Does anyone hate MCU films?

[Rincewind]

TThe marvel has no flaws narrative is the gift that keeps on giving.

You've made this claim multiple times. Can you please provide examples of anyone besides you claiming that the MCU has no flaws?

[WebLurker]

These are from people that accepts that Iron Man 1 and Iron Man 3 are equally great. when you look at it that way, MCU has a better track record.

I'm looking at the big picture. Also, what you're obsession with those specific two movies. They're neither the best or worse of the MCU franchise.

What happens to other people that thinks Winter Solider is the only good film, that's a pretty poor track record.

Fair enough if you think so (that's my most favorite of them, incidentally), but I was thinking critical and financial success. The MCU is has nothing to prove in that arena, so, even if we don't like the series on a personal note, we do have to acknowledge that it has been a successful series overall.

Maybe, but the two being linked caused a lot of problems, I just read someone in the spidemran forum who said iron man is not good enough to even clean spiderman's issues. Iron Man was a B-List character until when?

Think he was a B-lister until the movies. Personally, I don't need Spidey to be with Iron Man the whole time, but I think it made for an interesting story for this specific take and made for a decent arc of him coming into his own.

Its still hard for many spiderman and xmen fans to buy unnecessary crossovers as it was not definite to their series.

The movies are one story. Having Spidey doing his own thing in general may work best as the default, but the change of pace is nice. Besides, after two series about Spidey solo, the change of pace was welcome.

It is still better than spiderman using the iron suit, relying on tony too much.

Well, the first one worked that in pretty well, where he has to use the homemade suit at the very end, where he has to prove himself. Also liked how the second one was largely about him figuring out how to work in a world without Iron Man and become his one person. Heck, he designs and plans the tools and strategy he uses to beat Mysterio himself.

what you said about Garfield is not as bad as Pixar Spiderman. Holland comes off as a child. Garfield at least plays the teen role quite well.

I really, really, really do not like the writing of Peter in those movies, so I find it very hard to appreciate Garfield's acting in them. His constant mumbling was annoying as all heck, too. (I read YA books often on, and it felt like a YA novel with the worst YA tropes played straight.) Holland plays a fifteen-year-old version and I thought he came off better as that. Also appreciated that Holland had more personal connections with his supporting cast.

FFH seem less liked than homecoming.

Really? Everything I've seen shows that it was just as well liked, if not better. It also was more financially successful and a critical hit. It was a winner no matter how you slice it.

Sony practically only had one financial failure in Amazing Spiderman 2.

Yeah, SM3 and ASM1 did finish in the black (SM3 is actually rated fresh on RT, ironically enough). Still, none of these three are fondly remembered (for good or bad), and did kill their series and planned spinoffs. Essentially, Into the Spider-Verse was Sony first unqualified Spidey hit since SM2. That's a pretty depressing batting average.

MCU saw the second avengers film as a failure.

It was a box office success and the response was actually fairly positive. Not the strongest movie, to be sure, but hardly a failure. Certainly better then Thor 2 or Hulk.

if you think spiderman 3 and amazing spiderman 1 are failures what makes you think Iron Man 2 and thor 2 are not failures? Unless of course you do think MCU has no flaws.

That's a straw man. Fact is, I actually think SM3 is a lot better then it's reputation is (flaws to be sure, but it acquits itself of them better then other movies with similar flaws). IM2 and Thor 2 were financial successes, but I don't think either of them were that good artistically. IM2 suffers the same problems as ASM2, except I think it had a better cast to elevate it somewhat. Thor 2 is an easy go-to example of a weak movie that can be fun. Thing is, they may be so-called guilty pleasures, but I think the cast elevates them above similar moves like the ASM ones. ASM1 is just boring, IMHO. Thor 2 may have its weak plot and bad villain, but boring it is not.

And if the sony movies were marvel movies, the reviews won't be as weak.

Don't think so. A bad movie is a bad movie.

Thor 3 has good reviews but it is as resented as spiderman 3, justice league and xmen 3.

Actually, it's not. Heck, I think a fair case can be made that it's a better movie then any of them, although that might be a different conversation.

The marvel has no flaws narrative is the gift that keeps on giving.

Too bad it's all in your head. "Reality is often disappointing."

No. most studio won't kill for their track record because most directors won't want to make mcu movies like Disney wants them too.

