Printable View
For the record, I certainly don't think Marvel can do no wrong. IM2, IM3, Age of Ultron, and Thor Dark World are proof positive that they can indeed do plenty wrong. That said, even Marvel's worst movies are better than most of the other superhero franchises best (notable exceptions, of course, include WW, Logan, and Days of Future Past. Those were at least as good as IM and Dr. Strange).
It's not that Marvel Studios can do no wrong (looking at you Iron Man 2, The Incredible Hulk, Thor: The Dark World) it's just that most of time they do make very high quality and interesting CBMs. Kevin Feige and them have created a cultural phenomenon and a vast universe that almost in some ways does things better than the comics ever could. With a solid continuity, great characters, and even though the villains have been lousy it's turning around now. Loki, Zemo & Ego were pretty good and Thanos looks incredible.
Honestly, I just really love Cinematic Shared Universes. The DCEU, Foxverse, the Arrowverse and Marvel Television are all excellent too and I hope they all keep adapting my favorite comic book characters for a long time.
Like all things in life, once a positive outcome occurs, you are more likely to give the next outcome, even if not totally positive, a pass. I find much more positive about character decisions than I dislike. Even when they change a character to make them fit into the whole, as long as that character continues to exist, they can evolve. I see a mention about Mantis not being badass. Well, she lived sheltered on Ego/planet, I am sure she didn't get out much. Now, she is living on the same ship as Gamora, if anyone can teach her how to be badass, it will be Gamora. Until a character dies, there are possibilities that they will evolve. Doctor Strange certainly wasn't the Sorcerer Supreme I was reading growing up (neither is the current comic for that matter, although Hopeless doesn't dwell as much on tentacle eating), but the seed of the character is there, and future movies will continue to evolve him.
I watch Marvel movies because I have yet to leave the theater feeling I had wasted my money. Some I like better than others, some just get better with repeated views. Other franchises have let me down, after the first couple of X men movies, I stopped watching them in theaters. Decisions that have Mystique walking around naked might have been a big factor, plus having great comic characters just being cameos was upsetting to me. Decisions about the darkness in the DC movies had me wait for Netflix to have BVS and SS, and I was glad I didn't watch them on the big screen. That being said, I still gave Wonder Woman a chance because she was the best part in BVS to me. I enjoyed that movie very much.
So I don't go see a movie because of who makes it, I am just more likely to go see a studio that makes a fun movie for me to see. After taking care of drug addicts in the hospital, I just want to see a hero up on the screen protecting people, to get that feeling of discovery and exhilaration I had as a kid. I can get reality by going to work.
[QUOTE=phonogram12;2908019]For the record, I certainly don't think Marvel can do no wrong. IM2, IM3, Age of Ultron, and Thor Dark World are proof positive that they can indeed do plenty wrong. That said, even Marvel's worst movies are better than most of the other superhero franchises best (notable exceptions, of course, include WW, Logan, and Days of Future Past. Those were at least as good as IM and Dr. Strange).[/QUOTE]
Agreed. Honestly apart from Winter Soldier, I've found Marvel's sequels to be less enjoyable than the originals. GotG 2 was okay but the first movie was still more fun for me.
[QUOTE=TooFlyToFail;2907938]Kind of a pointless post. No one said that the MCU doesn't make good movies. People arguing against the MCU here are complaining the mostly vanilla flavor they put into the movies, or how the MCU gets away without explaining certain obvious things, but others do not get away with the same thing, or for trying new things.
The MCU doesn't explain why major plot points, like Stark retiring at the end of IM3, or Thor being able to hot to other world's without the rainbow bridge, being dropped like they didn't happen, but the DCEU gets crap for John Kent struggling on how to raise his son to be a good man, but also keep him safe from those that won't understand him, or that Batman has seen his mission as futile for 20+ years, and that's put him a dark place.
At least that's my issue.[/QUOTE]
Tony Stark doesn't retire at the end of IM3. If you actually paid attention he says "One thing you can't take away, I am Iron Man" Basically saying without him physically in the suits Iron Man doesn't exist also that whether he is in the suit or out, he himself is Iron Man.
I dont understand where people assume that is him retiring.
And as for Thor returning to Earth, Loki asks him how much energy Odin had to conjure to send him here in the movie.
