Is The MCU The Greatest Franchise Of All Time?

[Powerboy]

I think it's important to remember, esp. when talking of the MCU, the artistry of creating the fictional worlds we see if credit that belongs to the comics. Star Wars (1977) and Avatar (2009) were films to create worlds, the MCU didn't. Neither did the Lord of the Rings (2001-2003).

On that I think some things should be said.

http://www.moongadget.com/origins/dune.html

While preparing to do the movie version of Dune in 1984, Frank Herbert found they had to make change after change after change after change after change because he was informed that, if they didn't, millions of people with no background knowledge would accuse Dune of being a ripoff of Star Wars. Herbert had never seen Star Wars or paid any attention to it. But he decided to watch it and was quoted as saying he found more similarities than grains of sand in a desert. He considered suing but was convinced by lawyers that the similarities always stayed just short of outright plagiarism by the legal definition.

Then there is the similarity to Samurai movies.

Then there's the similarity to the King Arthur story.

Then there's Flash Gordon.

It IS creative to take so many sources- more than I have named- and merge them into a coherent original story.

At the same time, I'm reminded of the Star Trek story where Data solved an original Sherlock Holmes mystery in the Doyle style only to have Geordi point out that he just recognized elements from a bunch of different Holmes stories and combined them.

This is NOT directed at you personally but I think, for a lot of people, it comes down to nothing more than the fact that they love Star Wars so none of these facts are valid or count. But they don't like the MCU so any and all derivation (even when it's just from the original source material) and any copying is absolute proof that the MCU has no originality or imagination.

[CliffHanger2]

Black Panther, Infinity War and Endgame are not on par with Lord of the Rings. On pure movie objectivism, They are not on par with Joker, The Dark Knight or some of Jackman's films with their story affairs, annotations, writing, artistry and performances. Joker left me shaken, Logan made me wonder about the true meaning of life and death. Black Panther, Infinity War and Endgame, I had a good old fun time at the cinema with those. Great franchises have films that continues to subvert expectations and revoke the standard normal. MCU movies are the status-quo of the standard normal.

But honestly what are you basing this on? TDK had a 1000 plot holes, pedestrian sets ,horrible performance by the lead actor and basically ushered in the era of shill critics putting a movie over. I don't get the big deal about Logan which uses so many tired tropes(Hero loses his powers) and so on. And objectively LOTR is good but there is nothing that puts those movies above the MCU movies you mentioned. I mean there does seem to be a cultural disconnect here. How those movies affected you Black Panther affected a great many people also on a cultural, emotional level. As far as status qou movies like Logan,Joker and LOTR were the staus qou and the MCU has done a lot to change that. Which honestly is very refreshing.

[Powerboy]

Agreed. It's very unique in that way, and that is praise worthy.

Very unique? Since unique means one of a kind, very unique means it doesn't exist?

I've just joking around but you're posts and points are so good that it stood out. I'm probably a-null about hyperbole and misused words. But I'm just pointing it out specifically because your posts are so good. If someone did things like that all the time, I wouldn't bother.

[Kieran_Frost]

On that I think some things should be said.
http://www.moongadget.com/origins/dune.html

While preparing to do the movie version of Dune in 1984, Frank Herbert found they had to make change after change after change after change after change because he was informed that, if they didn't, millions of people with no background knowledge would accuse Dune of being a ripoff of Star Wars. Herbert had never seen Star Wars or paid any attention to it. But he decided to watch it and was quoted as saying he found more similarities than grains of sand in a desert. He considered suing but was convinced by lawyers that the similarities always stayed just short of outright plagiarism by the legal definition.

Then there is the similarity to Samurai movies.
Then there's the similarity to the King Arthur story.
Then there's Flash Gordon.
It IS creative to take so many sources- more than I have named- and merge them into a coherent original story.

At the same time, I'm reminded of the Star Trek story where Data solved an original Sherlock Holmes mystery in the Doyle style only to have Geordi point out that he just recognized elements from a bunch of different Holmes stories and combined them.

