Does anyone hate MCU films?

[Rincewind]

What a ridiculous argument, why do you feel the need to diminish criticism of your franchise by pretending your part of a mob? This just adds to my thesis that MCU fans have genuine problems with criticism of their beloved franchise.

The funny thing is that, if you use the box office as a measuring stick of popularity, the MCU Spider-man is actually less popular than the Sam Raimi version. If you look at the domestic box office accounted for ticket inflation, the original Sam Raimi films were vastly more popular and successful. Not to mention more people saw them in theatres.

1 Spider-Man $626,057,600
2 Spider-Man 2 $542,030,300
3 Spider-Man 3 $440,717,700
4 Spider-Man: Far from Home $376,676,400
5 Spider-Man: Homecoming $337,137,900
6 The Amazing Spider-Man $303,438,200
7 The Amazing Spider-Man 2 $219,513,500
8 Spider-Man: Into The Spider-Verse $190,052,300

I never denied that the Raimi movies are both commercially and critically successful. I never criticized the Raimi movies at all. I was merely pointing out that there is no evidence that the MCU was poorly done.

I will also admit that I did not enjoy the Raimi films as much as most people. This is a personal preference of mine and does not reflect on the quality (or claim any lack thereof) of the Raimi films. I can easily accept that people enjoy these movies without a need to tear them down.

[Rincewind]

What a ridiculous argument, why do you feel the need to diminish criticism of your franchise by pretending your part of a mob? This just adds to my thesis that MCU fans have genuine problems with criticism of their beloved franchise.

I just wanted to add that I have no problem with people not liking the things I like. But I will respond to factual inaccuracies made on a public forum. The poster I was responding to made a statement about the comic history that was 100% inaccurate. I explained how it was inaccurate and provided examples that supported my statement.

If you feel any of my statements were wrong, I look forward to the reasoned counter argument and examples you can provide.

[Rincewind]

MCU films are mostly forgettable and don’t stand the test of time. That’s why Disney floods the market with MCU films. We now get three MCU a year, because if they make one every two years, the general audience won’t come back. Other franchises can take 2 or 3 years off and still comeback strong with the general audience. The MCU can’t do this, so Disney keeps it fresh on the audience’s mind by flooding the market.

I find this reasoning unconvincing.

The simple explanation is that the movies make money and Disney really, really likes money. If the demand for the MCU allows for multiple movies a year, then Disney is going to supply multiple movies per year.

Also, the MCU is not a single story line or group of characters. They are individual franchises in a common world that build up to larger crossover movies. Movies from the individual franchise due take time between installments. Only Avengers had a follow up in a year, and that was after the cliffhanger ending of Infinity War.

If there was only 1 MCU movies every 2 years, it would take 42 years to get to Endgame instead of 11.

[Pinsir]

I never denied that the Raimi movies are both commercially and critically successful. I never criticized the Raimi movies at all. I was merely pointing out that there is no evidence that the MCU was poorly done.

I will also admit that I did not enjoy the Raimi films as much as most people. This is a personal preference of mine and does not reflect on the quality (or claim any lack thereof) of the Raimi films. I can easily accept that people enjoy these movies without a need to tear them down.

But the Sam Raimi films had a more popular version of Spiderman. If you consider the fact that the MCU Spiderman is coming off of Endgame and is part of a larger franchise, Far From Home's domestic box office is kind of embarrassing. People know exactly who this Spider-man is, yet they aren't coming to the theatres to see his film as they did for Sam Raimi's version. One of the reasons people often claim the Amazing Spiderman films failed is that people dislike that version of the character and though the MCU version of the character isn't 'failing' people just aren't that excited to see this new version.

[Rincewind]

But the Sam Raimi films had a more popular version of Spiderman. If you consider the fact that the MCU Spiderman is coming off of Endgame and is part of a larger franchise, Far From Home's domestic box office is kind of embarrassing. People know exactly who this Spider-man is, yet they aren't coming to the theatres to see his film as they did for Sam Raimi's version. One of the reasons people often claim the Amazing Spiderman films failed is that people dislike that version of the character and though the MCU version of the character isn't 'failing' people just aren't that excited to see this new version.

You are trying to argue that Sony's highest grossing movie worldwide is "embarrassing". It made over a billion dollars. That is not embarrassing, no matter how you try to frame it.

