Anyone Else now an Anti shared Universe person

[AJBopp]

. Ragnarok was made better by the HULK appearance.

Can't disagree with you more. Shoehorning Planet Hulk into a movie it had nothing to do with was a distraction and a way to pad a criminally underdeveloped story, the destruction of Asgard. It cheapened the entire experience and trivialized the main plot.

Didn't do Planet Hulk any favors either.

[Carabas]

Can't disagree with you more. Shoehorning Planet Hulk into a movie it had nothing to do with was a distraction and a way to pad a criminally underdeveloped story, the destruction of Asgard. It cheapened the entire experience and trivialized the main plot.

Didn't do Planet Hulk any favors either.

It shoehorned Hulks Green Scar outfit and the name of a Planet Hulk character (but not the actual character) into Ragnarok.

Which I feel reasonable if you already know that because of Universal you're not making Planet Hulk or any other solo Hulk story in a million years anyway.

It likely would still be a Thor/Hulk buddy movie even if Planet Hulk had never been written.

[AJBopp]

It shoehorned Hulks Green Scar outfit and the name of a Planet Hulk character (but not the actual character) into Ragnarok.

Which I feel reasonable if you already know that because of Universal you're not making Planet Hulk or any other solo Hulk story in a million years anyway.

It likely would still be a Thor/Hulk buddy movie even if Planet Hulk had never been written.

I wouldn't mind a buddy movie so much if half the story had relevance to the other half. This was just a way to make the movie long enough to put in theaters

[Amadeus Arkham]

I’m anti-shared universe for things that have no business being a shared universe though I do like the DCEU films but I do wonder if DC characters aren’t that interesting together as they are apart. For myself, I really couldn’t care less for interconnectivity as long as the movie is good or works for me. I don’t find the shared universe model to be intrinsically bad or good but the problem arrives when you compromise the creative merits of your movie in order to service the broader universe.

Let’s take for example the Mummy which was attempting to start a cinematic universe in the same way Iron Man was and look at that film compared to Tony Stark’s first adventure and you easily see the endless studio notes mandated and you see the see where the filmmakers failed — they were too preoccupied about setting up universe they forgot to tell a good story first.

In comparison, when Feige and Favareu did Iron Man they didn’t really have in mind that that movie was going to jumpstart a cinematic universe that even after a decade was still running strong. In their minds, they just wanted to make a movie that would work on all cylinders(i.e, get good reviews, get audience reception and more importantly make money). They weren’t really considered about starting their universe, they were simply concerned about how do you start a great Iron Man film. Yes, they put the Samuel Jackson stinger at the end but that was late in the development process after the film had already finished filming.

Robert Meyer Burnett said it best” Don’t put your universe before your characters”. What he means is don’t prioritize the bigger picture over the smaller picture because the smaller picture still matters and if you don’t get that right then how the heck can you take the bigger picture? The Marvel movies in phase one sans Iron Man 2 (while clearly there was some set-up for the wider universe) still attempted to tell stories about the characters first and foremost and service the universe second.

[Cyke]

Let’s take for example the Mummy which was attempting to start a cinematic universe in the same way Iron Man was and look at that film compared to Tony Stark’s first adventure and you easily see the endless studio notes mandated and you see the see where the filmmakers failed — they were too preoccupied about setting up universe they forgot to tell a good story first.

The Mummy wasn't without precedence, though. No doubt the modern idea for the Mummy and that cinematic universe was to be a cash grab, but it was also inspired by the crossover movies of Universal monsters back in the 40s and 50s (for example, Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman, and House of Dracula -- which was a crossover between Frankenstein, Wolfman, and Dracula -- and all those films were done the exact same way as the MCU -- solo movies first, then crossover sequels later). And it wouldn't be the first time Universal would even reboot the idea -- Monster Squad was both a TV show and a movie (unrelated to each other) which saw their monsters form a villainous team.

So, while the execution last year was terrible, Universal had actually been doing cinematic crossovers and universes decades before the MCU came about.

In comparison, when Feige and Favareu did Iron Man they didn’t really have in mind that that movie was going to jumpstart a cinematic universe that even after a decade was still running strong. In their minds, they just wanted to make a movie that would work on all cylinders(i.e, get good reviews, get audience reception and more importantly make money). They weren’t really considered about starting their universe, they were simply concerned about how do you start a great Iron Man film. Yes, they put the Samuel Jackson stinger at the end but that was late in the development process after the film had already finished filming.