Agreed. Adapting is a craft and a talent. And something so many overlook. It can make (or break) a movie, because you have to both capture the essence of what made it so beloved while also not being dogmatic to the story and the words. It's a balancing act, and often To Kill A Mockingbird (1964) is cited as THE best book adaptation of all time. And I tend to agree.

This is NOT directed at you personally but I think, for a lot of people, it comes down to nothing more than the fact that they love Star Wars so none of these facts are valid or count. But they don't like the MCU so any and all derivation (even when it's just from the original source material) and any copying is absolute proof that the MCU has no originality or imagination.

Well... I include Star Wars - Episode V: the Empire Strikes Back (1980) in my "100 Greatest Films" list on these boards because it's original... but I removed Star Wars (1977) from my list once I saw the Hidden Fortress (1958). Star Wars is still "original" in may of the ideas, of course, but so much of it is taken directly from the Hidden Fortress. EVEN THE CAMERA SHOTS! The pan up from one scene to the next as they lift C3PO up in the desert... stolen from the Hidden Fortress.

But honestly what are you basing this on? TDK had a 1000 plot holes, pedestrian sets ,horrible performance by the lead actor and basically ushered in the era of shill critics putting a movie over. I don't get the big deal about Logan which uses so many tired tropes(Hero loses his powers) and so on. And objectively LOTR is good but there is nothing that puts those movies above the MCU movies you mentioned. I mean there does seem to be a cultural disconnect here. How those movies affected you Black Panther affected a great many people also on a cultural, emotional level. As far as status qou movies like Logan,Joker and LOTR were the staus qou and the MCU has done a lot to change that. Which honestly is very refreshing.

How is the LOTR status quo????? It basically did what no-one had ever done before, using a book that had been called "unfilmable"; making all three films BEFORE it was common practice, on a scope and scale no-one had done AND it did it with a budget less than you would expect these days for such an endevour. It made fantasy mainstream, it was a fantasy film to win Best Picture at the Oscars, NOT because the Oscars have started to accept fantasy films, but because it was made so perfectly they couldn't ignore it.

Very unique? Since unique means one of a kind, very unique means it doesn't exist?

I've just joking around but you're posts and points are so good that it stood out. I'm probably a-null about hyperbole and misused words. But I'm just pointing it out specifically because your posts are so good. If someone did things like that all the time, I wouldn't bother.

Ha! For me the difference is unique is... just unique. VERY unique is doing something not only unique, but something I didn't think could be done. So extra unique. If that makes sense?

[Powerboy]

But honestly what are you basing this on? TDK had a 1000 plot holes, pedestrian sets ,horrible performance by the lead actor and basically ushered in the era of shill critics putting a movie over. I don't get the big deal about Logan which uses so many tired tropes(Hero loses his powers) and so on. And objectively LOTR is good but there is nothing that puts those movies above the MCU movies you mentioned. I mean there does seem to be a cultural disconnect here. How those movies affected you Black Panther affected a great many people also on a cultural, emotional level. As far as status qou movies like Logan,Joker and LOTR were the staus qou and the MCU has done a lot to change that. Which honestly is very refreshing.

Agree and disagree.

Disagree: the "shill critics" accusation is lame and a tired excuse for movies someone doesn't like getting good reviews. It is otherwise a baseless claim. In fact, almost all of the MCU movies get great reviews. Legitimate or just the "shill critics"?

Agree: Black Panther had a HUGE cultural impact, maybe as big as Star Wars (1977). It's just that most of the impact was not with White Middle-Class America. It was with another part of American culture. The impact was so huge that black celebrities were campaigning to get it an Oscar nomination specifically because of it's cultural impact and significance. People can argue all day whether cultural significance should equal an Oscar nomination but the point is that it's cultural impact was that significant. Certainly, a huge portion of the country was oblivious but it was and is there. It stayed in theaters longer than IW or Endgame. Most of that run was justified and, even at the end, it was it's cultural impact that kept it there.

[CliffHanger2]

Adapting is a craft and a talent. One of the things LOTR did was film "an unfilmable film" and that's because of a FANTASTIC adaptation (among many things).


