, now, with just Adonis and his family, if the studio wishes to go in that direction . . . as Rocky said to Adonis, "It's your time."

Side-note: I liked the greater screen-time Phylicia Rashad got in this film . . . a wonderful actress who I think is somewhat underappreciated.

Thanks for starting this post, RCH2288; it is overdue . . . back on the old IMDB, people would've been talking about this film the day it was released (and before!)

I liked it. Thought it was better than Creed 1, and I loved Creed 1.

I liked it. I loved the story of Victor Drago and his relationship with his father, and why they wanted this. Also, I like how they ended it with them. I liked the story of Adonis questioning his life as a boxer now that he has a family, and needing to figure out why he is still doing this. Overall, a great movie. The only question is what next after this? I don't really see anything more that can be done with Adonis. I guess he could lose big time and need someone to get him back to win again? But that was already done. After the movie I was kind of lost for any idea what kind of story is left to tell that won't be a rethread on all the other Rocky movies.

Knowing Drago and Rocky I felt bad for both of them knowing they're not really going to go forth to fight again. Their time is up. Rocky still has this relationship to Creed that can be summarized by some weird getup involving lasers, dance, beams and a bootcamp in the middle of nowhere. Prob going to get weird next movie depending on the type of rush jobs they'll do at the bootcamps.

I liked it, but I enjoyed Creed (1) more. I liked the chemistry between Stallone and Jordan. I felt like they were true homies by the end.

Better than Creed. This was a fun movie. The only problem is, this is the second movie into the spinoff series, and it still relies mainly on nostalgia for Rocky. I'm still not very invested in Adonis or his story.

I thought it was pretty good for what it was worth, that being said I think they could have pulled at least another movie or two out of the Drago storyline.

I was kind of more interested in their story seeing as how they are living at the start of the movie and what they go back to in the end. I honestly think that would have made a better movie, a son fighting for his father's redemption only for the father to realise that he is killing his son in allowing that to happen.

Formulaic and with little for anyone familiar with the franchise to invest in. In the scheme of things, Creed's daddy issues and Rocky's son issues aren't things that would concern anyone else in real life, so why would we be invested in it for fictional characters? Ditto the baby's hearing. It's just unfortunate, not the source of drama.

What did interest me was the whole Drago and son thing: the collapse of The USSR and the parallel collapse of their personal place in life. The destitution and shame. Now that would have made for drama. But that is barely touched on and they never rise above recycled villains. I guess the patriot goggles never allowed for it.

Apart from that everything else is stuff you have seen before in the franchise.

@mechajutaro said:

This could've benefitted from a scene where Phyllicia Rashad is interviewed on TV, and when asked why Drago's son is so eager to fight Creed JR, she retorts with some tired line about a white guy wanting to bring down an accomplished black man

I appreciate that in your customary style you are being facetious, but perhaps inadvertently you have pointed towards another oddity about this movie.

Both Creed movies are essentially reboots of the failed Rocky V. (Putting aside the intervening Rocky Balboa, which given that it has Stallone making a last comeback, can only be done once, and even Sly wouldn't be cheeky enough to put a 70 year old back in the ring again.) The baton is passed to the next generation.

With Creed and Creed 2, the writers clearly wanted to re establish continuity to the original movies by making the protagonist the son of the original antagonist. Which is fine conceptually. But are Donny Creed, his stepmother and GF, actually black characters? Sure the actors portraying the characters are clearly black, but that isn't the same thing. One could quite literally have cast white actors in these parts without changing a single word of dialog or changing the plot.

Now, this might be seen as a positive thing: Creed 2 isn't dealing in racial stereotypes so far as black characters are concerned. Different matter for the Russian characters it needs to be said.

Donny Creed is an accomplished man played by an accomplished black actor. But that doesn't by itself add up to 'an accomplished black man'.

The avoidance of blackness, particularly in Creed 2, is really quite strange.

