Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 170
  1. #46
    Peter Scott SpiderClops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    7,562

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Valentis View Post
    ...Hugh Jackman's X-Men...
    Referring those movies like that makes me more uncomfortable than it should.
    MCU is great at linking every film together. There is nothing special about their films once you remove the link.
    I never understand this argument. "If I remove the thing makes makes these things special, it's not special." Well, yeah?

  2. #47
    Fantastic Member Valentis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    362

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SpiderClops View Post
    Referring those movies like that makes me more uncomfortable than it should.
    Sorry to hear that.


    I never understand this argument. "If I remove the thing makes makes these things special, it's not special." Well, yeah?
    Linking movies is not film quality,greatness or creativity. MCU movies have not done anything new with movies apart from the link. It’s becoming a crop out.

  3. #48
    Extraordinary Member Jokerz79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Somewhere in Time & Space
    Posts
    7,613

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Valentis View Post
    Sorry to hear that.



    Linking movies is not film quality,greatness or creativity. MCU movies have not done anything new with movies apart from the link. It’s becoming a crop out.
    Given how many Studios failed to create Shared Universes I disagree.

  4. #49
    CBR's Good Fairy Kieran_Frost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    8,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Powerboy View Post
    I cannot pretend to be an expert on what is and is not artistic.
    It's ultimately an opinion, so you're golden. While some opinions have more weight than others, that is true (there are opinions, informed opinions, professional opinions and expert opinions) for a debate like this I think it's all fair game.

    Quote Originally Posted by Powerboy View Post
    I do think one important factor is longevity and that's something we cannot answer with the MCU. Forty years from now, if an old person says to a child, "What do you think of the Marvel Cinematic Universe", will he say, "It's great" or will he say, "What's that?" leaving the adult to say, "Well, it was something very popular when I was young but it faded". Unlike, say, Star Wars. Here we are, forty years later and it's as popular as ever.
    Mind you, I'm not even saying that's the be all of greatness. There are films the general public has long forgotten that were great.
    Again, I'm not sure longevity is the answer either when it comes to greatness. I just watched "the Breakfast Club" last night (for the first time ever). It's STILL iconic, it's STILL referenced in shows and is watched and known. Does that mean it was the greatest film of 1985? I would argue no.

    Quote Originally Posted by ComicJunkie21 View Post
    The MCU films didn't do anything that hadn't been done in prior superhero films like Raimi's Spiderman or Christopher Reeves Superman when talking each MCU film standing on its own. The ability to link the films to the extent that they did was great but not perfect. Many fans can point to multiple plot holes and inconsistencies in the films. For alot of films time is not their friend when plotholes are involved as popular films tend get analyzed over and over again. Heck Endgame is full of issues and imo didn't live up to what was built before it. In hindsight Endgame's plot was bad writing and many can probably agree that Infinity War was a far better film that deserved a better ending than what Endgame provided.
    I think this sums it up perfectly. They are good films, made with a good formula that they do not deviate from, and they can chuck so much money and hire the best of the best to crew it... but you can't "make" a masterpiece just by ticking all the boxes. There isn't a formula for greatness. There IS a formula for business. This is a business franchise, not an artistic franchise.

    Quote Originally Posted by ComicJunkie21 View Post
    Forgot to mention performances in my other post. While many of us loved RDJ as Iron Man, it wasn't his best performance nor did he really have a chance to showcase his true acting skills and everyone else's performance is forgettable even if I did enjoy them.
    While RDJ is a fantastic actor who can so much better, I do think he's one of the absolute best things about the MCU, and he gives it his all till the very end. Where as Chris Evans... damn, he CHECKED. OUT. By the third time he played the role, by Infinity Wars I think only Chris Hemsworth was really trying from the originals cast.
    "We are Shakespeare. We are Michelangelo. We are Tchaikovsky. We are Turing. We are Mercury. We are Wilde. We are Lincoln, Lorca, Leonardo da Vinci. We are Alexander the Great. We are Fredrick the Great. We are Rustin. We are Addams. We are Marsha! Marsha Marsha Marsha! We so generous, we DeGeneres. We are Ziggy Stardust hooked to the silver screen. Controversially we are Malcolm X. We are Plato. We are Aristotle. We are RuPaul, god dammit! And yes, we are Woolf."