Not quite, no. In 2005, Feige convinced Marvel that they could do a cinematic universe from the start in order to capitalize on the fact that, unlike Spider-Man and the X-Men, they didn't share movie rights with the core Avengers, and the remaining Avengers could be negotiated. But it was such a risky gamble that Feige's boss Avi Arad was vehemently against the idea of having a series of solo films that culminate into a grand crossover and resigned in protest of this strategy in 2006. Marvel, in turn, had to negotiate a line of revolving credit with Merril Lynch in $525 million (which was the cost of several MCU movies back then, way more than 1 film) to start the modern incarnation of Marvel Studios that same year to handle this task. So no, they had every intention of using Iron Man to jumpstart the Cinematic Universe. Indeed, even before the Iron Man script was finished in 2007, Marvel Studios created a committee (including Feige, Quesada, and Bendis, and overseen by Marvel Pres. Alan Fine) to guide the creation, timeline, and maintenance of the MCU and allowing them to lay down the foundation of the MCU within the fabric of the movie, not just the after credits trailer (indeed, there are references, hints, and foreshadows abound throughout the film about the greater universe).

But that's also not to say that they couldn't focus on making Iron Man good. At the time, Marvel Studios could only focus on one project at a time given their age and lack of resources, giving Iron Man the attention it needed to become a success. At the time, Marvel Studios was a fledgling independent studio which had to prove itself in order to stay afloat. Feige, Favreau, and the other committee multitasked, but multitasking doesn't necessarily mean one suffers for the other. It means they can prioritize, which shows clearly in their work. Plus, Marvel as a publisher had the resources to allow Feige and Favreau to focus on the movie while the committee conceives the MCU, and Feige -- as studio head -- had the power to convene the committee (incl. the Marvel Pres) with Favreau and the production team in order to incorporate finalized ideas before filming started.

For reference, keep in mind that Arad left Marvel in 2006. Also, here's an article from the NYT in 2007: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/18/b.../18marvel.html

Both of those predate Iron Man, and it's public record that Marvel planned to have an MCU from the start. The creation of the Marvel Studios, the game plan to convince banks to give them credit, the behind the scenes drama, the committee, and the pre-Iron Man hollywood articles all show that Feige and Favreau didn't *just* focus on Iron Man, but launching a cinematic universe and making sure a studio delivers a good product are not two mutually exclusive things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_Cinematic_Universe <-- plus the resource links down at the bottom of the page. Be sure to check out any of the countless youtube videos of interviews by Feige and other Marvel honchos at comic cons over the years.

[Carabas]

I wouldn't mind a buddy movie so much if half the story had relevance to the other half. This was just a way to make the movie long enough to put in theaters

I'm thinking more that Waititi got told "make a movie that explains why Thor and the Hulk weren't in Civil War. Go nuts".

[Raijin]

I'm definitely anti shared universe, especially involving superhero movies. I'm just burned out on the idea. Die hard fans of these things are disgusting with their constant pissing contests, trying to prove their side is more superior than the other. After Aquaman and Venom. I think I'm done with films of that nature. I want to start watching and studying movies that actually have something to say or contribute other than stupid quips and lame fight sequences.

[Marvelgirl]

Mystique not being a X-Men leader alone will make MCU X-Men movies 10000% better. Cyclops storylines and role handed over to give Wolverine more screentime will make the new movies FAR more superior.

Just because they will be integrated does not mean they cant be self contained like the best Xmen stories are. I want the Xmen handling their own business. I don't want Tony Stark flying in to "save them" or upgrade their technology etc. And that can be done in a shared Universe. They have their own geniuses, they have their own funding there is no reason they cant be done far better than Fox's largely trash takes.

Mystique was only the leader in one movie that I found quite shitty. X-Men Apocalypse. The argument is blown, Wolverine and Xavier have been mostly the leaders in the films.

Usually I like to just ask myself in reverse, Would MCU make X-Men movies like the best we had? If they made DOFP would it be as compelling as the movie we saw or more like Infinity War , Age of Ultron, Thor Ragnorak or any other movie that has been done from a single piece story by the MCU. If they made Logan would it be like the Logan film, or Ant-Man, if they made Deadpool would it be Deadpool or GOTG?

The X-Men movies are the only marvel movies that I can call arguably better than the DC TDK trilogy, when you cherry pick from the crop of their 11 films. MCU movies are not close to that house. Their movies are fun and that is it for the MCU. X-Men is so much more than that.

I say this as a lifelong marvel fan who finally admitted what was always right in my face. MCU have become the weakest aspect of the Marvels. When I look back now, the beauty of Spider-Man 2 and X-Men 2 taking place in a not shared universe made their movies much better than most and if not all the MCU movies.

[Marvelgirl]

I’m anti-shared universe for things that have no business being a shared universe though I do like the DCEU films but I do wonder if DC characters aren’t that interesting together as they are apart. For myself, I really couldn’t care less for interconnectivity as long as the movie is good or works for me. I don’t find the shared universe model to be intrinsically bad or good but the problem arrives when you compromise the creative merits of your movie in order to service the broader universe.