Most studios want to make billion dollar movies. If you can do that and get critical kudos while doing it, you're in the zone. So, yeah, Marvel Studios would be the envy of most studios, even if they didn't want to make the exact same kind of movies.

trying to create a cinematic universe doesnt mean everyone is interested in juvenile processed factory childish movies that are the same. DC originally wanted to do the opposite. They would have succeeded if Nolan had stayed.

And what did they learn? Grimdark doesn't sell. Movies that aren't do. Who knows what would've happened to the DCEU if Nolan had been in charge?

From every conversation I have with you, I think you are one of the biggest and most loyal MCU fan I have ever met.

Probably because you've only seen me in "MCU sucks" threads.

Not saying you don’t like anything else but you obviously love mcu the most.

Obviously you haven't heard me on Star Trek or Star Wars.

Usually Spiderman fans, love their comics, you have dismissed the comics many times.

There's no such thing as a true Scotsman. I know of huge Spider-Man fans who've never picked up a comic in their lives.

As far as me and comics, I've the entire USM series, getting all the ASM Epics, Spider-Girl Completes, RYV, plus twelve-some unrelated comic series on my collection list. You do the math.

Spiderman fans don’t really appreciate Pixar Spiderman or the disney kids appeal angle, you have tried to convince me spiderman is like a pixar character, when we both know the only reason he is as such is because disney is making his movies.

What I know is that you have never understood what I meant by Pixar-like character (or refuse to understand, since it would shatter your worldview?), and furthermore, I know that Spider-Man is a Pixar like character because I actually read the blasted comics.

Spiderman fans right now see opportunities with sony , you have called spiderman leaving the mcu revolting.

True Scotsman don't exist.

The only opportunity with Sony is through the Spider-Verse movies and those were coming with or without the deal. I don't trust Sony with the live action stuff, given that ever since SM2 or 3 (I'd say three, but that's not a popular opinion), they've never had a good movie. With the MCU Spidey movies, I liked those and was looking forward to number three. So, yes, revolting.

When you try to talk about spiderman or even x-men, you look at both series from MCU eyes, not from the eyes of their respective universe, which to me is not something I agree with as both series have proven they do well on their own when there is less MCU involved.

If you actually knew what I talked about in regards to the X-Men movies, you'd know that I wanted the Fox series to continue as its own thing (I'm mad as all heck that we won't get that X-23 movie).

As far as the Spidey movies, I wanted both the MCU movies and the Spider-Verse ones to continue, not just the latter. So, yeah, much more then just seeing things through an MCU lens.

[Midvillian1322]

It’s simple for me, hate is probably too strong of a word, but I use it for the context of this thread. I really don’t hate MCU movies, but I do dislike most of them. I kept watching because I was hoping I’ll get something I like. I liked Black Panther and IW, but those were the only recent ones I liked. That’s why I keep watching, because sometimes they’ll made one I like. But after this year, I probably won’t comeback until BP 2. I didn’t like CM and EG, FFH was terrible.

Fair enough

[capNthor]

Dark Knight Rises is the only superhero movie that I would actually consider myself ‘hating’.

[Star_Jammer]

Dark Knight Rises is the only superhero movie that I would actually consider myself ‘hating’.

Justice League, for me. Train wreck through and through.

[capNthor]

Justice League, for me. Train wreck through and through.

Worst movie is different TDKR clearly isn’t that. It’s the biggest disappointment by far, the biggest quality drop off in one film I’ve seen in the genre.

It completely ruined my interpretations of the character from the first two, wrote out favorite supporting characters for new boring ones, had a goofy ass sounding main villain with a horrible twist, was way too damn long, John F’ing Blake is about as interesting as Aaron Taylor Johnson in Godzilla, I thought Catwoman was bland and I vehemently disagree with Bats ever getting with her as I do Bats killing the Joker, after the refreshing realism of the first two this one had the most wonky internal logic, the editing left weird things out like Bruce getting back to Gotham when he was broke and told Alfred to GTFO so the film could give more scenes to Miranda and Daggett, ugghhhhhhhhhh.

I disagree with almost every decision the filmmakers went with based on narrative and Batman mythology. But I’ll end it there.

But back to hating the MCU! I hate them because they have too many jokes, what about you guys?

