Originally Posted by
Comic-Reader Lad
I really disagree with that. Thor is my favorite Marvel character, and I don't like the first 2 Thor movies. Didn't bother to see Ragnarok as I was not liking what I was seeing with "retoning" the character. Also didn't bother to see GOTG 2 and Ant-Man & Wasp based on how I didn't care for the first installments.
But I've seen most of the MCU movies, and I'd put Aquaman above Iron Man 2, 3, Ant-Man, GOTG, Incredible Hulk, Thor, Thor 2, Age of Ultron, Doctor Strange, and Spider-Man: Homecoming for sure.
I don't think there are DC Zombies in the critics pool. Certainly not enough to give DC Films the crazy out of whack RT scores that Marvel Movies gets. But it seems you agree that the entirety of the Marvel Cinematic Universe experience carries through from movie to movie, which as I said, has the effect of lifting all boats.
Critics aren't really judging each movie in isolation. As long as each MCU movie hits the common formula points, it will produce the Pavlov's dog response in both critics and audiences and they really won't ponder a particular MCU film too deeply as to whether it's lacking any individual artistic merit.
OK, we're agreeing. Critics are caught up in the MCU experience and that does favors for the individual movies that are "less than." Because Aquaman and Alita were "just" good movies that aren't part of a larger franchise universe, there isn't the same level of hysteria around their release. It does seem that based on the momentum of the franchise, critics and audiences go into each movie primed and ready to like it. Whereas with Aquaman, it was more that they were hoping to like it.
But still, we haven't heard from people who have seen BOTH Alita: Battle Angel and Ant-Man/Wasp.
Was Ant-Man/Wasp a better movie than Alita or not? If not, why do you think the critics thought that it was?