Does anyone hate MCU films?

[Gray Lensman]

It's not consistent at all. Batman has no super powers but gods in DC still fear, respect and treat him as an equal. that is the same with spiderman in marvel. MCU clearly does not understand spiderman.

I always felt that Batman has a suit of plot armor better than anything Tony Stark could build in a million years. Batman v anyone with powers has gotten so predictable that the surprise is when Batman loses.

[Star_Jammer]

I always felt that Batman has a suit of plot armor better than anything Tony Stark could build in a million years. Batman v anyone with powers has gotten so predictable that the surprise is when Batman loses.

Yeah. “Bat God” is not really “mature” or compelling writing.

[Beaddle]

You do you.

.

Since cheesy dialogues are too immature for Marvel movies.

What does Batman got to do with anything? Completely different character.

Batman and Spiderman are nobody's buttboy in their universe. Let's see how far a batman movie will go if superman replaces alfred in batman's life or batman wanting to be a hero is not because of his parent's death (uncle ben) but because he wants to be a trusted justice league member (avengers).

Funny, I remember how when Spidey first met the Avengers, they were extremely mistrustful of him, much like a lot of the established heroes at the time; here's this guy who wanders around in a creepy costume (we know better, but think "in-universe") who lurks and slinks around and beats people up while mocking them. On top of all that, the newspapers report him to be a bad guy. The MCU, while kinder to him, is pretty much in line that he still hasn't earned his stripes and kudos from the big leaguers yet.

Besides, you do need to forget about 616; the MCU Spidey movies are mostly based on the Ultimate comics, where the superhero community actually does regard him as an annoyance, Iron Man being a noted exception.

Spiderman is not a hero because of avengers or tony stark.

Of course, Spidey was only in the big leagues for a two and a fraction of a film. The rest of the movies have done a lot with him doing superhero stuff which infringes on his personal life and all that, you know, Spidey 101.

Very immature to how Raimi handle Spiderman as a hero and a man who wants to have a personal life. Once again, Uncle Ben serves as his mentor. The tone is drama not cheesy high school comedy like Homecomimg.

They did.

Why did Raimi miss this. Spiderman is Woody from toy story.

Weird, my understanding was that Maguire was considered a good Peter Parker but not as funny as Spider-Man should be (although early comics Spidey wasn't constantly cracking jokes either and always has shut up when things get serious). Garfield was a good funny Spider-Man but a weak Peter Parker. Holland was the best of both worlds, even if not as iconic as Maguire. Heck, from my experience, even people who thought the MCU Spidey movies were weak generally thought Holland's performance was one of the good parts.

Maguire is considered the best Spiderman and peter. The Pixar Holland Spiderman is now making Maguire look flawless.If Holland is the best of both, he should have the best spiderman movies, he doesn't. He has some of the unflattering movies.

Kinda hard to prove both. Heck, the Raimi movies have more in common with the MCU then the old X-Men, Nolan Batman movies, first few DCEU, and other "serious" versions of the superhero genre.

I don't see any common factor between Raimi movies and the MCU . Raimi would have drastically limited iron man's and avengers impact on spiderman. the soul of raimi's movies was uncle ben's legacy. Raimi movies limited High School spiderman. Raimi movies had better writing, His movies did not follow a ''disney formula''. His movies had more in common with the most important comic book aspects.

Where's that written?

https://www.animatedtimes.com/sony-w...llion-dollars/

Maybe, but that depends on what their future plans are and how profitable a deal extension would be.

Sony's secret plan will be to push holland of the train and push Into the spiderverse as The Spiderman we should care about more.

Winter Soldier also doesn't overuse humor - the biggest LOL moment was Stan Lee's cameo, and that is right before the third act really gets underway, .

Winter Solider used all the common spy trope you would ever see in an average spy movie. Its a serious problem in the mcu. their movies usually take the most common trope in a genre and just uses it without trying to twerk things. I put this fault on Disney's juvenile writing style.