[Beaddle]

I'm looking at the big picture. Also, what you're obsession with those specific two movies. They're neither the best or worse of the MCU franchise.

GOTG 2, Iron Man 3, Thor 2, Age of Ultron, First Avenger, Hulk in Thor 3, Ant Man movies.

The gap of good between this movies and their other entries is similar to the gap in X2 and X3 or Batman Returns and Batman Forever. you are free to disagree, but the people who always disagree are the people who says MCU has no flaws, that is why they disagree.

Fair enough if you think so (that's my most favorite of them, incidentally), but I was thinking critical and financial success. The MCU is has nothing to prove in that arena, so, even if we don't like the series on a personal note, we do have to acknowledge that it has been a successful series overall.

critical and financial success has means zero meaning for MCU movies. I have already explained how it should be impossible for GOTG 2 to have the same amount of critics likes as Batman Begins and Deadpool on RT. critical success right now for superhero movies is pathetic.

It was a box office success and the response was actually fairly positive. Not the strongest movie, to be sure, but hardly a failure. Certainly better then Thor 2 or Hulk.

Disney saw the movie as a financial failure, the response was far from positive. age of ultron is the most absent mcu movie of all time, people don't even seem to remember it or talk about it. it's so bad , it gets lost even it the midst of thor 3 and iron man 3.

Too bad it's all in your head. "Reality is often disappointing."

In the space of 1 minute, you've defended age of ultron's financial success even though disney was unhappy about it. I have already seen you say age of ultron's reception was more positive when it wasn't.

Obviously you haven't heard me on Star Trek or Star Wars.

You got Spock's character in star trek 2009 wrong just to keep defending fat thor, star trek 2009 had a polish, sensible smooth and sophisticated time travel plot device to endgame that we could not agree on even with the logical proof of endgame's poor time travel plot. You did not see what was wrong with SW8 because disney makes both marvel and star wars movies and SW8 can fit well as a MCU movie, that was what Disney wanted. you said GOTG characters achieve even more development than star trek characters do television. I think its clear to me that MCU is what you love the most.

There's no such thing as a true Scotsman. I know of huge Spider-Man fans who've never picked up a comic in their lives.

As far as me and comics, I've the entire USM series, getting all the ASM Epics, Spider-Girl Completes, RYV, plus twelve-some unrelated comic series on my collection list. You do the math.

Anyone that says comics should have zero impact on the film based on comics gives me second thoughts. Did you not also say TAS sucks because it was based on xmen comics?

Don't think so. A bad movie is a bad movie.

Same goes for about 40% of mcu movies and I am being nice here, the number would rise to 80% if I was to judge MCU Movies the way superhero movies that came after batman and robin were judged.

Most studios want to make billion dollar movies. If you can do that and get critical kudos while doing it, you're in the zone. So, yeah, Marvel Studios would be the envy of most studios, even if they didn't want to make the exact same kind of movies.

you are talking of studios manufacturing as disney does not directors who put their art first and would like to see it come to fruition with heavy studios support. No MCU movie can achieve the same impact as TDK, when it became the first superhero film to gross over a billion. Do people remember it made over billion or nolan's talent as a film maker? they still deslike WB for snyder's batman.

What I know is that you have never understood what I meant by Pixar-like character (or refuse to understand, since it would shatter your worldview?), and furthermore, I know that Spider-Man is a Pixar like character because I actually read the blasted comics.

So other 4 adaptions (TAS, Spidergame, Raimi's movies, Spectacular Spiderman) that are more loved than disney's holland version got it wrong? 2/3 of the i hate mcu spiderman on the spiderman forum seem to come from how spiderman got too disney kid friendly or how he is iron boy. why is that such a big deal in the spiderman forums if he is a pixar character?

rue Scotsman don't exist.

The only opportunity with Sony is through the Spider-Verse movies and those were coming with or without the deal. I don't trust Sony with the live action stuff, given that ever since SM2 or 3 (I'd say three, but that's not a popular opinion), they've never had a good movie. With the MCU Spidey movies, I liked those and was looking forward to number three. So, yes, revolting.

I just love how you think homecoming is a good film and AZM and Spiderman 3 are not. it does make the critical success even more tainted.