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

@mechajutaro said:

This could've benefitted from a scene where Phyllicia Rashad is interviewed on TV, and when asked why Drago's son is so eager to fight Creed JR, she retorts with some tired line about a white guy wanting to bring down an accomplished black man

I appreciate that in your customary style you are being facetious, but perhaps inadvertently you have pointed towards another oddity about this movie.

Both Creed movies are essentially reboots of the failed Rocky V. (Putting aside the intervening Rocky Balboa, which given that it has Stallone making a last comeback, can only be done once, and even Sly wouldn't be cheeky enough to put a 70 year old back in the ring again.) The baton is passed to the next generation.

With Creed and Creed 2, the writers clearly wanted to re establish continuity to the original movies by making the protagonist the son of the original antagonist. Which is fine conceptually. But are Donny Creed, his stepmother and GF, actually black characters? Sure the actors portraying the characters are clearly black, but that isn't the same thing. One could quite literally have cast white actors in these parts without changing a single word of dialog or changing the plot.

Now, this might be seen as a positive thing: Creed 2 isn't dealing in racial stereotypes so far as black characters are concerned. Different matter for the Russian characters it needs to be said.

Donny Creed is an accomplished man played by an accomplished black actor. But that doesn't by itself add up to 'an accomplished black man'.

The avoidance of blackness, particularly in Creed 2, is really quite strange.

So, let me get this right, Jacinto: Ryan Coogler and his successor in the Creed films needed to qualify their characters' blackness for you?

How exactly would they do that? Would Adonis have to be a part-time rapper? Maybe his mother should've spoken in broken English in order to satisfy you? Perhaps Adonis should have showed us a bottle of Red Hot sauce on his kitchen counter, to boot.

Honestly, I have found some of your posts to be good reading, in their slightly overwrought prosaic style. But this would have to be the dumbest post I've ever read by you here.

You stated, "Now, this might be seen as a positive thing: Creed 2 isn't dealing in racial stereotypes so far as black characters are concerned." Let's hope so!

@CelluloidFan said:

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

@mechajutaro said:

This could've benefitted from a scene where Phyllicia Rashad is interviewed on TV, and when asked why Drago's son is so eager to fight Creed JR, she retorts with some tired line about a white guy wanting to bring down an accomplished black man

I appreciate that in your customary style you are being facetious, but perhaps inadvertently you have pointed towards another oddity about this movie.

Both Creed movies are essentially reboots of the failed Rocky V. (Putting aside the intervening Rocky Balboa, which given that it has Stallone making a last comeback, can only be done once, and even Sly wouldn't be cheeky enough to put a 70 year old back in the ring again.) The baton is passed to the next generation.

With Creed and Creed 2, the writers clearly wanted to re establish continuity to the original movies by making the protagonist the son of the original antagonist. Which is fine conceptually. But are Donny Creed, his stepmother and GF, actually black characters? Sure the actors portraying the characters are clearly black, but that isn't the same thing. One could quite literally have cast white actors in these parts without changing a single word of dialog or changing the plot.

Now, this might be seen as a positive thing: Creed 2 isn't dealing in racial stereotypes so far as black characters are concerned. Different matter for the Russian characters it needs to be said.

Donny Creed is an accomplished man played by an accomplished black actor. But that doesn't by itself add up to 'an accomplished black man'.

The avoidance of blackness, particularly in Creed 2, is really quite strange.

So, let me get this right, Jacinto: Ryan Coogler and his successor in the Creed films needed to qualify their characters' blackness for you?

How exactly would they do that? Would Adonis have to be a part-time rapper? Maybe his mother should've spoken in broken English in order to satisfy you? Perhaps Adonis should have showed us a bottle of Red Hot sauce on his kitchen counter, to boot.

Honestly, I have found some of your posts to be good reading, in their slightly overwrought prosaic style. But this would have to be the dumbest post I've ever read by you here.

You stated, "Now, this might be seen as a positive thing: Creed 2 isn't dealing in racial stereotypes so far as black characters are concerned." Let's hope so!

I am not making a determination about what constitutes an authentic depiction of black lives in fiction, theatre or movies.