[Beaddle]

They also do the same in regards to the colour gradient used in other films as well. The vast majority of the films in the MCU library looks washed-out and dull, but they go around claiming other films are too dark and need to be brightened up. Square Enix is making an Avengers video game and one of the complaints they received was that characters looked drab, even though the colours used were nearly identical to their cinematic counterparts.

To tie this into my tangent on the MCU's legacy; there aren't that many 'classic' films that, frankly, look like garbage.

The cheesy humour exchange in civil war was more hurtful to sit through than the bland colour gradient.

No. it is not dark knight.
batman_wideweb__470x202,2.jpg

[Killerbee911]

The MCU doesn’t push the envelope, which is why these movies won’t be that memorable.

Which is none of their movies have been a financial failure. They don't have a 200 million dollar bomb like Green Lanterns or Dark Phoenix. Or 300 million dollar bombs like Justice League.

We can disagree about what is memorable, Marvel has several movies imo opinion that are that memorable plus Infinity War/Endgame is this Generation's Star Wars . We can disagree about what makes a movie memorable. Stories is what make movie memorable and Marvel is sitting on stuff like Annihilation,Kraven Last Hunt, Daredevil Born Again, Secret Invasion,etc

The audience is happy with MCU and they are going to keep feeding the audience what they want. And Spiderman Far Home is 850 million Worldwide with just Lion King as its only competition for next two weeks.The train keeps rolling on.Apparently this only thing that gives perspective


Black Panther $1,346.9

Avengers: Infinity War $2,048.

Ant-Man and the Wasp $622.7

Captain Marvel $1,128.3

Avengers: Endgame $2,780.8( Still in Theaters)

Spider-Man: Far from Home $847.0(Still in theaters)

That is just a stupid stretch of movies.What does Marvel need to do better than that? Normally I wouldn't bring money to discussion about quality but when the money is so silly.Why would any company change what they are doing? The last 5 movies made about combined 7 BILLION. Disney Bought Marvel for 4 billion, Disney bought Lucas Films for 4 Billion. 5 movies has made nearly back the cost of buying the two of the biggest IPs. I just want noted how nuts that is how little the opinion of someone who dislike how Marvel movie are made in the grand scheme.

[Beaddle]

Which is none of their movies have been a financial failure. They don't have a 200 million dollar bomb like Green Lanterns or Dark Phoenix. Or 300 million dollar bombs like Justice League.

.

MCU plans things well. No one can argue against that. It is one of their good qualities.

We can disagree about what is memorable, Marvel has several movies imo opinion that are that memorable plus Infinity War/Endgame is this Generation's Star Wars . We can disagree about what makes a movie memorable. Stories is what make movie memorable and Marvel is sitting on stuff like Annihilation,Kraven Last Hunt, Daredevil Born Again, Secret Invasion,etc

Its a big stretch to call it this generation star wars. the star wars generation have rejected the ''disney formula'' for star wars that is working so well for MCU to make it this generation star wars? Episode 7 and episode 8 could pass off as MCU movies, its the same disney formula. It made sense Lucas sold Star Wars to Disney after he retired from the franchise.

Star Wars pushed the envelope of what you could do with space opera when you had the right film tech and a good story teller. Endgame couldn't push the envelope of dystopian time travel movies. I think Endgame should be worried more about Terminator 2 than Avatar in the James Cameron movie universe.

Black Panther $1,346.9

Avengers: Infinity War $2,048.

Ant-Man and the Wasp $622.7

Captain Marvel $1,128.3

Avengers: Endgame $2,780.8( Still in Theaters)

Spider-Man: Far from Home $847.0(Still in theaters)

''Disney formula'' movies make money. We know.

That is just a stupid stretch of movies.What does Marvel need to do better than that? Normally I wouldn't bring money to discussion about quality but when the money is so silly.Why would any company change what they are doing? The last 5 movies made about combined 7 BILLION. Disney Bought Marvel for 4 billion, Disney bought Lucas Films for 4 Billion. 5 movies has made nearly back the cost of buying the two of the biggest IPs. I just want noted how nuts that is how little the opinion of someone who dislike how Marvel movie are made in the grand scheme.