If you actually knew what I talked about in regards to the X-Men movies, you'd know that I wanted the Fox series to continue as its own thing (I'm mad as all heck that we won't get that X-23 movie).

As far as the Spidey movies, I wanted both the MCU movies and the Spider-Verse ones to continue, not just the latter. So, yeah, much more then just seeing things through an MCU lens.

if there is one other character deserving of its own universe apart form x-men, its spiderman. About not trusting sony. MCU had 5 movies to get to raimi films and they failed. so they are less trustworthy than sony that made the raimi movies.

Would you trust Sony if Raimi came back and Sony promised no studio interference like Spiderman 3?

[luprki]

critical and financial success has means zero meaning for MCU movies. I have already explained how it should be impossible for GOTG 2 to have the same amount of critics likes as Batman Begins and Deadpool on RT. critical success right now for superhero movies is pathetic.

Got that right, critics has always been terrible at reviewing sci-fi and fantasy movies

[Powerboy]

Worst movie is different TDKR clearly isn’t that. It’s the biggest disappointment by far, the biggest quality drop off in one film I’ve seen in the genre.

It completely ruined my interpretations of the character from the first two, wrote out favorite supporting characters for new boring ones, had a goofy ass sounding main villain with a horrible twist, was way too damn long, John F’ing Blake is about as interesting as Aaron Taylor Johnson in Godzilla, I thought Catwoman was bland and I vehemently disagree with Bats ever getting with her as I do Bats killing the Joker, after the refreshing realism of the first two this one had the most wonky internal logic, the editing left weird things out like Bruce getting back to Gotham when he was broke and told Alfred to GTFO so the film could give more scenes to Miranda and Daggett, ugghhhhhhhhhh.

I disagree with almost every decision the filmmakers went with based on narrative and Batman mythology. But I’ll end it there.

But back to hating the MCU! I hate them because they have too many jokes, what about you guys?

That's a symptom. Starting as a bold idea of a shared universe beyond what has ever been done before in movies, they have fallen into a pattern of playing it safe at the risk of vastly reduced creativity. The worst part is it pays off because that seems to be what the public wants.

[capNthor]

GOTG 2, Iron Man 3, Thor 2, Age of Ultron, First Avenger, Hulk in Thor 3, Ant Man movies.

The gap of good between this movies and their other entries is similar to the gap in X2 and X3 or Batman Returns and Batman Forever. you are free to disagree, but the people who always disagree are the people who says MCU has no flaws, that is why they disagree.

Quoted for the truth! Seriously, how the MCU characters in those films weren't rebooted or completely altered like with those after X3, Spider-Man 3, and the Schumacher Bat-films is beyond me. The majority of critics, fans, and those in the general audience keep giving these movies money and good reviews after ten years and twenty-five films. All the proof I need that the vast majority of everybody in all facets who see these movies are shills

critical and financial success has means zero meaning for MCU movies. I have already explained how it should be impossible for GOTG 2 to have the same amount of critics likes as Batman Begins and Deadpool on RT. critical success right now for superhero movies is pathetic.

I have yet to see one poster in this thread bring up irrefutable facts that MCU movies are universally considered good without resorting to box office, critical scores, or audience score accumulators. Why is this so hard? I'm waiting. And RT doesn't mean jack. I mean they gave a negative score to Hook, Taken, and Man of Steel while giving a positive score to Indiana Jones 4. These are the examples I use over and over again ad nauseam as proof.

Disney saw the movie as a financial failure, the response was far from positive. age of ultron is the most absent mcu movie of all time, people don't even seem to remember it or talk about it. it's so bad , it gets lost even it the midst of thor 3 and iron man 3.

Every measurable qualifier on the quality of the movie was negative. How is this even arguable? When a movie like Thor: Ragnarok which had the reviews/response it did overshadows you, you know you're one of the weaker superhero movies out there.

In the space of 1 minute, you've defended age of ultron's financial success even though disney was unhappy about it. I have already seen you say age of ultron's reception was more positive when it wasn't.

I too remember seeing a headline five years ago saying Disney was disappointed about Age of Ultron's box office. I don't think it even cracked the top five biggest box office hits of all-time when it was released (I think it was only 6 or 7).

