Why do some people think Marvel Studios can do no wrong?

[QUOTE=ZoomZolomonZoom;2909275]What would you rather MCU fans do? Just not answer the OP's question at all? Defending something you're passionate about, especially if you think the criticism against it is invalid or exaggerated is absolutely not proof [I]Marvel can do no wrong[/I]. It's proof people love this brand and dislike seeing it criticized. You don't mind when people bash the things you like, that's great. More power to you, not everyone is like that though. When BvS or MoS get unfairly criticized people defend it and rightfully so because seeing misinformation spread about projects you enjoyed is naturally frustrating. [B]When I see people doing that to the MCU claiming that because of a few continuity errors it's a terrible universe and all of it's fans are easily appeased idiots, I'll step in. I really have a hard time believing if something you loved was talked about like that you would not incentive to defend it what so ever[/B].[/QUOTE]

To me, it just depends on the validity of the reason they don't like whatever it is I like. If it's a valid point, then I'm cool with it. In some other franchises, I feel the easily "appeased" fans thing rings true though. The same kind of fans that like to "turn off their brain" when watching something.

[QUOTE=ZoomZolomonZoom;2909275]What would you rather MCU fans do? Just not answer the OP's question at all? Defending something you're passionate about, especially if you think the criticism against it is invalid or exaggerated is absolutely not proof [I]Marvel can do no wrong[/I]. It's proof people love this brand and dislike seeing it criticized. You don't mind when people bash the things you like, that's great. More power to you, not everyone is like that though. When BvS or MoS get unfairly criticized people defend it and rightfully so because seeing misinformation spread about projects you enjoyed is naturally frustrating. When I see people doing that to the MCU claiming that because of a few continuity errors it's a terrible universe and all of it's fans are easily appeased idiots, I'll step in. I really have a hard time believing if something you loved was talked about like that you would not incentive to defend it what so ever.[/QUOTE]

i reiterate.

these are not "errors." No one should be penalized or criticized for not meeting a bar they were never trying to reach. no one is trying to simply recreate the comics in movie form. that was never promised and never attempted. So any "fan" who's unhappy with the differences between 616 and the MCU is juggling baggage they brought in with them.

There are THREE, soon to be four, iterations of HELLBOY- comics, animation, movies. None of them is a one-to-one match for the others but all of them are HELLBOY. When 6 foot 2 inch Hugh Jackman was cast as Wolverine (because the much shorter Dougray Scott was out) "fans" whined like the world was ending. But Jackman's Wolverine is basically the guy we met in the comics in terms of character, ability and place in the narrative so all that whining was just entitled BS. Same with Gal Godot being "too skinny" to be Wonder Woman. Whine, whine, whine. Ignore, ignore, ignore.

Movies are not comic books. They are not trying to be comic books. Therefore, when they fail to be comic books they haven't actually failed.

[QUOTE=Redjack;2909450]i reiterate.

these are not "errors." No one should be penalized or criticized for not meeting a bar they were never trying to reach. no one is trying to simply recreate the comics in movie form. that was never promised and never attempted. So any "fan" who's unhappy with the differences between 616 and the MCU is juggling baggage they brought in with them.

There are THREE, soon to be four, iterations of HELLBOY- comics, animation, movies. None of them is a one-to-one match for the others but all of them are HELLBOY. When 6 foot 2 inch Hugh Jackman was cast as Wolverine (because the much shorter Dougray Scott was out) "fans" whined like the world was ending. But Jackman's Wolverine is basically the guy we met in the comics in terms of character, ability and place in the narrative so all that whining was just entitled BS. [B]Same with Gal Godot being "too skinny" to be Wonder Woman. Whine, whine, whine. Ignore, ignore, ignore.[/B]

Movies are not comic books. They are not trying to be comic books. Therefore, when they fail to be comic books they haven't actually failed.[/QUOTE]

In Gal's defense, she put on some good muscle to play that role and had to eat a lot of calories. She was skinny as **** when she was on Fast and Furious though. I'd think most people admire her commitment to looking the part.

[QUOTE=Bukdiah;2909456]In Gal's defense, she put on some good muscle to play that role and had to eat a lot of calories. She was skinny as **** when she was on Fast and Furious though. I'd think most people admire her commitment to looking the part.[/QUOTE]

my point is she doesn't need defending. muscled up or not. if her BMI is a deal breaker for "fans" they have their option to not see the movie.

