Does anyone hate MCU films?

[DrNewGod]

I meant “big screen”, sorry.
The disaster would be a MCU formula X-Men. The X-Men isn’t just about mutants, it’s about acceptance and prejudice. I don’t see how that can work with the MCU formula. The MCU is about good vs evil, X-Men go’s beyond that.

Ah. I take it then, that you use "disaster" to mean The X-Men under Feige would be presented in a tone that you think isn't best for the core of their characters.

Possibly. I'd say, "let's see." While there was some comedy in them, both Winter Soldier and Civil War were pretty bleak, and demonstrate that there's room for films of almost every type and tone in the MCU. That said, I understand your misgivings; I agree with what others have said on this thread that the MCU has missteped with the tone and core of Spider-Man.

[Star_Jammer]

Can I win an internet argument just by posting a video from someone that I (mostly) agree with? That’s how this is working, yes?

[Speed Force League Unlimited]

By that point, Batman could’ve said “Merry Christmas” and it would’ve been intimidating

[WebLurker]

Was there anything more painful than the fake ''Mandarin'' revelation in Iron Man 3 to Iron Man 1?

Didn't bother me.

These ''pro critics'' have let MCU get away with many things for so long, they no longer have any meaningful contribution. Critics are now even struggling to have a voice in the smaller indie films.

What the what?

There are better ways to handle things than using unbearable humor everytime.

Depends on the writing and setup, which is always a case-by-case basis.

What is RT again? RT will be interesting to talk about again when they find themselves in another controversy and that is if anyone still cares about it.

"Another" controversy?

Dark Phoenix has no saving grace. Batman v Superman had some. Ben Affleck, Gal Gadot, director's experience, the cinematography and the CGI. I cannot think of anything good about dark phoenix.

It had a more coherent plot, an actual theme, no "Martha," a decent number of cast members giving it their all, was far better paced. No contest really.

The Last Jedi was not only bad star wars, it was a misunderstanding of the star wars mythos that is basically a pop culture ''religion'' now.

Not really. It was mostly about deconstructing and reconstructing the mythos and subverting expectations. To do that, they had to understand how the mythos worked before the could re-spin it. Rian Johnson and co. actually "understood" the mythos a lot better then most of their critics (and I'm a junkie for this franchise, so I do know what I'm talking about).

Most news pages talking about comics. I just read one on Forbes. Its a Marvel knowledge thing too.

I see.

I wonder why it is so resented in the MCU that X-Men films gets the most share of serious comic movies.

I think you're projecting.

The characters in a humor paint by numbers plotted disney story is what stood out. Disney has been doing this for years. My understanding about GOTG even in the Marvel family is one of love-hate. I think people realize that it was a fun but brainless space movie and like it as such. They never wanted it to extend the way it has to other marvel movies.

And yet people were unhappy when it looked like the third movie would't happen because an alt-right troublemaker tried to get James Gunn fired.

why else are people so divided about Thor 3?

Ragnarok has nothing to do with the Guardians ("Asgardians of the Galaxy" notwithstanding).

Why else was star lord the most hated character in infifnty war? Chris Pratt had to address the controversy.

Because in that movie he made a bad decision (a mistake that it makes sense he would make, given what he's gone through, but still). Dollars to donuts, had it been Doctor Strange, he would've been the target.

Most of all importance, people blame GOTG for the over done humor found presently in every MCU movie.

From my experience, that's a pretty darn small demographic.

GOTG movies problems is they don't have maturity, realism , seriousness or core themes that drives the 60% of fox movies.

How is that a problem?

GOTG is about having meaningless good fun time in cinema. X-Men, you are suppose to think and reflect every now and then. Fox just never let some characters retire. Magneto, Mystique Xavier, Wolverine.

And yet the filmmakers went they extra yard in regards to the craftsmanship of the movie, created a well-written villian in the second one, invested in both the lead and supporting characters by giving them actual story arcs and depth.

Nebula's redemption over magneto would have some thoughts, If MCU would ever allowed Magneto to be portrayed as he is in the movies, which is from the comics. I don't know the ties between GOTG and X-Men. If MCU doesn't want to anger an entire fan base more than the spiderman base, MCU will keep GOTG far away from X-Men. As far away as DOFP was to GOTG, its not hard to see the movie that was made for the juvenile fun zone house and the movie made for the others, a mature audience, very much aware that comic stories are more than fun and jokes as GOTG makes things out to be.