Nor do I believe there is any dramatic need to do so unless race is somehow central to the story. I don't wonder about a black wizard in Harry Potter for example because race issues, that whole mudblood thing aside, are not a theme in that franchise.

The first three Rocky movies had race and class as central themes. Rocky III pointedly so. Rocky IV switches that out for politics and technology.

Neither Creed movie deals with race, class, politics or technology. Like the ill fated Rocky V, they deal with generational change and the focus is on father-son issues. Of course for the franchise to move forward in a sensible way that has to be given a treatment. But that treatment is so shallow and idiotic, and so small, all we are left with is the usual franchise montages and ring scenes.

Because race is not a theme in Creed I and II, the color of the protagonist is incidental, even irrelevant. And that is what I mean when I say Adonis Creed and his family are characters who are black, as opposed to being black characters. Hamlet doesn't become a black character because Idris Elba is cast in the role.

As for your concerns about my writing style. Sure, overwrought, yes, prosaic. That happens after a quarter of a century posting on internet forums where people don't read properly, or jump to conclusions, or guess what they think I am really saying. An overwrought style can be helpful if I need to go back to what I actually said, even if it sometimes results in difficult prose. It might even be bad prose, but generally speaking, I am usually able to point to what I have previously written as a quick rebuttal to clowns who assume they know better than I do what my thoughts on an issue are.

Ftr, I am not a professional writer. Interesting that you believe that Ryan Coogler, a professional screenwriter, doesn't need to justify his creative choices to a paying public, but that I am open to criticism for the quality of my writing on a forum that costs you nothing. Not saying you can't. But you might want to get that matter straightened out in your head.

This reply is a bit late, but I feel that it's much needed.

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

I am not making a determination about what constitutes an authentic depiction of black lives in fiction, theatre or movies.

Then, what, pray tell, were you doing? Above, you stated that the "avoidance of blackness... in Creed 2, is really quite strange," and proceeded to go on at length in the thread I have quoted about how skin color doesn't make a person or a movie character black. So, what is the purpose?

Nor do I believe there is any dramatic need to do so unless race is somehow central to the story. I don't wonder about a black wizard in Harry Potter for example because race issues, that whole mudblood thing aside, are not a theme in that franchise.

The first three Rocky movies had race and class as central themes. Rocky III pointedly so. Rocky IV switches that out for politics and technology.

Neither Creed movie deals with race, class, politics or technology. Like the ill fated Rocky V, they deal with generational change and the focus is on father-son issues. Of course for the franchise to move forward in a sensible way that has to be given a treatment. But that treatment is so shallow and idiotic, and so small, all we are left with is the usual franchise montages and ring scenes.

Does the Rocky franchise really deserve this much analysis? Whatever.

Because race is not a theme in Creed I and II, the color of the protagonist is incidental, even irrelevant. And that is what I mean when I say Adonis Creed and his family are characters who are black, as opposed to being black characters. Hamlet doesn't become a black character because Idris Elba is cast in the role.

This is a bit of sophistry -- a subtle, misleading argument with fallacious logic at its core. "Adonis Creed and his family are characters who are black, as opposed to being black characters??" What's the difference, really??? There is none.

As for your concerns about my writing style. Sure, overwrought, yes, prosaic. That happens after a quarter of a century posting on internet forums where people don't read properly, or jump to conclusions, or guess what they think I am really saying. An overwrought style can be helpful if I need to go back to what I actually said, even if it sometimes results in difficult prose. It might even be bad prose, but generally speaking, I am usually able to point to what I have previously written as a quick rebuttal to clowns who assume they know better than I do what my thoughts on an issue are.

Jacinto, I have written on internet and similar computer forums, on and off, for about 30 years. But you don't see me bragging about it, trying to "make my bones" on here by attacking other posters' posts, to use an old phrase. BTW, thanks for the insult. That's very mature.

Ftr, I am not a professional writer. Interesting that you believe that Ryan Coogler, a professional screenwriter, doesn't need to justify his creative choices to a paying public, but that I am open to criticism for the quality of my writing on a forum that costs you nothing. Not saying you can't. But you might want to get that matter straightened out in your head.