Let’s take for example the Mummy which was attempting to start a cinematic universe in the same way Iron Man was and look at that film compared to Tony Stark’s first adventure and you easily see the endless studio notes mandated and you see the see where the filmmakers failed — they were too preoccupied about setting up universe they forgot to tell a good story first.

In comparison, when Feige and Favareu did Iron Man they didn’t really have in mind that that movie was going to jumpstart a cinematic universe that even after a decade was still running strong. In their minds, they just wanted to make a movie that would work on all cylinders(i.e, get good reviews, get audience reception and more importantly make money). They weren’t really considered about starting their universe, they were simply concerned about how do you start a great Iron Man film. Yes, they put the Samuel Jackson stinger at the end but that was late in the development process after the film had already finished filming.

Robert Meyer Burnett said it best” Don’t put your universe before your characters”. What he means is don’t prioritize the bigger picture over the smaller picture because the smaller picture still matters and if you don’t get that right then how the heck can you take the bigger picture? The Marvel movies in phase one sans Iron Man 2 (while clearly there was some set-up for the wider universe) still attempted to tell stories about the characters first and foremost and service the universe second.

I'm definitely anti shared universe, especially involving superhero movies. I'm just burned out on the idea. Die hard fans of these things are disgusting with their constant pissing contests, trying to prove their side is more superior than the other. After Aquaman and Venom. I think I'm done with films of that nature. I want to start watching and studying movies that actually have something to say or contribute other than stupid quips and lame fight sequences.

It is a burned idea. Like everything in Hollywood it gets worn out. splitting a book into two movies, converting 2d movies to 3d movies. The superhero films in shared universes have gotten worse. if you remove all the visual effects and interconnectivity financial appeal, there is nothing to these movies anymore. Spiderman 1 and Spider-Man 2 were such a beautiful tale of a young man who becomes this amazing character and person, I will say so without all the web swinging and earth shattering train stopping. I can't say that about superhero movies today in shared universes.
Same can be said about Batman from the TDK movies and Wolverine in X-Men movies. Beautiful tales of men who just happen to be superheroes. I cannot sit through Iron man chatting with Starlord. it is just not unique to me, just looks like more jackpot press button for studios to make more money, while what should be the quality aspect of the movie lags behind like a good story first as Amadeus Arkham did point out.

[Amadeus Arkham]

Not quite, no. In 2005, Feige convinced Marvel that they could do a cinematic universe from the start in order to capitalize on the fact that, unlike Spider-Man and the X-Men, they didn't share movie rights with the core Avengers, and the remaining Avengers could be negotiated. But it was such a risky gamble that Feige's boss Avi Arad was vehemently against the idea of having a series of solo films that culminate into a grand crossover and resigned in protest of this strategy in 2006. Marvel, in turn, had to negotiate a line of revolving credit with Merril Lynch in $525 million (which was the cost of several MCU movies back then, way more than 1 film) to start the modern incarnation of Marvel Studios that same year to handle this task. So no, they had every intention of using Iron Man to jumpstart the Cinematic Universe. Indeed, even before the Iron Man script was finished in 2007, Marvel Studios created a committee (including Feige, Quesada, and Bendis, and overseen by Marvel Pres. Alan Fine) to guide the creation, timeline, and maintenance of the MCU and allowing them to lay down the foundation of the MCU within the fabric of the movie, not just the after credits trailer (indeed, there are references, hints, and foreshadows abound throughout the film about the greater universe).

But that's also not to say that they couldn't focus on making Iron Man good. At the time, Marvel Studios could only focus on one project at a time given their age and lack of resources, giving Iron Man the attention it needed to become a success. At the time, Marvel Studios was a fledgling independent studio which had to prove itself in order to stay afloat. Feige, Favreau, and the other committee multitasked, but multitasking doesn't necessarily mean one suffers for the other. It means they can prioritize, which shows clearly in their work. Plus, Marvel as a publisher had the resources to allow Feige and Favreau to focus on the movie while the committee conceives the MCU, and Feige -- as studio head -- had the power to convene the committee (incl. the Marvel Pres) with Favreau and the production team in order to incorporate finalized ideas before filming started.

For reference, keep in mind that Arad left Marvel in 2006. Also, here's an article from the NYT in 2007: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/18/b.../18marvel.html

Both of those predate Iron Man, and it's public record that Marvel planned to have an MCU from the start. The creation of the Marvel Studios, the game plan to convince banks to give them credit, the behind the scenes drama, the committee, and the pre-Iron Man hollywood articles all show that Feige and Favreau didn't *just* focus on Iron Man, but launching a cinematic universe and making sure a studio delivers a good product are not two mutually exclusive things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_Cinematic_Universe <-- plus the resource links down at the bottom of the page. Be sure to check out any of the countless youtube videos of interviews by Feige and other Marvel honchos at comic cons over the years.