Uh-huh.

My taste comes from what I know about Spiderman in the comics. That taste has more in it's flavors of the greatest spiderman film argument.

Same here, man. Same here. (FIY, are you even taking the Ultimate comics into account, given that that is what the movie is actually basing itself on?)

Who doesn't have an opinion with enough time to make a video? I prefer unbiased opinions that is based more on the back bones of the comics concept and some objective filmmaking reasonable points.

Funny, nothing you've said has really been based on either. In fact, you're showing a heckuva lot of ignorance on how storytelling works (e.g. serious and "mature" = good filmmaking, anything else is not, etc.)

[Beaddle]

Didn't bother me.

It bothered me. I don't like it when MCU gets that bad.

What the what?

RT is about what again?

Depends on the writing and setup, which is always a case-by-case basis.

Marvel stories never relied on too much humor. Disney movies usually did.

Not really. It was mostly about deconstructing and reconstructing the mythos and subverting expectations. To do that, they had to understand how the mythos worked before the could re-spin it. Rian Johnson and co. actually "understood" the mythos a lot better then most of their critics (and I'm a junkie for this franchise, so I do know what I'm talking about).

No.

I think you're projecting.

No.

From my experience, that's a pretty darn small demographic.

From my experience, its quite a big demo. if you ask anyone what were some of the weakest parts about endgame, if it is not time travel it is fat thor.

Because in that movie he made a bad decision (a mistake that it makes sense he would make, given what he's gone through, but still). Dollars to donuts, had it been Doctor Strange, he would've been the target.

Or it is now donning on more people that star lord is a very irritating character. It was obvious in the first film after he challenged Zemo to a dance battle, tired to hit on Gamora. I just waited for more people to catch up.

How is that a problem?

Because X-Men should never be like the GOTG movies but chances are they could because of Disney.

And yet the filmmakers went they extra yard in regards to the craftsmanship of the movie, created a well-written villian in the second one, invested in both the lead and supporting characters by giving them actual story arcs and depth.

Compared to other space adventures? Disney again are the easiest one. I like a tougher challenge.

Funny, nothing you've said has really been based on either.

I am not been bias. I speak everytime about the good and bad things about any movie brought up.

In fact, you're showing a heckuva lot of ignorance on how storytelling works (e.g. serious and "mature" = good filmmaking, anything else is not, etc.)

Yes in the case of Thor 1 vs Thor 3.

In fact, you're showing a heckuva lot of ignorance on how storytelling works (e.g. serious and "mature" = good filmmaking, anything else is not, etc.)

Process factroyed movies are very hard to call good filmmaking. Look no further than Dark Phoenix and Captain Marvel. one is just bad filmmaking from an untalented humanbeing. the other is just a process factory movie with a sterilized formula. I dislike both methods.

[Arsenal]

Exactly! That **** is terrifying.

[WebLurker]

Its bothered me. I don't like it when MCU gets that bad.

To ask a stupid question, what was so bad about it?

RT is about what again?

Listing pro reviews (and viewer's feedback). Some people put too much stock in the data and there were some people angry that RT fixed a few things so they couldn't review bomb movies they hated even existing.

Marvel stories never relied on too much humor. Disney movies usually did.

So?

No.

Okay then, how did TLJ misunderstand the "mythos?" (Isn't that just a polite word for "formula" anyways? So, it's bad when Marvel uses a formula, but good when Star Wars does? If that's what you're saying, I don't get it.)

No.

Just how you're coming across.

From my experience, its quite a big demo. if you ask anyone what were some of the weakest parts about endgame, if it is not time travel it is fat thor.

Sad to say, anecdotal evidence is not all that useful.

Or it is now donning on more people that star lord is a very irritating character. It was obvious in the first film after he challenged Zemo to a dance battle, tired to hit on Gamora. I just waited for more people to catch up.

That remains to be seen.

Because X-Men should never be like the GOTG movies but chances are they could because of Disney.

Right because of the so-called Disney formula that doesn't actually exist, and because of how all the MCU movies are exactly the same, except that they're not. Let's wait and see what actually gets made. I mean, all we know that Marvel Studios is planning to make them different then the Fox ones, and that's a good thing on paper.

Compared to other space adventures? Disney again are the easiest one. I like a tougher challenge.