This is the most twisted section of your post by far. To take it point by point, Ryan Coogler owes us nothing. If he wants to justify his creative choices to the public, that's fine. But I respect the hell out of a Quentin Tarantino for telling an interviewer who asked him about the use of violence in his films, an old, tired question for sure, that he was "shutting (his) butt down." Since Coogler is black, you may choose to argue that he has more responsibility with his art than Tarantino does -- so much of your argumentative logic seems to revolve around the false concept of "race" -- but I disagree. I believe that parts of your posts were written as a subtle affront to me, as I stated on the other thread. Therefore, I called them out and criticized them.

Don't ever condescend to tell me to straighten out my head. You tried to mess with my head; I called you out for it.

@CelluloidFan said:

This reply is a bit late, but I feel that it's much needed.

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

I am not making a determination about what constitutes an authentic depiction of black lives in fiction, theatre or movies.

Then, what, pray tell, were you doing? Above, you stated that the "avoidance of blackness... in Creed 2, is really quite strange," and proceeded to go on at length in the thread I have quoted about how skin color doesn't make a person or a movie character black. So, what is the purpose?

Nor do I believe there is any dramatic need to do so unless race is somehow central to the story. I don't wonder about a black wizard in Harry Potter for example because race issues, that whole mudblood thing aside, are not a theme in that franchise.

The first three Rocky movies had race and class as central themes. Rocky III pointedly so. Rocky IV switches that out for politics and technology.

Neither Creed movie deals with race, class, politics or technology. Like the ill fated Rocky V, they deal with generational change and the focus is on father-son issues. Of course for the franchise to move forward in a sensible way that has to be given a treatment. But that treatment is so shallow and idiotic, and so small, all we are left with is the usual franchise montages and ring scenes.

Does the Rocky franchise really deserve this much analysis? Whatever.

Because race is not a theme in Creed I and II, the color of the protagonist is incidental, even irrelevant. And that is what I mean when I say Adonis Creed and his family are characters who are black, as opposed to being black characters. Hamlet doesn't become a black character because Idris Elba is cast in the role.

This is a bit of sophistry -- a subtle, misleading argument with fallacious logic at its core. "Adonis Creed and his family are characters who are black, as opposed to being black characters??" What's the difference, really??? There is none.

As for your concerns about my writing style. Sure, overwrought, yes, prosaic. That happens after a quarter of a century posting on internet forums where people don't read properly, or jump to conclusions, or guess what they think I am really saying. An overwrought style can be helpful if I need to go back to what I actually said, even if it sometimes results in difficult prose. It might even be bad prose, but generally speaking, I am usually able to point to what I have previously written as a quick rebuttal to clowns who assume they know better than I do what my thoughts on an issue are.

Jacinto, I have written on internet and similar computer forums, on and off, for about 30 years. But you don't see me bragging about it, trying to "make my bones" on here by attacking other posters' posts, to use a Mafia phrase. BTW, thanks for the insult. That's very mature.

Ftr, I am not a professional writer. Interesting that you believe that Ryan Coogler, a professional screenwriter, doesn't need to justify his creative choices to a paying public, but that I am open to criticism for the quality of my writing on a forum that costs you nothing. Not saying you can't. But you might want to get that matter straightened out in your head.

This is the most twisted section of your post by far. To take it point by point, Ryan Coogler owes us nothing. If he wants to justify his creative choices to the public, that's fine. But I respect the hell out of a Quentin Tarantino for telling an interviewer who asked him about the use of violence in his films, an old, tired question for sure, that he was "shutting (his) butt down." Since Coogler is black, you may choose to argue that he has more responsibility with his art than Tarantino does -- so much of your argumentative logic seems to revolve around the false concept of "race" -- but I disagree. I believe that parts of your posts were written as a subtle affront to me, as I stated on the other thread. Therefore, I called them out and criticized them.