You got Spock's character in star trek 2009 wrong just to keep defending fat thor, star trek 2009 had a polish, sensible smooth and sophisticated time travel plot device to endgame that we could not agree on even with the logical proof of endgame's poor time travel plot. You did not see what was wrong with SW8 because disney makes both marvel and star wars movies and SW8 can fit well as a MCU movie, that was what Disney wanted. you said GOTG characters achieve even more development than star trek characters do television. I think its clear to me that MCU is what you love the most.

How can you say the Guardians characters had more character growth than the crew of the USS Enterprise? The Guardians are the exact same characters from the moment we meet them, to the end of Endgame. Kirk, Scotty, Spock, Chekov, McCoy, and the black communications officer chick had three seasons of intricate character arcs. They are nearly unrecognizable from episode 1 to the end of the series.

Anyone that says comics should have zero impact on the film based on comics gives me second thoughts. Did you not also say TAS sucks because it was based on xmen comics?

Yeah, you can't just say you liked something if it didn't follow the comics, and then also like something that did follow them faithfully. Double standard much? Pick one!

Same goes for about 40% of mcu movies and I am being nice here, the number would rise to 80% if I was to judge MCU Movies the way superhero movies that came after batman and robin were judged.

I don't have anything to say to this but I felt compelled to respond to every single opinionated point.

you are talking of studios manufacturing as disney does not directors who put their art first and would like to see it come to fruition with heavy studios support. No MCU movie can achieve the same impact as TDK, when it became the first superhero film to gross over a billion. Do people remember it made over billion or nolan's talent as a film maker? they still deslike WB for snyder's batman.

The Dark Knight being the first CBM to make a billion was far more impressive than any other box office feat any singular Marvel movie has ever made IMHO. Sony, Fox, and especially WB actually have a historical precedent of not meddling with their CBM properties. Heck, WB themselves have said numerous times they are a director driven studio.

I just love how you think homecoming is a good film and AZM and Spiderman 3 are not. it does make the critical success even more tainted.

It really is delicious, isnt it? I wish I could look this poster in the eye to ask him if he ACTUALLY thinks Homecoming was better than Spider-man 3 and the Amazing movies, just to see if he's being sarcastic or not.

if there is one other character deserving of its own universe apart form x-men, its spiderman. About not trusting sony. MCU had 5 movies to get to raimi films and they failed. so they are less trustworthy than sony that made the raimi movies.

I don't know what this means...

Would you trust Sony if Raimi came back and Sony promised no studio interference like Spiderman 3?

Without hesitation. Did you guys not see OZ the Great and Powerful?

[DT Winslow]

Thor Ragnarok is my jam. That flick was fucking rad. It had a rock man with a New Zealand accent fer crissakes. What’s not to love? Cate Blanchett rocked the fucking house.

[80sbaby]

I just want to say capNthor is killing it in this thread lol

[Midvillian1322]

GOTG 2, Iron Man 3, Thor 2, Age of Ultron, First Avenger, Hulk in Thor 3, Ant Man movies.

The gap of good between this movies and their other entries is similar to the gap in X2 and X3 or Batman Returns and Batman Forever. you are free to disagree, but the people who always disagree are the people who says MCU has no flaws, that is why they disagree.



critical and financial success has means zero meaning for MCU movies. I have already explained how it should be impossible for GOTG 2 to have the same amount of critics likes as Batman Begins and Deadpool on RT. critical success right now for superhero movies is pathetic.



Disney saw the movie as a financial failure, the response was far from positive. age of ultron is the most absent mcu movie of all time, people don't even seem to remember it or talk about it. it's so bad , it gets lost even it the midst of thor 3 and iron man 3.


In the space of 1 minute, you've defended age of ultron's financial success even though disney was unhappy about it. I have already seen you say age of ultron's reception was more positive when it wasn't.



You got Spock's character in star trek 2009 wrong just to keep defending fat thor, star trek 2009 had a polish, sensible smooth and sophisticated time travel plot device to endgame that we could not agree on even with the logical proof of endgame's poor time travel plot. You did not see what was wrong with SW8 because disney makes both marvel and star wars movies and SW8 can fit well as a MCU movie, that was what Disney wanted. you said GOTG characters achieve even more development than star trek characters do television. I think its clear to me that MCU is what you love the most.



Anyone that says comics should have zero impact on the film based on comics gives me second thoughts. Did you not also say TAS sucks because it was based on xmen comics?