[QUOTE=TooFlyToFail;2908630]
Speaking of Hawkeye, what changed between CW and AoU to make him so anti-government? Sure, there was WS, but he had no qualms being an assassin for a corrupt government before. Not to mention, this was a fellow Avenger that was backing the Accords. I can see him potentially disagreeing with Stark, but enough to get involved, and to demonize Stark, when he's a former government attack dog? Really?[/QUOTE]

I agree with some of the idea that MCU movies are often too unwilling to go below the surface of the issues they raise. This was a problem with [i]Avengers: Age of Ultron[/i]. Stark creates a murderbot that almost wipes out the world; Banner almost wipes out a city; Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch want to kill the Avengers for things they didn't do; yet the movie is mostly a light quippy adventure with few moments of real darkness. If you're going to have your characters do such terrible things, you should probably dig deeper into it, or else, you know, don't have them do such things.

But I don't have the same feeling about how characters behave from movie to movie. I accept that there will be some inconsistencies, especially when different writing and directing teams take over. Like different runs on a comic book, they're in the same continuity but I don't think they have to maintain the illusion that they're all the same story. So yeah, many of the characters acted differently in AoU than they'd acted under other people and then [I][/I]Civil War had them act differently again, but as long as they're not wildly out of character I accept that as the price of a shared universe.

[QUOTE=Redjack;2909474]my point is she doesn't need defending. muscled up or not. if her BMI is a deal breaker for "fans" they have their option to not see the movie.[/QUOTE]

I mean, don't you wanna see the actors at least look the part of the character they are portraying? Batman has always been notoriously hard to cast because of his chin and always caught a ton of crap for it since the 1989 movie. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but you can't blame fans for wanting to see their character come to life on the big screen, right? If you're gonna adapt something, mind as well honor your source material, otherwise what is the point?

[QUOTE=gurkle;2909511]I agree with some of the idea that MCU movies are often too unwilling to go below the surface of the issues they raise. This was a problem with [i]Avengers: Age of Ultron[/i]. Stark creates a murderbot that almost wipes out the world; Banner almost wipes out a city; Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch want to kill the Avengers for things they didn't do; yet the movie is mostly a light quippy adventure with few moments of real darkness. If you're going to have your characters do such terrible things, you should probably dig deeper into it, or else, you know, don't have them do such things.

But I don't have the same feeling about how characters behave from movie to movie. I accept that there will be some inconsistencies, especially when different writing and directing teams take over. Like different runs on a comic book, they're in the same continuity but I don't think they have to maintain the illusion that they're all the same story. So yeah, many of the characters acted differently in AoU than they'd acted under other people and then [I][/I]Civil War had them act differently again, but as long as they're not wildly out of character I accept that as the price of a shared universe.[/QUOTE]

Seems pretty par for the course. How many times have the Avengers welcomed members fresh off attacking them?

To the larger argument, are we really complaining about people discussing comic book movies on a comic book website? People care about it, they want to talk about it and even dissect it. Doesn't make it a big deal or a problem, its just something that interest or fails to interest others. Such a holier than thou attitude.

[QUOTE=marvelprince;2909555]Seems pretty par for the course. How many times have the Avengers welcomed members fresh off attacking them?

To the larger argument, are we really complaining about people discussing comic book movies on a comic book website? People care about it, they want to talk about it and even dissect it. Doesn't make it a big deal or a problem, its just something that interest or fails to interest others. Such a holier than thou attitude.[/QUOTE]

I'd don't how it's a holier than thou thing. The MCU plays like episodes in an ongoing series, with each phase being akin to a season. In a season of a show, you don't expect the main characters to change too much from episode to episode, or at all, really. That's not bad to expect.

However, I do get your point about how characters are constantly tweaked whenever a new author comes on board. Still, the points I mentioned about Scott and Clint are very important aspects of their characterization.

[QUOTE=Bukdiah;2909523]I mean, don't you wanna see the actors at least look the part of the character they are portraying? Batman has always been notoriously hard to cast because of his chin and always caught a ton of crap for it since the 1989 movie. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but you can't blame fans for wanting to see their character come to life on the big screen, right? If you're gonna adapt something, mind as well honor your source material, otherwise what is the point?[/QUOTE]

A slavish approach to conforming to the visual component of comics is not something anyone who makes movies or TV can or will ever concern themselves with. Nor should they.