Don't ever condescend to tell me to straighten out my head. You tried to mess with my head; I called you out for it.

Let's dial back the outrage.

Firstly, my comments about poor behaviour on the internet served as an explanation for a writing style with which you found fault. It was meant to apply generally and my wording clearly says that. That was the purpose of referencing 25 years. It had nothing to do with one upping you. It had everything to do with making it clear that, for me, it is not simply a matter of stylistic choice, but a necessity borne out of decades of dealing with the sorts of people I described.

In a perfect world with people acting in good faith, who read carefully and think before replying, I could afford myself a more flowing, even poetic, style. The internet is not that world.

Critiquing movies is what happens on a movie forum and that is what I am doing here with Creed II. Questioning a theme (actually an absence of a particular theme) doesn't amount to a demand that a writer justify himself.

What Tarantino and Coogler think about criticism is irrelevant to anything I have said. So are your opinions on what you think Coogler deserves or should be protected from. I didn't even mention Coogler, not the least because he has nothing to do with Creed II. I simply pointed out the inconsistency in your view that professional writers don't need to explain themselves (again, I never said they should) but that you have no problems in dishing out the outrage when I expressed an opinion.

Suggesting you 'get that straightened out in your head' was a shorter, less 'prosaic and overwrought' way of saying what I just did above. Seems to me that your preference for reading terse, direct language isn't as strong as you supposed. (Note how you changed my words to 'straighten out my head', which involves a significant shift in meaning, and moves my comment from something about the subject to something about you. Either you didn't read it properly or you deliberately changed it to inflame the discussion. Only you know which. This sort of stuff has plagued your replies to me.)

If you have anything constructive to say about Creed II, or you wish to argue about what I have said regarding the movie go ahead. But if you persist with these straw men and ad homs, don't expect that I will take you seriously.

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

Let's dial back the outrage.

Firstly, my comments about poor behaviour on the internet served as an explanation for a writing style with which you found fault. It was meant to apply generally and my wording clearly says that. That was the purpose of referencing 25 years. It had nothing to do with one upping you. It had everything to do with making it clear that, for me, it is not simply a matter of stylistic choice, but a necessity borne out of decades of dealing with the sorts of people I described.

In a perfect world with people acting in good faith, who read carefully and think before replying, I could afford myself a more flowing, even poetic, style. The internet is not that world.

Critiquing movies is what happens on a movie forum and that is what I am doing here with Creed II. Questioning a theme (actually an absence of a particular theme) doesn't amount to a demand that a writer justify himself.

Fine.

What Tarantino and Coogler think about criticism is irrelevant to anything I have said. So are your opinions on what you think Coogler deserves or should be protected from. I didn't even mention Coogler, not the least because he has nothing to do with Creed II. I simply pointed out the inconsistency in your view that professional writers don't need to explain themselves (again, I never said they should) but that you have no problems in dishing out the outrage when I expressed an opinion.

Look, if you want to pretend that you weren't dishing out a subliminal attack against me in the wording of your post about "Creed 2" and (your italics) "blackness," that is your prerogative. Criticism can be constructive or it can be destructive. I have found that in a harsh, ugly world, attitudes such as Tarantino's towards endless, inhibiting criticism can be helpful -- so I disagree that "what Tarantino and Coogler think about criticism is irrelevant to anything (you) have said." But whatever.

Suggesting you 'get that straightened out in your head' was a shorter, less 'prosaic and overwrought' way of saying what I just did above. Seems to me that your preference for reading terse, direct language isn't as strong as you supposed. (Note how you changed my words to 'straighten out my head', which involves a significant shift in meaning, and moves my comment from something about the subject to something about you. Either you didn't read it properly or you deliberately changed it to inflame the discussion. Only you know which. This sort of stuff has plagued your replies to me.)

Ultimately, my word change that you mentioned is irrelevant... it only served to clarify your suggestion in your earlier post, which read, "But you might want to get that matter straightened out in your head." You were referring to my response to your criticism of public figures on a free, public forum, but again, I read your statement on another level as being about how I should get a certain matter, regarding "blackness," "straightened out in (my) head." This is an old and tired issue, and I should only respond to it with disgust. But whatever.