Same goes for about 40% of mcu movies and I am being nice here, the number would rise to 80% if I was to judge MCU Movies the way superhero movies that came after batman and robin were judged.



you are talking of studios manufacturing as disney does not directors who put their art first and would like to see it come to fruition with heavy studios support. No MCU movie can achieve the same impact as TDK, when it became the first superhero film to gross over a billion. Do people remember it made over billion or nolan's talent as a film maker? they still deslike WB for snyder's batman.



So other 4 adaptions (TAS, Spidergame, Raimi's movies, Spectacular Spiderman) that are more loved than disney's holland version got it wrong? 2/3 of the i hate mcu spiderman on the spiderman forum seem to come from how spiderman got too disney kid friendly or how he is iron boy. why is that such a big deal in the spiderman forums if he is a pixar character?




I just love how you think homecoming is a good film and AZM and Spiderman 3 are not. it does make the critical success even more tainted.



if there is one other character deserving of its own universe apart form x-men, its spiderman. About not trusting sony. MCU had 5 movies to get to raimi films and they failed. so they are less trustworthy than sony that made the raimi movies.

Would you trust Sony if Raimi came back and Sony promised no studio interference like Spiderman 3?

Wow your arguments are all over the place. I dont even know where to begin

[WebLurker]

LOL to the max over this. Anyways:

GOTG 2, Iron Man 3, Thor 2, Age of Ultron, First Avenger, Hulk in Thor 3, Ant Man movies.

The gap of good between this movies and their other entries is similar to the gap in X2 and X3 or Batman Returns and Batman Forever. you are free to disagree, but the people who always disagree are the people who says MCU has no flaws, that is why they disagree.

Can't speak for anyone else, but when I disagree, I do because I think the movie in question is actually good. Heck, you don't like Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2? I do and can explain why using criteria from the movie itself, pretty much the exact opposite of blind MCU fans.

critical and financial success has means zero meaning for MCU movies.

I'm sure Marvel's bean counters and business exects would disagree with you there.

I have already explained how it should be impossible for GOTG 2 to have the same amount of critics likes as Batman Begins and Deadpool on RT. critical success right now for superhero movies is pathetic.

Why is that impossible? People like different kinds of movies and if Guardians 2 was a well-made a comedy adventure as Batman Begins was a drama, why wouldn't they have similar successful ratings?

Disney saw the movie as a financial failure, the response was far from positive.

I was going off of the box office numbers and the RT score. If Disney wanted to finish further in the black, fair enough.

age of ultron is the most absent mcu movie of all time, people don't even seem to remember it or talk about it. it's so bad , it gets lost even it the midst of thor 3 and iron man 3.

I personally would think that Hulk was the forgotten MCU movie, but that was just my guess. Think I liked it better then IM3 but nowhere near as well as Thor 3, but that's just me; for as messy as some of the plot points are (Thor in the pool, anyone), I think the idea of questioning if the Avengers really are the saviors of the world after the high of the first one is an interesting progression for the story and sets up the future Avenger movies nicely as we see the rise and fall and rise again of the team over the course of the Infinity Saga. Just my take, though.

In the space of 1 minute, you've defended age of ultron's financial success even though disney was unhappy about it. I have already seen you say age of ultron's reception was more positive when it wasn't.

According to the information I had on hand, gotten from specific sites. Where'd you get your's?

You got Spock's character in star trek 2009 wrong just to keep defending fat thor

You'd have to refresh my memory on how I was comparing Quinto Spock to Thor, but my beefs with that take on Spock are completely from comparing him to Leonard Nimoy's performance as the character and the stories he was in. Heck, I disliked how Quinto Spock was written before there any of the Thor movies were made, much less fat Thor. Remember, I've been a Trekkie for a long time and it is my my primary fanbase circle.

star trek 2009 had a polish, sensible smooth and sophisticated time travel plot device to endgame that we could not agree on even with the logical proof of endgame's poor time travel plot.

Yes and no. Star Trek '09's time travel makes enough sense in and of itself, but is awful messy to fit in with the rest of the franchise the way we've been told it does. Believe you me; I've talked long and hard about this in Trekkie circles, long before MCU made their time heist. As far as the time heist making or not making sense, we don't agree and haven't heard a convincing argument to sway us from our positions, so what's the point in rehashing it?