The success of the Raimi movies does not negate the success of the MCU Spider-Man or vice versa. There are even people who like both.

[Midvillian1322]

So we are in agreement the MCU on average has a more marketing cost, that what I’ve been saying.

The DCEU is only seven movies in and it is doing very good. It’s on a higher pace box office wise than the MCU after seven movies. It’s on the pace to pass the MCU box office numbers when it reaches 22 movies.

As for the XCU it was also very successful, because of it’s grittier storylines it was never going to have a MCU like box office. Apocalypse actually did great at the box office. XCU only turkey was Dark Phoenix. DP was a major miscalculation by Fox, we just seen a DP storyline in 2009, why they decided to do it again this soon is beyond me.

No we arent In agreement. Not even a little bit. Give me your sources for any of that stuff you keep posting. Did you look up every marketing budget for every movie and average them yourslef? Do you have a article to point to atleast? Marketing Budgets are on scale with the budget of a movie. Simple as that Marvel is not spending more of marketing compared to movies of a similar budget. Marvel just has so much faith in theyrr movies they're spending 200m on unknown characters.

Also they release 3 movies a year because people want it. But way to go twisting things towards a conclusion that doesnt work.

[Midvillian1322]

I personally prefer the "shared universe" model of the Marvel movies. I find the world building to be richer and more complex because it is spread out over a number of movies and characters. My mind did not "switch into shallow kingdom."

I have decades of reading and knowing Spider-Man, X-Men, Fantastic Four, Blade, and multitudes of Marvel (and DC, and Image, and Dark Horse, et al) comics. Anyone with a passing reading of comics knows that you are so very, very wrong.

The idea of a shared universe with crossovers, guest appearances, and name drops is baked into the very DNA of Marvel in general and Spider-Man in particular. The first Marvel crossover was back in 1940 with the Submariner and original Human Torch. Spider-Man tried to join the Fantastic Four in the first issued of Amazing. He tried to join the Avengers in an early annual. The first appearance of Doctor Octopus also had a guest appearance by Johnny Storm. The first appearance of the Green Goblin also had a guest appearance by the Hulk. The nature of the stories encouraged readers to buy all the titles in the line, giving birth to the term "Marvel Zombie".

Crossovers were very much a drawing factor in the comics. This is especially true for the X-Men. Crossovers such as Mutant Massacre (tie ins with Power Pack and Thor), Fall of the Mutants (tie ins with Captain America and Daredevil), Inferno (tie ins with Spider-Man and Avengers), Onslaught (tie ins with pretty much all the titles) originated in the X-Men comics. These were the big important stories and drove sales.

You may feel that Spider-Man is poorly done in the MCU, but given the commercial and critical success, you are in the minority. That doesn't make anyone who disagrees with you ridiculous or ignorant.

Lol you beat me to the point about TAS #1. Marvel is built upon interconnectedness.

[Pinsir]

You are trying to argue that Sony's highest grossing movie worldwide is "embarrassing". It made over a billion dollars. That is not embarrassing, no matter how you try to frame it.

The success of the Raimi movies does not negate the success of the MCU Spider-Man or vice versa. There are even people who like both.

It made over a billion dollars because of the Chinese market. We aren't Chinese, China has nothing to do with how these movies are perceived within our cultural sphere. I'm talking about the North American market and in that market, it made less money than every Sam Raimi film.

[luprki]

No we arent In agreement. Not even a little bit. Give me your sources for any of that nonsense you keep posting. Did you look up every marketing budget for every movie and average them yourslef? Do you have a article to point to atleast? Marketing Budgets are on scale with the budget of a movie. Simple as that Marvel is not spending more of marketing compared to movies of a similar budget. Marvel just has so much faith in theyrr movies they're spending 200m on unknown characters.

Also they release 3 movies a year because people want it. But way to go twisting things towards a conclusion that doesnt work.

My only point is Disney spends more on marketing than the DC and XCU, you are saying the same thing.

If the MCU released only one movie every other year, it wouldn’t be as popular, because the general audience would lose interest fast. This is because the DC and Mutants heroes are more interesting than the Avengers heroes. The comic book fans know this. DC, X-Men and Fantastic Four comic books sell more than any Avengers comic book hero. The exception is Spider-Man, but that’s because he was modeled after DC characters.