Ah, thanks for the information though Marvel Studios was still at risk at losing the rights to all the Avengers characters if both Iron Man and Incredible Hulk hadn't performed(luckily only the later did underperform, while the former was a huge hit.) I'm sure they did have plans for cinematic universe in case everything worked out but they had no way of knowing whether they would be able to get to that point yet or not hence my initial point about them focusing on getting Iron Man right before getting the Universe right. And about your point on the first Iron Man film including references/foreshadowing for the rest of Universe to come-- I don't think it was as badly as done in the first Iron Man as it was in the sequel which done it blatantly and obnoxiously as you could get; which was very obviously explicitly setting up the future Avengers film.

I will concede somewhat that they probably did have an intention in the back of their minds to use Iron Man to springboard a cinematic universe but unlike Universal they knew they had to get the first movie right first and weren't overly preoccupied with starting a cinematic universe with the first film(that would be Iron Man 2). But my point is Marvel wasn't super hasty about starting off their cinematic universe with Iron Man and other films as Universal was trying to be with The Mummy choosing instead to make a movie that works as a standalone film first before they got the confidence to go through ahead with a cinematic universe.

When Universal made the Mummy it's like if Marvel Studios put out Iron Man 2 instead of putting Iron Man 1 out first and they paid the price for it.

[Kusanagi]

Pro - It allows a variety of interactions, settings, conflicts, and development that you can't get in a solo franchise.

That said it's clear too many studios view a 'universe's as a quick cash grab rather than focusing on the individual films. The new universal monster verse, and Sony's spider-man without spider-man verse are particularly bad.

Aside from MCU studios could really learn from the conjuring verse.

[Kusanagi]

I haven't seen the two Hulk movies or very many of the Marvel Studios movies, but I understand that the Hulks in these are all different yet somehow related. How do Marvel fans reconcile these variants inside the shared universe? Is there any head canon that smooths over the differences?

No head canon needed, the first one isn't canon to the mcu the second is.

The 'Incredible Hulk' had RDJ as Tony Stark make a cameo.
Featured Thunderbolt Ross who's character (and actor) have continued to appear in the MCU.
Had the final battle in Harlem mentioned in the Avengers.

[Calighoula]

Usually I like to just ask myself in reverse, Would MCU make X-Men movies like the best we had? If they made DOFP would it be as compelling as the movie we saw or more like Infinity War , Age of Ultron, Thor Ragnorak or any other movie that has been done from a single piece story by the MCU. If they made Logan would it be like the Logan film, or Ant-Man, if they made Deadpool would it be Deadpool or GOTG?

I was disappointed by DoFP. But had it been a Marvel Studios production, it would've been laden with contrivances, uninvited humor and, likely, too much Stark (because he tends to show up everywhere, and he dominates event films).

I'm still not sure whether Marvel/Feige would greenlight a film like Logan.

The X-Men movies are the only marvel movies that I can call arguably better than the DC TDK trilogy, when you cherry pick from the crop of their 11 films..

The only two that can get near Nolan are Logan and First Class. Look at the directors. Singer just doesn't operate at that level. IMO.

[SpiderClops]

I was disappointed by DoFP. But had it been a Marvel Studios production, it would've been laden with contrivances, uninvited humor and, likely, too much Stark (because he tends to show up everywhere, and he dominates event films).

I'm still not sure whether Marvel/Feige would greenlight a film like Logan.



The only two that can get near Nolan are Logan and First Class. Look at the directors. Singer just doesn't operate at that level. IMO.

I'm not going to say anything about other things. Your opinion, so fine. But the bolded is factually incorrect. Even as a hyperbole it doesn't really work.

[Marvelgirl]

I was disappointed by DoFP. But had it been a Marvel Studios production, it would've been laden with contrivances, uninvited humor and, likely, too much Stark (because he tends to show up everywhere, and he dominates event films).

I'm still not sure whether Marvel/Feige would greenlight a film like Logan.



The only two that can get near Nolan are Logan and First Class. Look at the directors. Singer just doesn't operate at that level. IMO.

Singer is potentially a sexual assaulter but I would never ignore X2 and Days Of Future Past. X2 could be better than Batman Begins, DOFP is better than The Dark Knight Rises, leading me to a new thread I need to ask about Magneto and Bane. Singer operated on that level, Without X-Men 1, I doubt anyone would have looked at comic movies like we see some now. All the adoration Logan and TDK got, X-Men 1 laid the foundation for those types of movies. I will always credit Singer for that.

As for marvel ever greening-lighting a film like Logan, I will say no. It will be a miracle if they greenlight X2 from the original series or First Class from the prequels. MCU X-Men will be fun. That is it.