You did not see what was wrong with SW8 because disney makes both marvel and star wars movies and SW8 can fit well as a MCU movie, that was what Disney wanted.

You lost me. I liked TLJ since I liked the story, the characters, the cast, etc. I personally didn't see a difference between it and the previous movies (and I wasn't considering the MCU when forming that opinion).

you said GOTG characters achieve even more development than star trek characters do television.

If I'm going to be damned, then let me be damned for what I really am. No, what I said was that Guardians showed an impressive amount of character development over two movies. Star Trek movies didn't really do that. The TV shows, sure, they did, but longer format. (Besides, my larger point, which you missed, was that one of the reasons those movies were good was character development. Refute that if you can)

I think its clear to me that MCU is what you love the most.

Clear all right. Clear as mud. Fine, I'll lay it on the line for you. I'm a Trekkie first and foremost (why do you think I hate the Kelvin timeline movies?). I'm a Star Wars fan second (got into a disagreement with a coworker for saying that Rise of Skywalker, not Endgame, was the biggest release of the year). I'm a general Spider-Man third (check my posting history if you like). The MCU isn't in the top seven. We good?

Anyone that says comics should have zero impact on the film based on comics gives me second thoughts.

Don't appreciate people twisting my words. What I said was that if the adaptation isn't faithful to the source material but is still objectively good in and of itself, shouldn't it still be considered good? Big difference.

Did you not also say TAS sucks because it was based on xmen comics?

Probably what I said was that I didn't it had aged very well, I've preferred adaptations that do new stuff with the source material, and that the TV show was based on an era of the comics I have zero interest in.

You know, for a guy working so hard to dig up old things I've said, you sure seem to be getting a lot of it wrong.

Same goes for about 40% of mcu movies and I am being nice here, the number would rise to 80% if I was to judge MCU Movies the way superhero movies that came after batman and robin were judged.

How you figuring?

you are talking of studios manufacturing as disney does not directors who put their art first and would like to see it come to fruition with heavy studios support.

Just looking at the business end. As much as we all want good art out of this, it is a business and it all needs to be profitable first and foremost to keep running. Besides, who's to say that something made for profit can't also be good?

No MCU movie can achieve the same impact as TDK, when it became the first superhero film to gross over a billion. Do people remember it made over billion or nolan's talent as a film maker? they still deslike WB for snyder's batman.

Okay?

So other 4 adaptions (TAS, Spidergame, Raimi's movies, Spectacular Spiderman) that are more loved than disney's holland version got it wrong?

To be frank, of the ones of those I've seen, they're of a kind with the MCU one. I literally do not understand how you see otherwise.

2/3 of the i hate mcu spiderman on the spiderman forum seem to come from how spiderman got too disney kid friendly or how he is iron boy.

Okay, but that's hardly a decent sampling and doesn't jive with what I've seen in general outside this forum.

why is that such a big deal in the spiderman forums if he is a pixar character?

You tell me; you're the only one I can see who's obsessed with "Pixar Spider-Man."

I just love how you think homecoming is a good film and AZM and Spiderman 3 are not. it does make the critical success even more tainted.

I just love how you ignored me saying that I actually think SM3 was good (flaws, but good anyways). That's an opinion I've hardly been shy about. (As far as Homecoming being better then ASM1, heck yeah! No contest.)

if there is one other character deserving of its own universe apart form x-men, its spiderman. About not trusting sony. MCU had 5 movies to get to raimi films and they failed. so they are less trustworthy than sony that made the raimi movies.

I think you're letting your Marvel Studios hate cloud your judgement.

Would you trust Sony if Raimi came back and Sony promised no studio interference like Spiderman 3?

That could work. The ones that work the best are the ones where Sony lets others take the lead and Raimi has nothing to prove. Still, I guess it would depend what his project was and all that. No one is infallible.

You know, for all your protesting about blind MCU followers, you're the only one I'm seeing who's blind in their ideology (albeit a "Marvel is bad, Sony is good" perspective), seeming to twist everything you hear to fit that view, and not showing much willingness to actually explain things or provide rational logic behind what you're saying.

[Midvillian1322]

LOL to the max over this. Anyways:



Can't speak for anyone else, but when I disagree, I do because I think the movie in question is actually good. Heck, you don't like Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2? I do and can explain why using criteria from the movie itself, pretty much the exact opposite of blind MCU fans.