  5. #50
    Extraordinary Member Jokerz79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Somewhere in Time & Space
    Posts
    7,613

    Default

    "Greatest" is subjective but on paper yeah.

    Box Office the films made 22 and 1/2 Billion dollars that's not including merchandizing (Groot alone made Disney a fortune freaking Groot in 2007 if I said Groot would be a cash cow most who say "Who is Groot? and Drax Why is Groot"), cartoons (Avengers Assemble and GOTG were definitely made to look like their MCU counterparts), home video/VOD, and future Disney Parks. I know there is some debate about Phase 1 but for the late 00's to 2011 those were good numbers we weren't spending 100 million on marketing till about 2013 that's a new thing so not a flop really in the bunch.

    All have good critic and audience scores.

    created a successful 23 film and counting shared universe unheard of till before except for Bond.

    And fanbase have reached damn near all over the world even Star Wars isn't as popular in some places like China and Africa (Thanks a lot to Black Panther).

    yeah on paper the MCU is currently the biggest of all time.

  6. #51
    CBR's Good Fairy Kieran_Frost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    8,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jokerz79 View Post
    yeah on paper the MCU is currently the biggest of all time.
    I don't think anyone is against it being called the "biggest", just not "greatest". Most money, most watched, etc... has nothing to do with being great. This is not sport (where 'the most' is used to define some of the greatest stars). Greatest HAS TO involve artistry. The Sistine Chapel isn't lauded because it's the biggest. Michelangelo's David isn't iconic because it's bigger than most statues. They have HUGE artistry around them imbued by Michelangelo... that makes them great.
    "We are Shakespeare. We are Michelangelo. We are Tchaikovsky. We are Turing. We are Mercury. We are Wilde. We are Lincoln, Lorca, Leonardo da Vinci. We are Alexander the Great. We are Fredrick the Great. We are Rustin. We are Addams. We are Marsha! Marsha Marsha Marsha! We so generous, we DeGeneres. We are Ziggy Stardust hooked to the silver screen. Controversially we are Malcolm X. We are Plato. We are Aristotle. We are RuPaul, god dammit! And yes, we are Woolf."

  7. #52
    Extraordinary Member Jokerz79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Somewhere in Time & Space
    Posts
    7,613

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kieran_Frost View Post
    I don't think anyone is against it being called the "biggest", just not "greatest". Most money, most watched, etc... has nothing to do with being great. This is not sport (where 'the most' is used to define some of the greatest stars). Greatest HAS TO involve artistry. The Sistine Chapel isn't lauded because it's the biggest. Michelangelo's David isn't iconic because it's bigger than most statues. They have HUGE artistry around them imbued by Michelangelo... that makes them great.
    as I said those Greatest is subjective because greatness is based on opinion. I think the MCU are big fun entertaining movies and I have a blast with all of them but "Great"? most aren't even close IMO but some might say yes because Art is subjective.

    Take one of your own examples Michelangelo's David to me it's meh a statue I find nothing amazing about it it's a naked dude "so what" I think to myself when I see it. Michelangelo's has amazing work I just don't think David is so subjective.

    It takes artistry to bring the MCU alive on film it just doesn't wow me the way old school effects do but it is artistry and I respect anyone who thinks it's great.

  8. #53
    My Face Is Up Here Powerboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,725

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kieran_Frost View Post
    It's ultimately an opinion, so you're golden. While some opinions have more weight than others, that is true (there are opinions, informed opinions, professional opinions and expert opinions) for a debate like this I think it's all fair game.


    Again, I'm not sure longevity is the answer either when it comes to greatness. I just watched "the Breakfast Club" last night (for the first time ever). It's STILL iconic, it's STILL referenced in shows and is watched and known. Does that mean it was the greatest film of 1985? I would argue no.