The Raimi era was better. Have a spiderman movie make over 800m in 2004 but also have the confident to call it one of the great classics of the genre that we are still talking about in 2019.

How many movies on that list would be called a classic in the genre? definitely not far from home or captain marvel or ant man or black panther. maybe Endgame will be an MCU classic but a time travel classic? No.

All the other present major franchises (Star Wars, Star Trek, XMen, DCEU, Jurassic World etc..) all has an important underlying message. The MCU has no message, it’s a dumb down franchise, but maybe that’s why it’s so popular.

Some MCU movies have a message. its usually lost in the sea of their endless massive CGI battles, immature screen writing and humor that does reset the mood before everything can sink in. Fat Thor is a good example. Replace every fat thor scene with more hawkeye scenes, the movie would improve by about 40% as a dystopian tale.

[Sam Robards, Comic Fan]

Haven't read all the previous comments, but here's my take on the current MCU. I like it, overall, but I'm finding that each successive film is giving me diminished returns at this point, with Endgame being a near-complete dud. There's a couple reasons for this, but the one that comes to mind the most easily is homogeneity.

As the MCU has gone on, it seems like Feige & co. have latched onto the filmmaking styles that made the most money and doubled-down on them, which was led there to the universe as a whole feeling terribly homogenized. Thor: The Dark World didn't make enough money? Paint over it with Guardians of the Galaxy and make a billion dollars. Avengers: Age of Ultron didn't usurp the original Avengers? Slather it in that hideous, Captain America: The Winter Soldier aesthetic and make gangbusters. Compare that to phases 1 and 2, and there was so much more variety: Captain America: The First Avenger felt different than Iron Man, which felt different than Thor.

It's not just aesthetics and filmmaking styles that have become more homogenized. The characters themselves have all becomes shades of each other, or, rather, they've all become shades of Robert Downey Jr. Don't get me wrong, his take on Iron Man is definitive, but when Thor, Ultron and Star Lord all become shades of that same character, it starts to seem awful same-y.

I also think I'm just a little burned out on the MCU characters. While you'd think that with some of them leaving, I'd be interested in the new blood, but I'm just not. Black Panther's about the only one I'm interested in unless they man up and give War Machine his own movie. Even then, I'd need to see a trailer to even potentially get excited.

Or, as my wife told me, maybe I just need a break from all these characters. After several movies a year for the last 11 years, maybe I'm burned out. That's not to invalidate my previous criticism: it's just another factor in my MCU malaise.

Long story short, wake me when the X-Men show up.

[WebLurker]

Since cheesy dialogues are too immature for Marvel movies.

More cheesy then the old Raimi movies? Really?

Batman and Spiderman are nobody's buttboy in their universe. Let's see how far a batman movie will go if superman replaces alfred in batman's life or batman wanting to be a hero is not because of his parent's death (uncle ben) but because he wants to be a trusted justice league member (avengers).

Funny thing; the MCU didn't do that, either. That was set up all the way back in Civil War.

Spiderman is not a hero because of avengers or tony stark.

Yeah, that's even the point of the movies, with Homecoming showing Spidey's character arc concluding when he's not depending on Iron Man or borrowed gadgets, but he can do and Far From Home [spoiler]being all about how no one can live up to the Iron Man legacy and Peter needs to carry on as Spider-Man, not Iron Man 2.0[/spoiler]

Very immature to how Raimi handle Spiderman as a hero and a man who wants to have a personal life.

What the what? How was that immature?

Once again, Uncle Ben serves as his mentor.

Do we need to see that every story?

The tone is drama not cheesy high school comedy like Homecomimg.

"Raindrops Keep Falling on my Head," anyone?

Why did Raimi miss this. Spiderman is Woody from toy story.

Don't see it at all.

Maguire is considered the best Spiderman and peter.

I'd agree personally, but I know others do feel otherwise.

The Pixar Holland Spiderman is now making Maguire look flawless.