I'm sure Marvel's bean counters and business exects would disagree with you there.



Why is that impossible? People like different kinds of movies and if Guardians 2 was a well-made a comedy adventure as Batman Begins was a drama, why wouldn't they have similar successful ratings?



I was going off of the box office numbers and the RT score. If Disney wanted to finish further in the black, fair enough.



I personally would think that Hulk was the forgotten MCU movie, but that was just my guess. Think I liked it better then IM3 but nowhere near as well as Thor 3, but that's just me; for as messy as some of the plot points are (Thor in the pool, anyone), I think the idea of questioning if the Avengers really are the saviors of the world after the high of the first one is an interesting progression for the story and sets up the future Avenger movies nicely as we see the rise and fall and rise again of the team over the course of the Infinity Saga. Just my take, though.



According to the information I had on hand, gotten from specific sites. Where'd you get your's?



You'd have to refresh my memory on how I was comparing Quinto Spock to Thor, but my beefs with that take on Spock are completely from comparing him to Leonard Nimoy's performance as the character and the stories he was in. Heck, I disliked how Quinto Spock was written before there any of the Thor movies were made, much less fat Thor. Remember, I've been a Trekkie for a long time and it is my my primary fanbase circle.



Yes and no. Star Trek '09's time travel makes enough sense in and of itself, but is awful messy to fit in with the rest of the franchise the way we've been told it does. Believe you me; I've talked long and hard about this in Trekkie circles, long before MCU made their time heist. As far as the time heist making or not making sense, we don't agree and haven't heard a convincing argument to sway us from our positions, so what's the point in rehashing it?



You lost me. I liked TLJ since I liked the story, the characters, the cast, etc. I personally didn't see a difference between it and the previous movies (and I wasn't considering the MCU when forming that opinion).



If I'm going to be damned, then let me be damned for what I really am. No, what I said was that Guardians showed an impressive amount of character development over two movies. Star Trek movies didn't really do that. The TV shows, sure, they did, but longer format. (Besides, my larger point, which you missed, was that one of the reasons those movies were good was character development. Refute that if you can)



Clear all right. Clear as mud. Fine, I'll lay it on the line for you. I'm a Trekkie first and foremost (why do you think I hate the Kelvin timeline movies?). I'm a Star Wars fan second (got into a disagreement with a coworker for saying that Rise of Skywalker, not Endgame, was the biggest release of the year). I'm a general Spider-Man third (check my posting history if you like). The MCU isn't in the top seven. We good?



Don't appreciate people twisting my words. What I said was that if the adaptation isn't faithful to the source material but is still objectively good in and of itself, shouldn't it still be considered good? Big difference.



Probably what I said was that I didn't it had aged very well, I've preferred adaptations that do new stuff with the source material, and that the TV show was based on an era of the comics I have zero interest in.

You know, for a guy working so hard to dig up old things I've said, you sure seem to be getting a lot of it wrong.



How you figuring?



Just looking at the business end. As much as we all want good art out of this, it is a business and it all needs to be profitable first and foremost to keep running. Besides, who's to say that something made for profit can't also be good?



Okay?



To be frank, of the ones of those I've seen, they're of a kind with the MCU one. I literally do not understand how you see otherwise.



Okay, but that's hardly a decent sampling and doesn't jive with what I've seen in general outside this forum.



You tell me; you're the only one I can see who's obsessed with "Pixar Spider-Man."



I just love how you ignored me saying that I actually think SM3 was good (flaws, but good anyways). That's an opinion I've hardly been shy about. (As far as Homecoming being better then ASM1, heck yeah! No contest.)



I think you're letting your Marvel Studios hate cloud your judgement.



That could work. The ones that work the best are the ones where Sony lets others take the lead and Raimi has nothing to prove. Still, I guess it would depend what his project was and all that. No one is infallible.

You know, for all your protesting about blind MCU followers, you're the only one I'm seeing who's blind in their ideology (albeit a "Marvel is bad, Sony is good" perspective), seeming to twist everything you hear to fit that view, and not showing much willingness to actually explain things or provide rational logic behind what you're saying.

Jesus man you have saint hood level of patience. I would responded to all of that with one paragraph.