If you have anything constructive to say about Creed II, or you wish to argue about what I have said regarding the movie go ahead. But if you persist with these straw men and ad homs, don't expect that I will take you seriously.

Finally, Jacinto, consider this: I believe I have seniority over you on these message boards. In lieu of what I have stated in reply to your post(s), tell me, why exactly should I take you seriously?

@CelluloidFan said:

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

Let's dial back the outrage.

Firstly, my comments about poor behaviour on the internet served as an explanation for a writing style with which you found fault. It was meant to apply generally and my wording clearly says that. That was the purpose of referencing 25 years. It had nothing to do with one upping you. It had everything to do with making it clear that, for me, it is not simply a matter of stylistic choice, but a necessity borne out of decades of dealing with the sorts of people I described.

In a perfect world with people acting in good faith, who read carefully and think before replying, I could afford myself a more flowing, even poetic, style. The internet is not that world.

Critiquing movies is what happens on a movie forum and that is what I am doing here with Creed II. Questioning a theme (actually an absence of a particular theme) doesn't amount to a demand that a writer justify himself.

Fine.

What Tarantino and Coogler think about criticism is irrelevant to anything I have said. So are your opinions on what you think Coogler deserves or should be protected from. I didn't even mention Coogler, not the least because he has nothing to do with Creed II. I simply pointed out the inconsistency in your view that professional writers don't need to explain themselves (again, I never said they should) but that you have no problems in dishing out the outrage when I expressed an opinion.

Look, if you want to pretend that you weren't dishing out a subliminal attack against me in the wording of your post about "Creed 2" and (your italics) "blackness," that is your prerogative. Criticism can be constructive or it can be destructive. I have found that in a harsh, ugly world, attitudes such as Tarantino's towards endless, inhibiting criticism can be helpful -- so I disagree that "what Tarantino and Coogler think about criticism is irrelevant to anything (you) have said." But whatever.

Suggesting you 'get that straightened out in your head' was a shorter, less 'prosaic and overwrought' way of saying what I just did above. Seems to me that your preference for reading terse, direct language isn't as strong as you supposed. (Note how you changed my words to 'straighten out my head', which involves a significant shift in meaning, and moves my comment from something about the subject to something about you. Either you didn't read it properly or you deliberately changed it to inflame the discussion. Only you know which. This sort of stuff has plagued your replies to me.)

Ultimately, my word change that you mentioned is irrelevant... it only served to clarify your suggestion in your earlier post, which read, "But you might want to get that matter straightened out in your head." You were referring to my response to your criticism of public figures on a free, public forum, but again, I read your statement on another level as being about how I should get a certain matter, regarding "blackness," "straightened out in (my) head." This is an old and tired issue, and I should only respond to it with disgust. But whatever.

If you have anything constructive to say about Creed II, or you wish to argue about what I have said regarding the movie go ahead. But if you persist with these straw men and ad homs, don't expect that I will take you seriously.

Finally, Jacinto, consider this: I believe I have seniority over you on these message boards. In lieu of what I have stated in reply to your post(s), tell me, why exactly should I take you seriously?

Changing the meaning of what someone else has said is not trivial. It is distortion. You are free to write whatever things you please within the forum rules and to put your name to it. You are not free to put my name to something I did not say. Nor are you free to apply meanings of your own to my positions that sit outside of anything I have actually posted. Of course you can do this and you have done this. The point is you don't get a free pass for this sort of nonsense, particularly when it involves a topic as explosive as race.

Ftr, I used italics for blackness to indicate that this is a contested or unusual term. This is an accepted convention amongst literate people.

My original post was about character and theme. Your responses so far have either been about me (I can assure you I am not a character in Creed II) or about the rights of Tarantino and Coogler. I am not interested in what you think about this; it has nothing to do with anything I said; and I found your arguments on the matter foolish.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt for a while but now I have run out of patience.