Can't agree on any level; I think they're both did/doing pretty darn well, considering the scope of their adaptation.

If Holland is the best of both, he should have the best spiderman movies, he doesn't.

That makes no sense; a good performance can be found in an otherwise poor movie; Andrew Garfield got praise for his performance even when the movies themselves were not given as positive an assessment.

He has some of the unflattering movies.

I thought Homecoming was fine and had one of the best villains in the franchise yet and Far From Home was quite good. Don't see where you're coming from.

I don't see any common factor between Raimi movies and the MCU .

Movies that embrace the nature of the source material, have strong character development, and mix the serious aspects with comic relief? Heck, the MCU is kinda the spiritual successor to the Raimi movies in that regard.

Raimi would have drastically limited iron man's and avengers impact on spiderman. the soul of raimi's movies was uncle ben's legacy.

Apples and oranges; one is part of a cinematic universe, the other is not.

Raimi movies limited High School spiderman.

What's that got to do with anything?

Raimi movies had better writing, His movies did not follow a ''disney formula''.

I think the movies have comparable care in the storytelling (although I think SM3 is messier then the MCU stuff in some aspects). And just what "Disney forumla" did the MCU Spidey movies follow?

His movies had more in common with the most important comic book aspects.

And just what would that be?

https://www.animatedtimes.com/sony-w...llion-dollars/

Okay, although seeing as Far From Home has had a strong start so far, not sure why we should be worrying about it unless it actually comes to pass.

Sony's secret plan will be to push holland of the train and push Into the spiderverse as The Spiderman we should care about more.

Are you serious?

[Pinsir]

That is just a stupid stretch of movies.What does Marvel need to do better than that? Normally I wouldn't bring money to discussion about quality but when the money is so silly.Why would any company change what they are doing? The last 5 movies made about combined 7 BILLION. Disney Bought Marvel for 4 billion, Disney bought Lucas Films for 4 Billion. 5 movies has made nearly back the cost of buying the two of the biggest IPs. I just want noted how nuts that is how little the opinion of someone who dislike how Marvel movie are made in the grand scheme.

Except those numbers don't mean at all what you and other people who cite them as an objective truth.

>>> The MCU is the most popular franchise in an era where theatre attendance has consistently been in decline and during a period where television is seen as having replaced the medium as the best means to tell a story. The MCU's 'success is attributed more to inflated ticket prices and 3d, which adds an additional few bucks on an already exorbitant entry fee. People throw around these high box office numbers and imply everyone has seen the film, but in reality very few people have when compared to the actual population.

>>>The growth of the international box office is deceptively used to obscure the decline of the North American box office. When Star Wars made 3 billion dollars the bulk of that audience was in North America, which explains why the movie became such a cultural phenomena (also more people saw the film in theatres too and paid less for a ticket). The MCU was built on the exploiting the international box office, which means less people in NA saw the film, which means its cultural impact is less. To the extent that box office gross matters when discussing the cultural legacy of a film, citing the international box office and not the domestic gross is disingenuous.

>>> The box office is not a measure of how people view the film. It only measures how many people watched the film when it was thrown in theatres. A high box office growths does not indicate that the audience has an enduring attachment to the piece. Most people 'like' things unless they are given a good reason not too.

[Pinsir]

Also I'm just going to point out that the deaths in Endgame have not received the same cultural lamentation as say someone like Han Solo did in the Force Awakens (or maybe even Luke in TLJ). These are character I'm told are etched into our current cultural fabric, yet minor character dying in GoT has spurred a greater outcry.

And just while I'm here, this generations Star Wars is actually Star Wars. There is this dumb meme comment that superhero movies have replaced the classical Homeric myths as our cultural framework, but there is a genuine case to be made that the original Star Wars movies have done this.