If there was any more exposition, people would complain about too much exposition.
Complain that Marvel movies are too dumbed down for hardcore audiences yet here I am explaining simple things.
I don't think anyone has said Marvel can do no wrong (I'd love to see actual cases of people stating this).
It's just that they've been very successful at setting up a well regarded interconnected cinematic universe that the likes of WB and other studios are scrambling to imitate. It also helps that Marvel hasn't put out utter rubbish that was critically panned like BvS or X-men Origins or the recent Fantastic Four movie. Marvel knows to connect with the audience and they've been very successful doing so.
People like what they like, if majority of critics and fans love Marvel movies then it simply means that Marvel is doing something right. If a vocal minority of people on the internet don't like the movies then so be it, we can't all like the same things. It's for the other studios to make good movies (which WB have recently gotten right) instead of us questioning other people's tastes. It's also for us as fans to celebrate what we enjoy instead of getting miffed at what other people like.
[QUOTE=Punjabi_Hitman;2907806]On one side you keep saying the characters should be like their comic book counterparts, yet will defend BvS for its character assassination. So which is it?[/QUOTE]
character assassination? If you are implying they ruined the characters no they didn't IMO. Batman was very similar to Miller Batman being old and broken. He was just fed up with crime but went through an arc where he realized he had become a villain himself. With Superman he is just trying to find his purpose and figure out if he is truly doing the right thing
What I said was keep certain elements and themes but give a little creative liberties. With BvS yes it changed TDKR and Death of Superman in ways that fit the story. Honestly Superman's death meant more here his he finally gained Earth's trust after they turned against him
[QUOTE=WebLurker;2907808]I think that's a fair point and I do understand that. But what if the changed version is good on its own terms? What then?[/QUOTE]
well I'd view it on its own terms. I only mentioned adaptations because people complain about other movies changing too much but is fine with Marvel changes
With GotG if it was a completely original property my opinion would stay the same. The characters are likable enough albeit flat, the plot was simple and streamline and action pretty good. With your Deadpool example he is okay. If he was called anything else and maybe not played by Ryan Reynolds I don't think anyone would care. But again an adaptation to a lot of people should have key aspects of characters and plagues every movie. In LotR people were disappointed they cut Tom Bombadil, in Harry Potter they cut Neville also being the chosen one with Harry, I mean the Shining was panned at first BECAUSE it was too different from the book. That is just how people think when it comes to adaptation. Why slap the name of another work of art when it has nothing to do with it? Sometimes it just comes off as trying to appeal to the people who liked said source material but then back fires when they change things
Again I don't compare it to the comics but I also do kinda expect some semblance to the source material because it is an adaption
[QUOTE=Dboi2001;2908319]well I'd view it on its own terms. I only mentioned adaptations because people complain about other movies changing too much but is fine with Marvel changes
With GotG if it was a completely original property my opinion would stay the same. The characters are likable enough albeit flat, the plot was simple and streamline and action pretty good. With your Deadpool example he is okay. If he was called anything else and maybe not played by Ryan Reynolds I don't think anyone would care. But again an adaptation to a lot of people should have key aspects of characters and plagues every movie. In LotR people were disappointed they cut Tom Bombadil, in Harry Potter they cut Neville also being the chosen one with Harry, I mean the Shining was panned at first BECAUSE it was too different from the book. That is just how people think when it comes to adaptation. Why slap the name of another work of art when it has nothing to do with it? Sometimes it just comes off as trying to appeal to the people who liked said source material but then back fires when they change things
Again I don't compare it to the comics but I also do kinda expect some semblance to the source material because it is an adaption[/QUOTE]
Interesting thoughts.
Of course, you do get stuff like [I]Big Hero 6[/I] where it's nothing like the source material and those who read it generally think its a good thing. Or [I]How to Train Your Dragon[/I], where the books and movies are different but people seem to like both.
[QUOTE=ZoomZolomonZoom;2908046]It's not that Marvel Studios can do no wrong (looking at you Iron Man 2, The Incredible Hulk, Thor: The Dark World) it's just that most of time they do make very high quality and interesting CBMs. Kevin Feige and them have created a cultural phenomenon and a vast universe that almost in some ways does things better than the comics ever could. With a solid continuity, great characters, and even though the villains have been lousy it's turning around now. Loki, Zemo & Ego were pretty good and Thanos looks incredible.