[Rincewind]

It made over a billion dollars because of the Chinese market. We aren't Chinese, China has nothing to do with how these movies are perceived within our cultural sphere. I'm talking about the North American market and in that market, it made less money than every Sam Raimi film.

Once again, the success of the Raimi movies does not negate the success of the MCU Spider-Man. Nothing about the box office of the MCU Spider-Man, foreign or domestic, is "embarrassing".

[Pinsir]

Once again, the success of the Raimi movies does not negate the success of the MCU Spider-Man. Nothing about the box office of the MCU Spider-Man, foreign or domestic, is "embarrassing".

I never said it 'negates' the success of the MCU Spiderman, just that its a more popular franchise and that it probably has a more popular version of Spiderman. There was clearly something about those original Spiderman films that resonates with more people than the MCU version.

The domestic numbers really aren't that great though when compared to Spiderman's previous ventures and considering the wider context, it coming after Endgame and it being a sequel, yeah, its clear Spiderman isn''t being used to his best capability. Spiderman is the biggest superhero in North America, but under the MCU banner you wouldn't think it.

[Rincewind]

I never said it 'negates' the success of the MCU Spiderman, just that its a more popular franchise and that it probably has a more popular version of Spiderman. There was clearly something about those original Spiderman films that resonates with more people than the MCU version.

The domestic numbers really aren't that great though when compared to Spiderman's previous ventures and considering the wider context, it coming after Endgame and it being a sequel, yeah, its clear Spiderman isn''t being used to his best capability. Spiderman is the biggest superhero in North America, but under the MCU banner you wouldn't think it.

You said that the MCU Spider-Man box office was "embarrassing." And you keep bringing up the Raimi movies as a comparison. There can be more than 1 successful version of a character. By any rational metric, both version are successful. I have never disputed this or implied otherwise.

[Star_Jammer]

I never said it 'negates' the success of the MCU Spiderman, just that its a more popular franchise and that it probably has a more popular version of Spiderman. There was clearly something about those original Spiderman films that resonates with more people than the MCU version.

A large part of that is called “17 years ago when dial-up internet, indestructible Nokia phones, and Nickelback were popular”.

[Beaddle]

I personally prefer the "shared universe" model of the Marvel movies. I find the world building to be richer and more complex because it is spread out over a number of movies and characters. My mind did not "switch into shallow kingdom."
.

This is a fan's MCU take on the issue as I expected. Frankly I am feeling the opposite, the world seem poorer and more dense than richer and complex. The animated series of the 90s, X-Men, Spiderman, Iron Man, F4, Hulk captured what you said well.

The comics is a shared universe. it is not as out there as the movies, The movies total dependent use of crossovers is for commercial reasons not for story development like the comics and animated series.

I have decades of reading and knowing Spider-Man, X-Men, Fantastic Four, Blade, and multitudes of Marvel (and DC, and Image, and Dark Horse, et al) comics. Anyone with a passing reading of comics knows that you are so very, very wrong.

Not from what I am getting at. Many X-Men fans are kind of scared of how much MCU will influence X-Men, no need to discuss the dislike of tony Stark's role in Spiderman's life for the 10th time again among comic book fans.

The idea of a shared universe with crossovers, guest appearances, and name drops is baked into the very DNA of Marvel in general and Spider-Man in particular. The first Marvel crossover was back in 1940 with the Submariner and original Human Torch. Spider-Man tried to join the Fantastic Four in the first issued of Amazing. He tried to join the Avengers in an early annual. The first appearance of Doctor Octopus also had a guest appearance by Johnny Storm. The first appearance of the Green Goblin also had a guest appearance by the Hulk. The nature of the stories encouraged readers to buy all the titles in the line, giving birth to the term "Marvel Zombie".

Crossover stories won't add up to 25% of the best stories written about every single marvel series.

You may feel that Spider-Man is poorly done in the MCU, but given the commercial and critical success, you are in the minority. That doesn't make anyone who disagrees with you ridiculous or ignorant.

commercial and critical success are chicken change for MCU and blockbuster movies, it is not relevant at all anymore nor is it used for trust, am I really in the minority when I say Sam Raimi's Spiderman movies are still the best Spiderman films?

Speaking of commercial success did you hear the news that Disney has spent years inflating their revenue?

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/di...ars-2019-08-19

[luprki]

Sony just pulled the plug on Kevin Feige, he is no longer in charge of Spider Man. This is great news.