Guardians has had only two movies plus supporting roles on a couple others (which could be rounded up to one in terms of material about them). Lot of other space adventure stories, e.g. Star Trek, Star Wars, Babylon 5, Doctor Who, that are known for have well-developed characters had far more hours of screen time and other materials to build them up. Guardians being able to do so much in a fraction of the time is pretty darn impressive.

I am not been bias. I speak everytime about the good and bad things about any movie brought up.

Thing is, you say very little (if anything) about why the movie in question is actually bad. Most of the complaints you bring up are pretty much personal preference (it's wasn't like the comics, I didn't like how funny it was, etc.). To be objective, you have to look past your own biases. Case in point, you don't like that Guardians is a very funny movie series and wanted something that didn't have as many laughs. Okay, but that's not what was made, so, to look at it objectively, you got to ask if it was a space comedy, did it work well as that? I would say it did, given that the humor was very character-based and used to show us what kind of people the characters are (Rocket is abrasive, so he uses a lot of sarcasm, Star Lord was never really able to get past his childhood, so we get a lot of pop culture jokes and immature humor, Gamorra is the sanest person, so to speak, so the jokes about her are often regarding the nonsense of her friends, etc.). If you want to refute that point or argue some other specific reason why the funny stuff didn't work from a technical standpoint, I'll hear you out, but so far, you haven't provided that.

Yes in the case of Thor 1 vs Thor 3.

Yeah, the latter was better-received then the former (Chris Hemsworth does really good comedy). What of it?

Process factroyed movies are very hard to call good filmmaking. Look no further than Dark Phoenix and Captain Marvel. one is just bad filmmaking from an untalented humanbeing. the other is just a process factory movie with a sterilized formula. I dislike both methods.

But does that mean that neither of them have any value? I think Dark Phoenix is a flawed movie. Not going to argue otherwise, even if I think it deserved better (it's not that bad, esp. in comparison to some of the previous installments). Captain Marvel may not be high art, but it did have a really good cast, had an interesting story, and was pretty relevant in it's social commentary, such as the parallels in regards to how racism, xenophobia, nationalism and demonization of "the other" are being defended and justified by certain people in political power. Heck, the movie outright predicted the misogyny it would suffer from Those Who Must Not Be Named and shut them down (the sad thing being that the filmmakers weren't even specifically reacting to internet trolls and cyberbullies but simply reflecting things women have to deal with ILR). And there's Goose.

Not everything is going to be high art, win awards, etc., but I don't think that means a McMovie should be written off as not being able to be called "good" on its own merits.

[AJBopp]

My honest impression is that Iron Man first movie had more laughs than The Winter Soldier, Civil War, Infinity War, and Endgame.

[Star_Jammer]

My honest impression is that Iron Man first movie had more laughs than The Winter Soldier, Civil War, Infinity War, and Endgame.

Shhh, you're not allowed to point that out. It destroys the "narrative".

[chaosfist]

The humor is among the many self destructive things about Iron Man 3 not Iron Man 1



Objectively speaking, they are some of the worst of the MCU. Any honest pro critic/film student is more likely to say so from a typical tick box film check.



Its not needed.



I have forgotten RT existed until now.



I wanted Endgame to be better than what Disney gave us as I know how much marvel comics has overdone time travel and post apocalyptic stories.



its the same structural kind of movie. The movies are shot the same way.



This is still wrong to me. Can anyone imagine if anyone said this about Game of Thrones? or they already did? Once D&D finished all the source material by season 6, the show's story began to fall apart because there was no source material to rely on as a back bone like season 1-6.



Last Jedi didn't portray women in the best light, it misunderstood feminism, There is nothing experiential about the movie, ransom moments, bad writing, disjointed action, character assassination is not experimental to me.





Its as high profile, its higher than I thought. I did think because the MCU is so big now, most would just be okay with a Disney xmen makeover from the scratch, but I was wrong. Nobody want Disney to change the seriousness of X-Men, meaning they know what X-Men is from either the movies, comics , games , TV shows or animations.



Websearching, It should be easy to find more sources now since the latest xmen movie was a bomb. Don't also forget its been brought here.



Dark Phoenix is worse than Batman v Superman. Snyder understands some good aspect about making movies, Kinberg doesn't understand anything. Dark Phoenix is also worse because this is the second time Kinberg got a phoenix movie wrong.



This movies should be a back bone of the comics not trapped by the comics.


GOTG is a movie you leave remembering all the fun and games, If GOTG had any deep character exploration, it would be the first thing we remember about the films, The first thing we remember is the humor. I don't see X-Men in any type of conversation with GOTG. it doesn't look as if they are in the same universe. GOTG has never felt like ''deep characters smart marvel'' like X-Men or Daredevil does.




Fox, MCU, DCU, I have said it many times, all have their bad apples. MCU bad apples are more difficult to uproot. As trooper_thorn said, The MCU problem is a whole. a whole tree to me not just some bad apples in a tree.

Why is Spiderverse a contender for the best Spiderman film? Easy answer- the movie (like spiderman 2) is not part of a structural processed factory formula like Homecoming and FFH.

Buddy all you do is post the exact same talking points over and over again. You vary them slightly but its the same post over and over again. You never actually explain anything or back up any statements. You were asked specific questions and instead of explaining yourself you just posted what you did before only a little different. If anyone is monotonous its you. Oh and please stop pretending that you speak for anyone other than your own self. Use I statements instead of we. Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

[Beaddle]

To ask a stupid question, what was so bad about it?

The film was not the best of itself. I don't understood the route of Iron Man 3 when it could have been a follow up to Iron Man 2 and Avengers.

Listing pro reviews (and viewer's feedback). Some people put too much stock in the data and there were some people angry that RT fixed a few things so they couldn't review bomb movies they hated even existing.

RT is something about about fresh and rotten. I don't know what kind of useful impact it has on movies.

So?

It's not the best.

Okay then, how did TLJ misunderstand the "mythos?" (Isn't that just a polite word for "formula" anyways? So, it's bad when Marvel uses a formula, but good when Star Wars does? If that's what you're saying, I don't get it.)

Its bad for star wars, its bad for marvel. None had a formula until Disney became their owners.

Sad to say, anecdotal evidence is not all that useful.

The issues I had and shared my thoughts on the subject was useful. A good amount of people understood my problems with Time travel and Fat Thor.

Right because of the so-called Disney formula that doesn't actually exist, and because of how all the MCU movies are exactly the same, except that they're not. Let's wait and see what actually gets made. I mean, all we know that Marvel Studios is planning to make them different then the Fox ones, and that's a good thing on paper.

Its not a good thing for now looking at what has been done to Spiderman, Thor , GOTG. Amost everybody on Xbooks is rejecting any MCU Magneto's origins that has no Holocaust backstory.

Guardians has had only two movies plus supporting roles on a couple others (which could be rounded up to one in terms of material about them). Lot of other space adventure stories, e.g. Star Trek, Star Wars, Babylon 5, Doctor Who, that are known for have well-developed characters had far more hours of screen time and other materials to build them up. Guardians being able to do so much in a fraction of the time is pretty darn impressive.

I never watched Babylon 5, have not caught up with dr who in a long while. GOTG ain't on the level of star trek or star wars.

Thing is, you say very little (if anything) about why the movie in question is actually bad. Most of the complaints you bring up are pretty much personal preference (it's wasn't like the comics, I didn't like how funny it was, etc.). To be objective, you have to look past your own biases. Case in point, you don't like that Guardians is a very funny movie series and wanted something that didn't have as many laughs. Okay, but that's not what was made, so, to look at it objectively, you got to ask if it was a space comedy, did it work well as that? I would say it did, given that the humor was very character-based and used to show us what kind of people the characters are (Rocket is abrasive, so he uses a lot of sarcasm, Star Lord was never really able to get past his childhood, so we get a lot of pop culture jokes and immature humor, Gamorra is the sanest person, so to speak, so the jokes about her are often regarding the nonsense of her friends, etc.). If you want to refute that point or argue some other specific reason why the funny stuff didn't work from a technical standpoint, I'll hear you out, but so far, you haven't provided that.

This sounds incredible, if only GOTG was this original franchise Disney created from the scratch and it became a smash hit.

Captain Marvel may not be high art, but it did have a really good cast, had an interesting story, and was pretty relevant in it's social commentary, such as the parallels in regards to how racism, xenophobia, nationalism and demonization of "the other" are being defended and justified by certain people in political power. Heck, the movie outright predicted the misogyny it would suffer from Those Who Must Not Be Named and shut them down (the sad thing being that the filmmakers weren't even specifically reacting to internet trolls and cyberbullies but simply reflecting things women have to deal with ILR). And there's Goose.

My first time of hearing about how much goodness is in captain marvel, The awareness you mentioned, feels like a z thought. This is another Batwoman, only Captain Marvel got there first.

My honest impression is that Iron Man first movie had more laughs than The Winter Soldier, Civil War, Infinity War, and Endgame.

Iron Man was very balanced. The humor, story, action, characters were balanced. It's a good MCU origins movie for a superhero nobody knew much about. It has less laughs than Infinity War and Endgame.

Winter Solider is saved by Tony and Steve being polar opposites of the other, their different personalities is what drives their solo movies. Winter Solider had zero appearances of other MCU stars,a very good move compared to civil war.

[AJBopp]

Buddy all you do is post the exact same talking points over and over again. You vary them slightly but its the same post over and over again. You never actually explain anything or back up any statements.

It's almost as if he's a Batman Keaton fan

[Pinsir]

Lol a movie that was never in production or even announced can’t be considered cancelled.

I'm not the only one who used the term cancelled, most media sources that discuss Ant-Man 3 have described the film as being cancelled. There is the expectation that there should be a third film, as that's the number most superhero films yearn for and its not like Ant-Man 2 flopped.

Even then, you missed my point. I'm more interested by the audiences apathy towards the Ant-Man franchise's absence during SDCC. We're far enough away now from that even that most of the active MCU fan base is probably aware that the franchise has been cancelled and its clear that very few of them care.

And the hypothetical “meh” reaction to an Ant-Man 3 announcement means nothing. It’s the tenth biggest box office/popular vehicle out of eleven that Marvel has had, so what is that indicative of anything?

It's a portent to the MCU's legacy. These film really only serve to introduce characters and incite speculation as to future movies, but as individual products themselves they're forgettable mediocrities.

If WB announcing a Justice League 2 the internet will also be met with a collective groan. That’s much more telling of where these two franchises are at right now.

Uh, why are you talking about DC in a thread about Marvel? You do know saying, "DC is worse!" is not an argument, right?

[Midvillian1322]

It's almost as if he's a Batman Keaton fan

Yea I thought the exact same thing. Either that or a Huge Oakland Raiders fan

[WebLurker]

The film was not the best of itself.

What does that even mean?

I don't understood the route of Iron Man 3 when it could have been a follow up to Iron Man 2 and Avengers.

The story threads of IM2 were wrapped up already and Tony's PTDS built on the events of the Avengers movie.

RT is something about about fresh and rotten. I don't know what kind of useful impact it has on movies.

It just collects reviews and nots the positive percentage of the ones sampled. No more, no less.

It's not the best.

Not really answering the question.

Its bad for star wars, its bad for marvel.

Tell that to the critics and bean counters.

None had a formula until Disney became their owners.

MCU never did. Star Wars, while I don't think there is an actual formula, there is a reason the ring theory is a thing.

(FYI: Your whole "MCU has a bd formula" claims are getting tiring. You don't offer any evidence beyond staring the claim and ignore the evidence that disproves it. If you're not interested in actually explaining why we should believe it, you really need to drop it.)

The issues I had and shared my thoughts on the subject was useful. A good amount of people understood my problems with Time travel and Fat Thor.

No, anecdotal evidence just isn't reliable; case in point, it's impossible to prove that most people agree with you, since you don't have a large enough sampling to actually show that you have a majority opinion.

Its not a good thing for now looking at what has been done to Spiderman, Thor , GOTG.

Which has nothing to due with any future X-Men movies that get made; different franchises with their own styles, own creative teams, etc.

Amost everybody on Xbooks is rejecting any MCU Magneto's origins that has no Holocaust backstory.

So, why aren't they unhappy with the '90s cartoon doing it? (From a practical standpoint, altering Magneto's origins to not be tied into WWII does avoid a lot of plot holes in regards to why he's still kicking in the modern era and it's not like there's any shortage of oppression since that could be used instead.)

I never watched Babylon 5, have not caught up with dr who in a long while.

Don't watch much myself, but I know some things about them.

GOTG ain't on the level of star trek or star wars.

Maybe, but you're missing the point; Guardians accomplished similar levels of character development with far less material then they did.

This sounds incredible, if only GOTG was this original franchise Disney created from the scratch and it became a smash hit.

It's a franchise that was a smash hit. What's wrong with that?

My first time of hearing about how much goodness is in captain marvel...

Really? It was a pretty well-liked movie.

The awareness you mentioned, feels like a z thought. This is another Batwoman, only Captain Marvel got there first.

You lost me.