Honestly, I just really love Cinematic Shared Universes. The DCEU, Foxverse, the Arrowverse and Marvel Television are all excellent too and I hope they all keep adapting my favorite comic book characters for a long time.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry but Zemo SUCKED. He is no different from Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver one movie earlier. Also I don't get what is so special about Loki. He is evil because he isn't appreciated enough. Literally just Electro from ASM2 remember that gem?
I also don't get what is so special about MCU universe. Like besides a few easter eggs what makes these movies NEED to be connected? They just don't feel like they have any substance to the over all story. Hell sometimes the characters act completely different from other movies. Thor is a complete goof ball in Thor movies yet in Avengers he seems to understand earth pretty well and more serious. Iron Man understands that he isn't just a suit in Iron Man 3 yet never seems like he learned that in AoU. Iron Man doesn't seem like he lost his best friend. Hell Shield being corrupted and Widow's past leaked has literally no effect on the story. I do appreciate they seem to go that route more with CW and Spider-man Homecoming add more continuity to the story and characters themselves. They feel like cheeky easter eggs but nothing of substance
Say what you want about DC their movies have amazing continuity that effects the story and characters. Even Wonder Woman has great continuity with the others like why no one knew about her in BvS but it is more subtle yet obvious at the same time but it's that everyone who saw her in action was wiped out in the village because of the gas. Even Marvel has plenty of inconsistencies like how Thanos got the Infinity Gauntlet when it was in Thor TDW or how Stark says Howard always talked about Cap yet acts like he never knew him until Avengers
[QUOTE=WebLurker;2908322]Interesting thoughts.
Of course, you do get stuff like [I]Big Hero 6[/I] where it's nothing like the source material and those who read it generally think its a good thing. Or [I]How to Train Your Dragon[/I], where the books and movies are different but people seem to like both.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but I think part of it is more because they don't try to be like the source material which isn't innately bad. You can't fail where you haven't tried
With Big Hero 6 the superhero theme is more second handed to the family drama aspect which Pixar is known for and Dragon it being a more serious take on an insane children book. I guess you could say they were more 'Pixar' and 'Dreamworks' than adaption
With Deadpool in X Men Origins they hint at him being the ideal Deadpool from his witty dialogue and even cheeky fourth wall breaking moments and casting Ryan Reynolds for the character who everyone agrees is the only one to play Deadpool. They tried to make him Deadpool esque even after his transformation they kept the black around the eyes and red motif. Again had they used any other character or made him an original character no one would care. I mean people actually LIKED the changes to Sabertooth making him Logan's brother and Liv Schieber despite being very different from the comics
[QUOTE=Dboi2001;2908311]character assassination? If you are implying they ruined the characters no they didn't IMO. Batman was very similar to Miller Batman being old and broken. He was just fed up with crime but went through an arc where he realized he had become a villain himself. With Superman he is just trying to find his purpose and figure out if he is truly doing the right thing
What I said was keep certain elements and themes but give a little creative liberties. With BvS yes it changed TDKR and Death of Superman in ways that fit the story. Honestly Superman's death meant more here his he finally gained Earth's trust after they turned against him[/QUOTE]
How do you explain Lex Luthor, Pa Kent, Jimmy Olsen?
And the character portrayal in GoTG fit the type of movie they were making, a comedic space opera.
You're consistantly making hypocritical statements in order to push the agenda that your opinion is superior and people who enjoy the MCU are idiots.
Simple as that.
Dboi2001 :
[QUOTE]I would make my own Guardians if I had the rights and money [/QUOTE]
You don't need them. Show Your superior script and convince other people that Your version is better.
[QUOTE]Guardians 2 only made so much money because of the success of the first one. It is losing a lot more steam compared to the first one[/QUOTE]
maybe but we will see
losing steam?
Avengers 2? Apo? that's how You are losing steam (less money, weaker reviews, lower popularity ratings).
[QUOTE] In LotR people were disappointed they cut Tom Bombadil, in Harry Potter they cut Neville[/QUOTE]
and? Fox destroyed both Cyclops and Rogue who are much more important.