Well... I include Star Wars - Episode V: the Empire Strikes Back (1980) in my "100 Greatest Films" list on these boards because it's original... but I removed Star Wars (1977) from my list once I saw the Hidden Fortress (1958). Star Wars is still "original" in may of the ideas, of course, but so much of it is taken directly from the Hidden Fortress. EVEN THE CAMERA SHOTS! The pan up from one scene to the next as they lift C3PO up in the desert... stolen from the Hidden Fortress.


How is the LOTR status quo????? It basically did what no-one had ever done before, using a book that had been called "unfilmable"; making all three films BEFORE it was common practice, on a scope and scale no-one had done AND it did it with a budget less than you would expect these days for such an endevour. It made fantasy mainstream, it was a fantasy film to win Best Picture at the Oscars, NOT because the Oscars have started to accept fantasy films, but because it was made so perfectly they couldn't ignore it.

Eh. the first film had mixed reviews as I remember could be wrong. But it was the fans and the movie's success that made critics change their opinion. Not sure it made fantasy mainstream. What's the last LOTR type movie to hit big? But fantasy (white-centric) was always there in print and movies part of the status quo.

[Powerboy]

Adapting is a craft and a talent. One of the things LOTR did was film "an unfilmable film" and that's because of a FANTASTIC adaptation (among many things).


Well... I include Star Wars - Episode V: the Empire Strikes Back (1980) in my "100 Greatest Films" list on these boards because it's original... but I removed Star Wars (1977) from my list once I saw the Hidden Fortress (1958). Star Wars is still "original" in may of the ideas, of course, but so much of it is taken directly from the Hidden Fortress. EVEN THE CAMERA SHOTS! The pan up from one scene to the next as they lift C3PO up in the desert... stolen from the Hidden Fortress.


How is the LOTR status quo????? It basically did what no-one had ever done before, using a book that had been called "unfilmable"; making all three films BEFORE it was common practice, on a scope and scale no-one had done AND it did it with a budget less than you would expect these days for such an endevour. It made fantasy mainstream, it was a fantasy film to win Best Picture at the Oscars, NOT because the Oscars have started to accept fantasy films, but because it was made so perfectly they couldn't ignore it.

I've heard so much back and forth on LOTR ranging from a great adaptation to not true to the books at all and ignoring some of the most critical points.

Personally, I loved it, especially the Two Towers, and thought it was brilliant. But I've known knowledgeable people who genuinely believe it just proved that the book is unfilmable. Even Roger Ebert, who I greatly respected, wasn't that impressed.

Arguably, there's some bias towards not judging the movie on it's own merits even by people who dislike judging a movie by outside standards. But when good critics can't agree, it just underscores the subjectivity of the subject. Not to fall back on "It's subjective. The End" but to say there is always a strong element of subjectivity to art.

[CliffHanger2]

Agree and disagree.

Disagree: the "shill critics" accusation is lame and a tired excuse for movies someone doesn't like getting good reviews. It is otherwise a baseless claim. In fact, almost all of the MCU movies get great reviews. Legitimate or just the "shill critics"?

Agree: Black Panther had a HUGE cultural impact, maybe as big as Star Wars (1977). It's just that most of the impact was not with White Middle-Class America. It was with another part of American culture. The impact was so huge that black celebrities were campaigning to get it an Oscar nomination specifically because of it's cultural impact and significance. People can argue all day whether cultural significance should equal an Oscar nomination but the point is that it's cultural impact was that significant. Certainly, a huge portion of the country was oblivious but it was and is there. It stayed in theaters longer than IW or Endgame. Most of that run was justified and, even at the end, it was it's cultural impact that kept it there.

C'mon man. When TDK came out ppl were saying it was the greatest movie of all time. They sounded crazy then and really sound crazy now. The plot holes and Bale's performance can't be ignored on any objective level. So yeah I'd say there was a lot shill reviews there.

[Amadeus Arkham]

C'mon man. When TDK came out ppl were saying it was the greatest movie of all time. They sounded crazy then and really sound crazy now. The plot holes and Bale's performance can't be ignored on any objective level. So yeah I'd say there was a lot shill reviews there.

It’s all subjective, dude. Stop putting things on “objective level”. You sound ridiculous and elitist. And I thought Bale’s performance in the role, was fine and not terrible but to each their own, and no one was crazy for praising a movie. Perhaps you can lament the hyperbole in such appraisals but again it’s all subjective.

[CliffHanger2]

It’s all subjective, dude. Stop putting things on “objective level”. You sound ridiculous and elitist.

No plot holes are not subjective. And Bale's voice in the movie has become an internet meme. But it's funny that someone that likes the MCU is being called elitist.

[Powerboy]

C'mon man. When TDK came out ppl were saying it was the greatest movie of all time. They sounded crazy then and really sound crazy now. The plot holes and Bale's performance can't be ignored on any objective level. So yeah I'd say there was a lot shill reviews there.

C'mon yourself, man. Lots of those "plot holes" are the aftermath of people not liking the movie at the core. It took the character to a depth that hadn't been done before on film. Do we need to get into Endgame plot holes? Don't nickpick some two-bit details for an overall great movie that was objectively great but some people just didn't like that style. [And, yes, I'm jokingly using the word objective jokingly since it clearly has little meaning in these sorts of discussions].

[Amadeus Arkham]

No plot holes are not subjective. And Bale's voice in the movie has become an internet meme. But it's funny that someone that likes the MCU is being called elitist.

Wow...wait to strawman me man, I never called you elitist for liking the MCU, lol. I said you calling critics crazy for giving a movie you didn’t like the high praise you didn’t think it deserved is elitist.

A movie’s quality is intrinsically subjective. Always. Come on man, this is embarrassing that I have to even type this out for you.

[CliffHanger2]

C'mon yourself, man. Lots of those "plot holes" are the aftermath of people not liking the movie at the core. It took the character to a depth that hadn't been done before on film. Do we need to get into Endgame plot holes? Don't nickpick some two-bit details for an overall great movie that was objectively great but some people just didn't like that style. [And, yes, I'm jokingly using the word objective jokingly since it clearly has little meaning in these sorts of discussions].

I agree Endgame had plot holes. But have to disagree that ppl pointing out plot holes in TDK come down to style. There's some really ridiculous stuff there that just doesn't add up. But "depth of character" yeah I'd say that's objective cause...

[Kieran_Frost]

Eh. the first film had mixed reviews as I remember could be wrong. But it was the fans and the movie's success that made critics change their opinion.

I think you are remembering wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lo...Ring#Reception
[from Wikipedia] On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds a 91% approval rating based on 228 reviews, with an average rating of 8.18/10. The website's critics consensus reads, "Full of eye-popping special effects, and featuring a pitch-perfect cast, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring brings J.R.R. Tolkien's classic to vivid life." Metacritic, which uses a weighted average, assigned the film a score of 92 out of 100 based on 34 critics, indicating "universal acclaim"

Not sure it made fantasy mainstream.

To that level, yes it did. Unless you can point me to hugely successful fantasy film before then? Sci-fi yes, fantasy... full on sword n' scorcery old school fantasy? I can't think of any. I LOVE old school fantasy films, Ladyhawke (1985) is so underrated, as is Legend (1985). But they did not make fantasy mainstream in their wake, the way LOTR did. We would not have got Game of Thrones without LOTR.

But fantasy (white-centric) was always there in print and movies part of the status quo.

???

[CliffHanger2]

Wow...wait to strawman me man, I never called you elitist for liking the MCU, lol. I said you calling critics crazy for giving a movie you didn’t like the high praise you didn’t think it deserved is elitist.

A movie’s quality is intrinsically subjective. Always. Come on man, this is embarrassing that I have to even type this out for you.

When did I call critics crazy? Okay you said I sounded elitist. But I have to reiterate plot holes aren't subjective they're a real thing in story-telling. But if ppl want to ignore them and still say a movie's great, then hey that's on them.