In the famous Star Trek episode Darmok, the Enterprise encounters a race of aliens that speak entirely in allegory. because Star Wars is so ubiquitous in our culture, I think we honestly could speak using only references from Star Wars; Luke, staring at the binary stars (to yearn for something), Solo, cast in carbon (to be caught), Boba Fett in the Sarlac Pit (to die unceremoniously)

[Steel Inquisitor]

Its a big stretch to call it this generation star wars. the star wars generation have rejected the ''disney formula'' for star wars that is working so well for MCU to make it this generation star wars? Episode 7 and episode 8 could pass off as MCU movies, its the same disney formula. It made sense Lucas sold Star Wars to Disney after he retired from the franchise.

The MCU is using its own formula, not Disney's. They were cleaving out a large social niche years in Hollywood, before Disney bought them. Avengers was their first billion dollar film, too. Until Marvel started this nobody was doing this, while those who tried to repeat their progress have left behind a graveyard of IP's and shared universes.

Star Wars pushed the envelope of what you could do with space opera when you had the right film tech and a good story teller. Endgame couldn't push the envelope of dystopian time travel movies. I think Endgame should be worried more about Terminator 2 than Avatar in the James Cameron movie universe.

Star Wars was an influential juggernaut on pop culture, which few IP's can match in popularity - the MCU being one. Before this started nobody cared about the characters, aside from Hulk. Now Captain America films are beating Justice League films with Superman and Batman in it, among both the critics and financially. Unlike Avatar Endgame has left a distinct imprint on culture, and so did its predecessor Infinity War.

''Disney formula'' movies make money. We know.

Not Disney, "MCU." This shows that there is immense demand for their product and not the kind which leaves a bad aftertaste like Twilight or Michael Bay's Transformers.

The Raimi era was better. Have a spiderman movie make over 800m in 2004 but also have the confident to call it one of the great classics of the genre that we are still talking about in 2019.

The Raimi era excelled at the time, but that time has long past. They were ageing once the super-hero genre quality rose, like after Chris Nolan's Batman trilogy and the first Iron Man. Nostalgia is powerful, and while they're nice pop corn movies we can do so much better now. They've been supplanted by MCU's Spider-man, and the Spider-verse.

How many movies on that list would be called a classic in the genre? definitely not far from home or captain marvel or ant man or black panther. maybe Endgame will be an MCU classic but a time travel classic? No.

Far From Home, Black Panther, and all the Avengers movies minus Age of Ultron are instant classics.

Some MCU movies have a message. its usually lost in the sea of their endless massive CGI battles, immature screen writing and humor that does reset the mood before everything can sink in. Fat Thor is a good example. Replace every fat thor scene with more hawkeye scenes, the movie would improve by about 40% as a dystopian tale.

The MCU is filled with morality tales. Endgame's "Fat Thor" has more depth than you're arguing, he's someone who mentally broke after suffering defeat after defeat and had to come to terms with death and get his self confidence back. He was a chilling reminder of the losses the super-heroes in the MCU take on to save the world or universe. Hawkeye didn't have much depth in the movie, that's why he was a side character while Black Widow had more screen time.

[Beaddle]

The MCU is using its own formula, not Disney's. They were cleaving out a large social niche years in Hollywood, before Disney bought them. Avengers was their first billion dollar film, too. Until Marvel started this nobody was doing this, while those who tried to repeat their progress have left behind a graveyard of IP's and shared universes.

.

If Disney didn't own marvel. marvel movies would be different in filmmaking. With the release of Lion King, Do you know rocket raccoon and groot are actually timon and pumba from lion king.

Star Wars was an influential juggernaut on pop culture, which few IP's can match in popularity - the MCU being one. Before this started nobody cared about the characters, aside from Hulk. Now Captain America films are beating Justice League films with Superman and Batman in it, among both the critics and financially. Unlike Avatar Endgame has left a distinct imprint on culture, and so did its predecessor Infinity War.

Box office doesn't mean you have a good movie. Superman and Batman have more classics since some of their movies were not harmonized. Infinity war and endgame's impact are guilty pleasures. they don't have the same serious impact as star trek or star wars. A few comic movies are taken seriously, Avengers movies are not one of them.