    I think this sums it up perfectly. They are good films, made with a good formula that they do not deviate from, and they can chuck so much money and hire the best of the best to crew it... but you can't "make" a masterpiece just by ticking all the boxes. There isn't a formula for greatness. There IS a formula for business. This is a business franchise, not an artistic franchise.


    While RDJ is a fantastic actor who can so much better, I do think he's one of the absolute best things about the MCU, and he gives it his all till the very end. Where as Chris Evans... damn, he CHECKED. OUT. By the third time he played the role, by Infinity Wars I think only Chris Hemsworth was really trying from the originals cast.
    I will say your opinions carry a lot of weight with me from what I've seen you post. So many opinions amount to "Well, I don't like it" or "I do like it" followed by more bashing than reason. But you tend to have very thought out reasoning that never descends into bashing and even admission that you like a lot of movies without thinking they are all that artistic.
    Power with Girl is better.

  9. #54
    Ultimate Member WebLurker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    10,073

    Default

    Greatest? Nope. Good? Sure, but it needs more time to be inducted into the "greatest" camp.
    Doctor Strange: "You are the right person to replace Logan."
    X-23: "I know there are people who disapprove... Guys on the Internet mainly."
    (All-New Wolverine #4)

  10. #55
    Fantastic Member Valentis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    362

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kieran_Frost View Post
    It's ultimately an opinion, so you're golden. While some opinions have more weight than others, that is true (there are opinions, informed opinions, professional opinions and expert opinions) for a debate like this I think it's all fair game.

    Again, I'm not sure longevity is the answer either when it comes to greatness. I just watched "the Breakfast Club" last night (for the first time ever). It's STILL iconic, it's STILL referenced in shows and is watched and known. Does that mean it was the greatest film of 1985? I would argue no.
    .
    Longevity could be the answer to greatness. The Godfather, Star Wars and Back to the Future have all had longevity. MCU movies are forgettable. There are so many of them, you can mix them up or lose track as I did. They have a good business model that has entertained a lot of people. Their movies are not creative genius classics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jokerz79 View Post
    Given how many Studios failed to create Shared Universes I disagree.
    The studios that tried to create a successful universe of their own was breadcrumbing a business model not chasing franchise greatness. Studios never really chase greatness, they chase money.

  11. #56
    the devil's reject choptop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    8,166

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jokerz79 View Post
    Given how many Studios failed to create Shared Universes I disagree.
    All I can think of is the dark universe that failed the others although not as successful as the MCU have had hit and miss sure but haven't really failed.

  12. #57
    Mighty Member C_Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,780

    Default

    We'll see in a few years when they aren't pumping out as many. How many of them are going to have real staying power? Probably a few. I revisit about 7-8 with some regularity (Black Panther, Thor: Ragnarok, Guardians 1, Guardians 2, Ant-Man 1, Iron Man 1, Winter Soldier, Avengers 1) and rate all those movies pretty highly. Which honestly, is a pretty good run.

    It's certainly the biggest film franchise. Can't deny that. But, I don't hold it in as high regard as Star Wars, Indiana Jones, or others.

  13. #58
    Astonishing Member Arfguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jokerz79 View Post
    Given how many Studios failed to create Shared Universes I disagree.
    LOL. It's true. I give Marvel a ton of credit for being able to pull that off. The MCU itself is a cinematic milestone, in that...no other movie universe has managed to connect so many different franchises and movies into one cohesive universe in such a successful way.

    Things like the Dark Universe, the DCEU, the failed Spiderverse Sony was concocting with the Garfield movies, and even Star Wars in the the last little bit. Disney tried to replicate itself by taking something cohesive and focused and tried to grow too many branches like the Solo movie and stuff like Boba Fett and Obi-Wan movies that never happened.
    Find me on Instagram and Twitter - @arfguy
    https://whoaskd.com/

  14. #59
    CBR's Good Fairy Kieran_Frost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    8,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Powerboy View Post
    I will say your opinions carry a lot of weight with me from what I've seen you post. So many opinions amount to "Well, I don't like it" or "I do like it" followed by more bashing than reason. But you tend to have very thought out reasoning that never descends into bashing and even admission that you like a lot of movies without thinking they are all that artistic.
    Awwwww... well that is just the loveliest comment; and made me smile lots and lots.