[QUOTE]I also don't get what is so special about MCU universe. Like besides a few easter eggs what makes these movies NEED to be connected? They just don't feel like they have any substance to the over all story. [/QUOTE]
for me? MCU has more substance because i care more about characters while Fox is focusing on independent stories. Mantis did more in Gotg2 than Rogue in 4 movies.
[QUOTE]Hell sometimes the characters act completely different from other movies. Thor is a complete goof ball in Thor movies yet in Avengers he seems to understand earth pretty well and more serious. Iron Man understands that he isn't just a suit in Iron Man 3 yet never seems like he learned that in AoU. Iron Man doesn't seem like he lost his best friend. Hell Shield being corrupted and Widow's past leaked has literally no effect on the story. I do appreciate they seem to go that route more with CW and Spider-man Homecoming add more continuity to the story and characters themselves. They feel like cheeky easter eggs but nothing of substance [/QUOTE]
yes but so what? Marvel is making mistakes but lesser than competition.
[QUOTE=Dboi2001;2908342]Yeah but I think part of it is more because they don't try to be like the source material which isn't innately bad. You can't fail where you haven't tried
With Big Hero 6 the superhero theme is more second handed to the family drama aspect which Pixar is known for and Dragon it being a more serious take on an insane children book. I guess you could say they were more 'Pixar' and 'Dreamworks' than adaption
With Deadpool in X Men Origins they hint at him being the ideal Deadpool from his witty dialogue and even cheeky fourth wall breaking moments and casting Ryan Reynolds for the character who everyone agrees is the only one to play Deadpool. They tried to make him Deadpool esque even after his transformation they kept the black around the eyes and red motif. Again had they used any other character or made him an original character no one would care. I mean people actually LIKED the changes to Sabertooth making him Logan's brother and Liv Schieber despite being very different from the comics[/QUOTE]
Okay.
10char
[QUOTE=Dboi2001;2908329]I'm sorry but Zemo SUCKED. He is no different from Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver one movie earlier. Also I don't get what is so special about Loki. He is evil because he isn't appreciated enough. Literally just Electro from ASM2 remember that gem?
I also don't get what is so special about MCU universe. Like besides a few easter eggs what makes these movies NEED to be connected? They just don't feel like they have any substance to the over all story. Hell sometimes the characters act completely different from other movies. Thor is a complete goof ball in Thor movies yet in Avengers he seems to understand earth pretty well and more serious. Iron Man understands that he isn't just a suit in Iron Man 3 yet never seems like he learned that in AoU. Iron Man doesn't seem like he lost his best friend. Hell Shield being corrupted and Widow's past leaked has literally no effect on the story. I do appreciate they seem to go that route more with CW and Spider-man Homecoming add more continuity to the story and characters themselves. They feel like cheeky easter eggs but nothing of substance
Say what you want about DC their movies have amazing continuity that effects the story and characters. Even Wonder Woman has great continuity with the others like why no one knew about her in BvS but it is more subtle yet obvious at the same time but it's that everyone who saw her in action was wiped out in the village because of the gas. Even Marvel has plenty of inconsistencies like how Thanos got the Infinity Gauntlet when it was in Thor TDW or how Stark says Howard always talked about Cap yet acts like he never knew him until Avengers[/QUOTE]
Zemo was a classic example of why regulation was needed for The Avengers. He was a (seemingly) normal guy who got screwed over by the heroes reckless ass-kicking. A completely relatable motivation. In the end he also ended up successfully destroying The Avengers not through brute force but instead clever means. He was definitely compelling. Loki was constantly rejected by his father in favor of Thor, a man he strongly believed didn't deserve that affection but only got it just because he was Odin's true born. His entire goals are about finding a place to belong because he's was always an outsider looking in. Pay attention to what's established in the movies, he's a great villain.
Plenty of things have had long term consequences. S.H.I.E.L.D.'s fall, the Sokovia Accords, Ultron, etc. All of your criticisms just sound like biased nitpicking to me and only looking at a few open ended plot points that don't ruin the experience in any way. Neither do the small inconsistencies you brought up, if those small things bother you I kind of wonder how you enjoy [I]any[/I] movies at all. It just sounds like you have a clear bias towards the DCEU and against the MCU. Shame, both are great and benefit from the existence of each other. Ah well.