The Raimi era excelled at the time, but that time has long past. They were ageing once the super-hero genre quality rose, like after Chris Nolan's Batman trilogy and the first Iron Man. Nostalgia is powerful, and while they're nice pop corn movies we can do so much better now. They've been supplanted by MCU's Spider-man, and the Spider-verse.

A quality movie is never long past, it is always brought up when the new ones are born. Spiderverse is a contender for the best spiderman movie , MCU spiderman movies are not contenders.

Far From Home, Black Panther, and all the Avengers movies minus Age of Ultron are instant classics.

The Avengers is a comic film classic. far from home, black panther and age of ultron are not. MCU harmonized filmmaking style and immature writing is the reason most of their movies can never be called classics. a big qualification for classic movies is that they are not harmonized.

The MCU is filled with morality tales. Endgame's "Fat Thor" has more depth than you're arguing, he's someone who mentally broke after suffering defeat after defeat and had to come to terms with death and get his self confidence back. He was a chilling reminder of the losses the super-heroes in the MCU take on to save the world or universe. Hawkeye didn't have much depth in the movie, that's why he was a side character while Black Widow had more screen time.

Many characters have gone through the same process, they don't become like fat thor. fat thor is the result of disney immature writing with marvel movies. another film would have taken a much higher road than turning a main character to a gag.

Gohan didn't become a clown in the history of trunks
Xavier didn't become a clown in DOFP
Thomas Wayne didn't become a clown in flash point
John Anderton didn't become a clown in minority report
Spock didn't become a clown in Star Trek

All these characters suffered losses, many worse than thor. fat thor is the ''disney juvenile'' writing at the worst when Disney forces MCU to overuse humour and to be lighthearted at the expense of having a mature story with actual depth. If disney didn't own marvel, believe me when I say I am 100% confident the fat thor gag would never have been written in the movie.

[Killerbee911]

Except those numbers don't mean at all what you and other people who cite them as an objective truth.

>>> The MCU is the most popular franchise in an era where theatre attendance has consistently been in decline and during a period where television is seen as having replaced the medium as the best means to tell a story. The MCU's 'success is attributed more to inflated ticket prices and 3d, which adds an additional few bucks on an already exorbitant entry fee. People throw around these high box office numbers and imply everyone has seen the film, but in reality very few people have when compared to the actual population.

>>>The growth of the international box office is deceptively used to obscure the decline of the North American box office. When Star Wars made 3 billion dollars the bulk of that audience was in North America, which explains why the movie became such a cultural phenomena (also more people saw the film in theatres too and paid less for a ticket). The MCU was built on the exploiting the international box office, which means less people in NA saw the film, which means its cultural impact is less. To the extent that box office gross matters when discussing the cultural legacy of a film, citing the international box office and not the domestic gross is disingenuous.

>>> The box office is not a measure of how people view the film. It only measures how many people watched the film when it was thrown in theatres. A high box office growths does not indicate that the audience has an enduring attachment to the piece. Most people 'like' things unless they are given a good reason not too.

Domestically the films are doing very well, I can pull the numbers there as well. However people want to say it these movies are the standard for their time. Also saying very few people are seeing it is hilarious.

I will throw out crushing box office numbers to prove that larger audience of this time like the product and consistently like the product over solid period of time. That is only thing that matters. People are trying to tear to films to shred but people like them that is point of using box office numbers. Some people might not like them but a lot of people like them. The people who don't like them are nowhere close to the majority

[Steel Inquisitor]

If Disney didn't own marvel. marvel movies would be different in filmmaking. With the release of Lion King, Do you know rocket raccoon and groot are actually timon and pumba from lion king.

Marvel perfected their style with Iron Man ('08), Disney wouldn't purchase the MCU until a year later. Marvel's managed fine on its own with the MCU, which is why Disney keeps its hands off for the majority of there partnership, aside from decisions like James Gunn. If anything Marvel's influencing Disney with Star Wars and other IP's, not the other way around.

I like Timon and Pumba from Lion King as much as anybody but they are cardboard cutouts to Groot and Rocket.

Box office doesn't mean you have a good movie. Superman and Batman have more classics since some of their movies were not harmonized. Infinity war and endgame's impact are guilty pleasures. they don't have the same serious impact as star trek or star wars. A few comic movies are taken seriously, Avengers movies are not one of them.

Not by itself, but it is a decent barometer for what the public wants this is how Michael Bay made his careers. The other part is critic and public reaction, and that's been positive with the MCU more often than not. The MCU rewrote the rulebook for super-hero films, it's why nobodies like the Guardians of the Galaxy (an IP who were obscure to Marvel comic readers) became a beloved household name. And they did it again, and again. Sure Avengers is taken seriously, they made the Justice League redundant to the public in Hollywood.

A quality movie is never long past, it is always brought up when the new ones are born to measure if it is up Spiderverse is a contender for the best spiderman movie , MCU spiderman movies are not contenders.

Some movies age worse then others, including quality ones. The Raimi Spider-man and Singer X-men movies were outstanding when they came out, today they're mediocre. Industry standards have risen, and they're partially why. Many would disagree.

The Avengers is a comic film classic. far from home, black panther and age of ultron are not. MCU harmonized filmmaking style and immature writing is the reason most of their movies can never be called classics. a big qualification for classic movies is that they are not harmonized.

What distinguishes Avengers from those movies? I deliberately excluded Age of Ultron from being a classic. What do you mean by "harmonised?" I don't get the context you're using.

Many characters have gone through the same process, they don't become like fat thor. fat thor is the result of disney immature writing with marvel movies. another film would have taken a much higher road than turning a main character to a gag.

Gohan didn't become a clown in the history of trunks
Xavier didn't become a clown in DOFP
Thomas Wayne didn't become a clown in flash point
John Anderton didn't become a clown in minority report
Spock didn't become a clown in Star Trek

All these characters suffered losses, many worse than thor. fat thor is the ''disney juvenile'' writing at the worst when Disney forces MCU to overuse humour and to be lighthearted at the expense of having a mature story with actual depth. If disney didn't own marvel, believe me when I say I am 100% confident the fat thor gag would never have been written in the movie.

Thor wasn't a "clown," he was a man shattered by the loses he took. He was a shell of his former self, that's why he acted like he did and why the Avengers acted delicately around him and why his mother was so gentle with him. Sure he was used for comedy relief, that was far from his only contribution to the story.

Haven't seen History of Bardock, but the only person on this list who rivals Thor with loss is Spock. Who was in JJ Abram's Trek, movies who would slot right in with the MCU humour.



Thor needn't be exactly like Spock to be a tragic character, the movie heavily went with how dire his situation was and how the other characters tried to help him. Rocket, Drax and Starlord all do this in the Guardian films.

Disney isn't outlooking every scene the MCU does and signing off on it, it's not how this works. Not all the movies they make are comedy fodder for facilities, they owned Miramax for years - Pulp Fiction was made on their watch.

edit: How do you do spoilers here?

[Midvillian1322]

Domestically the films are doing very well, I can pull the numbers there as well. However people want to say it these movies are the standard for their time. Also saying very few people are seeing it is hilarious.

I will throw out crushing box office numbers to prove that larger audience of this time like the product and consistently like the product over solid period of time. That is only thing that matters. People are trying to tear to films to shred but people like them that is point of using box office numbers. Some people might not like them but a lot of people like them. The people who don't like them are nowhere close to the majority

Your wasting your breathe. I honestly think we should just let this be a thread for People who hate the MCU to vent. I mean if they post this stuff in most threads they get 20 people jumping down they're throat. But I get it, I dont care if someone doesnt like something i like. To each thyre own but when people say things that are either they're personal unpopular opinion being presented as a objective fact. Or just flat out untrue I get defensive. So you definelt handle it better then me but I'd think as much as we'd like to deny it people who dont like the MCU kinda get bullied in other threads. So maybe just give them this one to vent. Or not I like popping in to see where the conversation is going but yea I'm not gonna respond to defend the MCU anymore In this thread.