    Quote Originally Posted by Valentis View Post
    Longevity could be the answer to greatness. The Godfather, Star Wars and Back to the Future have all had longevity. MCU movies are forgettable. There are so many of them, you can mix them up or lose track as I did. They have a good business model that has entertained a lot of people. Their movies are not creative genius classics.
    While I do think longevity is one way of registering continued respect, the MCU hasn't even come close to the time period needed to measure that. But even longevity isn't necessarily a good way to measure it. Mrs Miniver (1942) is still a masterpiece, even if far more people watch White Christmas (1942) (Cf. more longevity). BUT... see my point about longevity below...

    Quote Originally Posted by Jokerz79 View Post
    as I said those Greatest is subjective because greatness is based on opinion. I think the MCU are big fun entertaining movies and I have a blast with all of them but "Great"? most aren't even close IMO but some might say yes because Art is subjective.
    Art "is" subjective in the grander "what is art, really?" debate... but there are certain ways we can (by and large) dissect whether something has artistic merit. That is a less subjective, more critical analysis. Remember there is a difference between "Twilight is my favourite film ever" and "Twilight is the best film ever made." One is pure opinion that's valid, the other is bringing into the scenario a large criteria than just "my opinion."

    Quote Originally Posted by Jokerz79 View Post
    Take one of your own examples Michelangelo's David to me it's meh a statue I find nothing amazing about it it's a naked dude "so what" I think to myself when I see it. Michelangelo's has amazing work I just don't think David is so subjective.
    I will say I never truly registered the power of David until I saw it in person in Florence. It is... magnificent... and the ass is still AMAZING (side note)! I had the same feeling seeing the Venus de Milo in Paris; it's commanding. But -- to be fair -- seeing the Mona Lisa... meh. And I think there is merit in the longevity arguement when we are talking hundreds of years. If something has lasted, and constantly been referenced as "one of the greats" for hundreds of years... maybe longevity does count? It is a fascinating thing, to define what is greatness. I don't know many statues that have become so ingrained in popular culture as David and Venus. AND EVEN THEN... Venus is acclaimed not necessary due to the work of the artist (though excellent) but because of her missing arms. Which was an accident. Where as David... David stands as he was intended, and everything about it was planned. Oh, it's glorious. I cannot agree that it's "meh". The craftmanship alone is a masterpiece.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jokerz79 View Post
    It takes artistry to bring the MCU alive on film it just doesn't wow me the way old school effects do but it is artistry and I respect anyone who thinks it's great.
    I'm not sure you're using the word correctly. It's not artistry but money that brought the MCU together. There is no single figurehead who's guiding the vision. And even then, it's not about art. There is no more artistry in creating the MCU as there is in founding Virgin Trains or McDonalds. Vision, yes. Artistry? No. There is artistry in the designers, of course (to a degree, as the comics had laid A LOT of that groundwork). There is artistry in... quite a lot of the performances (RDJ, Tom Hiddleston, Tom Holland, Chris Hemsworth, Mark Ruffalo); but that's due to the calibre of the actors, rather than the MCU -- or even directors -- having much of a hand in it. There is artistry in the score, that is true. In the editing. In the fight choreography (for the most part). But there is not artistry in the MCU itself. This discussion keep reminding me of that wonderful quote from Working Girl (1988) “Sometimes I sing and dance around the house in my underwear. Doesn't make me Madonna. Never will.”
    Last edited by Kieran_Frost; 04-29-2020 at 04:40 PM.
    "We are Shakespeare. We are Michelangelo. We are Tchaikovsky. We are Turing. We are Mercury. We are Wilde. We are Lincoln, Lorca, Leonardo da Vinci. We are Alexander the Great. We are Fredrick the Great. We are Rustin. We are Addams. We are Marsha! Marsha Marsha Marsha! We so generous, we DeGeneres. We are Ziggy Stardust hooked to the silver screen. Controversially we are Malcolm X. We are Plato. We are Aristotle. We are RuPaul, god dammit! And yes, we are Woolf."