And no actor, ever, was cast or not cast because they didn't have the "Batman chin." If they made to the audition, the screen test stage, their chins were not factors. Hollywood doesn't work like that. Never happened. That is a fan delusion.

The truth is these properties have existed, for decades, nearly a century in some cases, and they've gone through multiple iterations over that time. in some cases this has resulted in an evolution of character but, more often, it's simply created a patchwork of approaches that only loosely conform to one another. Frank Miller's DAREDEVIL bears zero resemblance to previous iterations of the character. Original Batman wore purple gloves, carried guns and routinely shot (killed?) his opponents. 1950s and 1960s batman, not so much. Which is the "true" Batman, the original or the evolution? And who decides that? Random collections of fans? Nope.

The filmed versions of these products can never adequately satisfy "Core fan" desires because 1) there's no such thing as a core fan. 2) there are so many versions of what makes the "right" iteration of the character that attempting to satisfy all or even most of them is a fools gambit. NO ONE tries to do that, ever.

Because it's impossible. What the GOOD creators of this material do is try to suss out the most prominent themes of the books in question and the most prominent character traits of the characters, those that define them over the years most consistently. Does Wolverine NEED to be 5 feet tall or shorter? Turns out he absolutely doesn't. Not in the movies. And that doesn't constitute an error or a failure.

it's a different medium and the rules, such as they are, are different.

[QUOTE=Punjabi_Hitman;2908356]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.[/QUOTE]

Luthor was a throw back to the classic mad scientist Luthor just updated. Pa Kent was a great and realistic father figure to Clark. Yeah he doesn't know everything but he was a but he's only human and simply looks out for his son's safety. What about Jimmy Olsen? He has died in comics before even then we don't know if that CIA agent real name is Jimmy Olsen. At least he wasn't Supergirl'd

So? Doesn't change the fact they don't care about the source material at all

Now you're just projecting

[QUOTE=ZoomZolomonZoom;2908398]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.[/QUOTE]

So? Zemo's character is totally one note and bland not to mention how convenient his plan is. Not to mention why does he blame all the Avengers? He could've been good but just came off as a lazy rehash of Wanda and Pietro from AoU. Again Loki is just Electro he wants apprecaition

Yeah only NOW. Also how does Shield's fall effect anything? I mean Ross says they need to be regulated by the government but doesn't mention Shield or how the military almost bombed New York? The Accords could be interesting but we won't see them in action because the movies falling CW won't be affected by them. You're ignoring the other films consequences. I'm not biased to DC I don't care for brand wars they're just two different film franchises to me and nothing else. I just personally think that one franchise is doing a better job with interconnected films that effect the over arcing narrative than the other one

The same reason Chocolate or Vanilla is not always the right answer.

[QUOTE=Dboi2001;2909752]Yeah only NOW. Also how does Shield's fall effect anything? I mean Ross says they need to be regulated by the government but doesn't mention Shield or how the military almost bombed New York?[/QUOTE]Ok, not for nothing but SHIELD wasn't a US specific agency in the films (centric but not specific) and given who some of the people who ordered the nuke strike happened to be HYDRA agents, you have to wonder if Ross even knows about that let alone who was responsible. Remember, it wasn't a USAF F-35 firing the missile, it was a SHIELD Quinjet.

[QUOTE=davew128;2909804]Ok, not for nothing but SHIELD wasn't a US specific agency in the films (centric but not specific) and given who some of the people who ordered the nuke strike happened to be HYDRA agents, you have to wonder if Ross even knows about that let alone who was responsible. Remember, it wasn't a USAF F-35 firing the missile, it was a SHIELD Quinjet.[/QUOTE]

okay well regardless Avengers were under government surveillance and no one brought that up

[QUOTE=Dboi2001;2909869]okay well regardless Avengers were under government surveillance and no one brought that up[/QUOTE]

The Avengers weren't actually under government surveillance. They took the Quinjet in Avengers without permission/orders In fact, at the end of the film, the World Security Council (and Maria Hill) bring up the fact that the Avengers are out there on there own.