Is The MCU The Greatest Franchise Of All Time?

[CliffHanger2]

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"


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.


???

Really??? You don't know what that means? Well I guess it all makes sense then.

[Kieran_Frost]

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.

I mean... yes and no. Some hardcore fans won't accept the absence of Tom Bombadil, more than one elf at Helm's Deep and no Scouraging of the Shire. But these are the same people who freak out at a Vulcan mind melding with a robot (despite the fact Spoke did in the OTS) and the Doctor regenerating into a woman (despite the fact the Master had already shown that was possible). To make it into a film, Tom Bombadil and the Scouraging had to go, that's just how film works. It has different rules than a book. It's valid, and I would heavily argue they did made an "unfilmable book" filmable. It was a colossal success, both commercially and critically, which means... they succeeded.

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.

I think that's a little harsh in summerising his view on the film... unless you mean specifically about the adaptation.
[from Wikipedia] Roger Ebert gave the film three out of four stars and stating that while it is not "a true visualization of Tolkien's Middle-earth", it is "a work for, and of, our times. It will be embraced, I suspect, by many Tolkien fans and take on aspects of a cult. It is a candidate for many Oscars. It is an awesome production in its daring and breadth, and there are small touches that are just right".

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.

What was wrong with Bale's performance in the Dark Knight?

Really??? You don't know what that means? Well I guess it all makes sense then.

I was questioning how that one fact means it will forever be only "status quo"; not the existence of the trope itself. ESPECIALLY considering you're trying to imply the MCU, where the white cis male (often with blonde hair) is king... is a better example of shifting the status quo That's not the only criteria on whether something is apart of, or breaking the status quo.

[CliffHanger2]

What was wrong with Bale's performance in the Dark Knight?


I was questioning how that one fact means it will forever be only "status quo"; not the existence of the trope itself. ESPECIALLY considering you're trying to imply the MCU, where the white cis male (often with blonde hair) is king... is a better example of shifting the status quo That's not the only criteria on whether something is apart of, or breaking the status quo.

What isn't wrong with it? Even ppl who liked the movie have to laugh at his voice. And yeah Id say Black Panther as a movie is definitely a better example of shifting status quo.

[Amadeus Arkham]

What was wrong with Bale's performance in the Dark Knight?.

I don’t think he’s bad, but he’s not great either. He’s clearly overshadowed by the tremendous performance of Ledger but I think the biggest knock against him is the Bat-voice(which isn’t really him, as that’s modulated by Nolan). I personally don’t mind, but it does approach the level of parody especially when he’s still doing the voice in really serious situations like when he’s pleading for a Two Face to spare Gordon’s kid when he’s about to shoot him. Some have compared his voice to the Cookie Monster, lol. He turned in a much better performance in Begins but I think Bale definitely had more to work with in Begins and Rises compared to Dark Knight. I personally think he’s underrated in the movie and even though he isn’t amazing I think he has his moments. I still adore the way he delivers his sarcastic lines to Micheal Caine, “I’m going to tell him the whole thing was your idea!”

[Amadeus Arkham]

Unpopular opinion: But I like the Bat-growl voice in Dark Knight, and actually think it makes sense in the context of Nolan’s universe. I usually prefer Batman to speak with more of a creepy whisper that Keaton did, but I understand what they were going for with that since Bruce wants to change his voice radically enough so people don’t recognize his voice as well as to sound kind of scary and monstrous. The voice is supposed to add to the idea of scaring criminals. He can’t just look like a monster, he has to sound like one too. Unfortunately, I’m afraid Nolan took things a bit too far in some areas and I wished he had dialed it back some.

[Powerboy]

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.

But, many times, plot holes are subjective. One person's clear plot hole is often just their own head canon or something they think is unrealistic or just don't like.

I remember some of the criticisms were things like "the bus you're looking for is the one with the debris on it" or "You can see the traces of the bomb through his shirt". True and fair enough. But I can also look at Batman and see he's Bruce Wayne.

Do plot holes sometimes bother me? Sure. Are they the be all and end all overriding everything else, the only criteria that matters? No. And can what really is and is not a plot hole be subjective? Yes.

[CliffHanger2]

But, many times, plot holes are subjective. One person's clear plot hole is often just their own head canon or something they think is unrealistic or just don't like.

I remember some of the criticisms were things like "the bus you're looking for is the one with the debris on it" or "You can see the traces of the bomb through his shirt". True and fair enough. But I can also look at Batman and see he's Bruce Wayne.

Do plot holes sometimes bother me? Sure. Are they the be all and end all overriding everything else, the only criteria that matters? No. And can what really is and is not a plot hole be subjective? Yes.

Ah fair enough. It just irks me sometime how ppl talk about TDK like it's perfect and standard for story-telling blah,blah and it clearly has some really big problems. If ppl taled about Batman Begins the way they talk about TDK. It would bother me less because that is the best movie of the trilogy.

[Amadeus Arkham]

I have to wonder if the MCU can keep being the top dog into the 2020’s. Will another franchise overtake it in this decade? Maybe Star Wars makes a huge comeback, or maybe Avatar 2 makes a gazillion dollars again.

[Powerboy]

Ah fair enough. It just irks me sometime how ppl talk about TDK like it's perfect and standard for story-telling blah,blah and it clearly has some really big problems. If ppl taled about Batman Begins the way they talk about TDK. It would bother me less because that is the best movie of the trilogy.

Perfect? Not at all. Standard for storytelling or at least superhero storytelling? No. I think that's where the DCEU made it's first and most fundamental mistake. It seemed to work from the idea that because DKR worked and, more specifically, worked for Batman, that they should make it the standard.

I mean, hey, it worked for Batman so it will clearly work for Superman was their thinking. Wrong.

[choptop]

I really only see the
MCU super Fan's ever talk about the batvoice anymore it never really was that big of a deal even wean the movie just came out.

[Kieran_Frost]

What isn't wrong with it? Even ppl who liked the movie have to laugh at his voice.

But as someone else pointed out, it was modulated by Nolan. Bale delivered in the things he had control over. He was believably devastated when Rachel died, holding back but still broken (which is always more interesting to watch than someone crying full pelt). He landed the more lighthearted moments with Alfred, he played up Wayne as this rich, spoiled brat at the party, he physically was believable as a superhero, he had subtly, peaks and valleys in how he played with lines. It was good. It wasn't amazing, but no-one is saying he was robbed of an Oscar nom. I think to discount his performance as bad because you don't like the Batman voice is akin to those who parrot "Andie MacDowell was bad in Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994) because the line 'is it raining, I hadn't noticed'" is not good. When in actual fact she's good in the film. Bale's performance is far more than a Bat voice, and it's wrong to discount his work based on one factor, whittled down to one line of "where's the trigger".

And yeah Id say Black Panther as a movie is definitely a better example of shifting status quo.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. Firstly, you're comparing the MCU's 17th film to 3 films. It took them 17 more tries, nearly two decades later. No-one's getting a medal for that. That's not applause worthy by comparison. Secondly a black solo superhero isn't shifting anything. We'd already had a successful trilogy with Blade years ago, and black superheroes had been in nearly every Marvel film. Had it been an Asian or latino lead solo film, there would be more cause to toot the "shifting status quo" argument, as they get massively overlooked (and are far more absent in the MCU than black superheroes). Plus Black Panther had no LGBT+ characters. Now that WOULD have shifted the status quo. Unlike LOTR that had no black characters in the novel, Black Panther mythos has some pretty major LGBT characters. Ultimately the film followed the standard Marvel formula, using a hero they already debuted previously. The fact it was a predominantly black cast is very applause worthy, that I do agree with; and unique. But 17 years later, and 14 more attempts than LOTR, if all you have is "it had a mostly black cast" I see that as no more "shifting the status quo" than a fantasy film 20 years ago breaking into mainstream in a way no-one had before. BOTH were shifting the status quo, in different ways. But Black Panther certainly wasn't doing in it such a way that blows all others out the water (esp. when you factor in one was in 2001 the other 2018). 17th film. Same formula. Established hero. No LGBT+ characters. In my head I'm conjuring up Meryl Streep's line in the Devil Wears Prada (2006) "flowers... for spring... groundbreaking."

He’s clearly overshadowed by the tremendous performance of Ledger

Oh, I mean Ledger was astounding. But... someone being amazing doesn't mean everyone else is bad. It was a strong ensemble, actually one thing I credit Nolan with is his ensemble performances are always very, very good.

[Starter Set]

Ah fair enough. It just irks me sometime how ppl talk about TDK like it's perfect and standard for story-telling blah,blah and it clearly has some really big problems. If ppl taled about Batman Begins the way they talk about TDK. It would bother me less because that is the best movie of the trilogy.

Such as? To not like this movie is one thing but "big problems"?

[Jokerz79]

Am I the only person who doesn't get the appeal of LOTR not the books or films?

[Valentis]

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.

Those films are not the status quos. There is more creative risky artistry to them, The directors got a chance to think outside of the box and not feel confined to a formula. I sincerely doubt the directors of those films would have gotten complete satisfaction if they had to forgo their original heart’s vision for something so constrained like the MCU.

When I said MCU are the status quo, it means their movies do not have any extra layer of coverage that can bold well if they were not supposedly about comic books. They don’t offer a different mind. Their specialness is the link that binds every film together. Happily, this is enough to call it the greatest franchise of all time.

I am not overly fond of MCU movies, although my kids love them and we take them to cinema to see it with them when we have day outings. Don’t call it snobbery, I prefer the more adult oriented gritter marvel dramas to the colourful cherry fun of the MCU.

[Steel Inquisitor]

I have to wonder if the MCU can keep being the top dog into the 2020’s. Will another franchise overtake it in this decade? Maybe Star Wars makes a huge comeback, or maybe Avatar 2 makes a gazillion dollars again.

They will, just make it take a while to get everything together but so will everybody else.