  15. #60
    Extraordinary Member Jokerz79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Somewhere in Time & Space
    Posts
    7,613

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kieran_Frost View Post
    Awwwww... well that is just the loveliest comment; and made me smile lots and lots.


    While I do think longevity is one way of registering continued respect, the MCU hasn't even come close to the time period needed to measure that. But even longevity isn't necessarily a good way to measure it. Mrs Miniver (1942) is still a masterpiece, even if far more people watch White Christmas (1942) (Cf. more longevity). BUT... see my point about longevity below...


    Art "is" subjective in the grander "what is art, really?" debate... but there are certain ways we can (by and large) dissect whether something has artistic merit. That is a less subjective, more critical analysis. Remember there is a difference between "Twilight is my favourite film ever" and "Twilight is the best film ever made." One is pure opinion that's valid, the other is bringing into the scenario a large criteria than just "my opinion."


    I will say I never truly registered the power of David until I saw it in person in Florence. It is... magnificent... and the ass is still AMAZING (side note)! I had the same feeling seeing the Venus de Milo in Paris; it's commanding. But -- to be fair -- seeing the Mona Lisa... meh. And I think there is merit in the longevity arguement when we are talking hundreds of years. If something has lasted, and constantly been referenced as "one of the greats" for hundreds of years... maybe longevity does count? It is a fascinating thing, to define what is greatness. I don't know many statues that have become so ingrained in popular culture as David and Venus. AND EVEN THEN... Venus is acclaimed not necessary due to the work of the artist (though excellent) but because of her missing arms. Which was an accident. Where as David... David stands as he was intended, and everything about it was planned. Oh, it's glorious. I cannot agree that it's "meh". The craftmanship alone is a masterpiece.


    I'm not sure you're using the word correctly. It's not artistry but money that brought the MCU together. There is no single figurehead who's guiding the vision. And even then, it's not about art. There is no more artistry in creating the MCU as there is in founding Virgin Trains or McDonalds. Vision, yes. Artistry? No. There is artistry in the designers, of course (to a degree, as the comics had laid A LOT of that groundwork). There is artistry in... quite a lot of the performances (RDJ, Tom Hiddleston, Tom Holland, Chris Hemsworth, Mark Ruffalo); but that's due to the calibre of the actors, rather than the MCU -- or even directors -- having much of a hand in it. There is artistry in the score, that is true. In the editing. In the fight choreography (for the most part). But there is not artistry in the MCU itself. This discussion keep reminding me of that wonderful quote from Working Girl (1988) “Sometimes I sing and dance around the house in my underwear. Doesn't make me Madonna. Never will.”
    Sorry but you remind me why I hated Art School.

    1: You will never convince me of the Greatness of David or Venus so agree to disagree ok.

    2: I don't care if MCU, Star Wars, or Avatar it take Artistry to Imagine Worlds and bring them to life same with Kingdoms like Wakanda or Atlantis in Aquaman.

    3: The MCU isn't like McDonalds because McDonalds is meant to all be alike its their brilliancy in someway, you always know a Big Mac will be the same no matter where you are but the MCU films no matter how many people say are cookie cutter aren't. The GOTG films have James Gunn all over them even the music was his idea and why another person doing Vol. 3 was met with outrage. Avengers (2012) and Age of Ultron are filled with Josh Whedon's humor, dialogue, and touches, Iron Man 3 has touches of Shane Black down to Christmas, Ragnarok is a Taika Waititi film thru and thru like Gunn and GOTG, First Avengers is so much a Joe Johnston film it could be canon with Rocketeer, and as for a single vision that would be Kevin Feige's vision he road maps it all.

    Like you said there is artistry in the Director's and their choices, the actors, the editors, the scores, and also in the people who design cities, planets, and vehicles, in people who design clothing and costumes, people who build sets, people who bring those previous mentioned cities and planets to life on screen thru computers.

    MCU or better Marvel Studios is it films and people who make those films and you say they make art while not being art I'm sorry but that's an oxymoron to me.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •