Is the Marvel Age Of Movies Done?

[Noodle]

This is just not true. I am no Beatles hard core scholar but the Beatles were universally loved and were considered ground-breaking when they first started.

Correct. You are no Beatles scholar. This comment proves it.

The album Rubber Soul does not count among their later stuff but, it was considered a ground breaking album. so ground breaking than The Beach Boys had to try and compete with that by releasing Pet Sounds , another album many times you see on the greatest of all albums list

Rubber Soul was their sixth album. They were well into their career at that point. Rubber Soul is also considered a departure from their original work and shown as them moving into a more traditional rock band sound versus the boy band image they had for the entire first part of their career. Using it as a metric for how they "were always praised" is an invalid comparison.

Frank Sinatra once said rock music is not music.

So when Sinatra talks down of The Beatles it's something you can dismiss, but when Scorsese talks down of Marvel movies, you take it as gospel and repeat it ad nauseam.

But, please, continue to tell us you hold no bias.

[inisideguy]

This is exactly what it boils down.

The MCU success has really hit some people hard...for whatever reason. I'm not saying everything the MCU does is great (what's happening with BP 2 is really grinding my gears) but there's a lot of "noise" from people trying way to hard to downplay their success. To the point that they attack box office figures, attack critics, attack awards ceremonies and even attack MPAA ratings (LOLOLOL).

I have a saying that applies to stuff like this and it's never begrudge people their success. Never. Unless said individuals have done something blatantly illegal, it's not a good look to constantly tie oneself in logical knots when trying to downplay a franchise. It's not a good look.

I don't like the Twilight movies but I will never, ever downplay their success. I never liked N'Sync but I will never try to downplay their success. It doesn't speak well of one to spend more time talking about what they hate rather than what they enjoy.

Yup. I have never seen a fast and furious movie and never will. And if I did see one and didn't like it I would not spend hours on boards telling people how they could be so much more than they are or try and downplay their artistic merits, or talk about how there are other car movies that are better directed. But here we are.

[Username taken]

Yup. I have never seen a fast and furious movie and never will. And if I did see one and didn't like it I would not spend hours on boards telling people how they could be so much more than they are or try and downplay their artistic merits, or talk about how there are other car movies that are better directed. But here we are.

Exactly this.

I can't stand the Fast and Furious movies...those movies "infuriate" me (pun fully intended).

But I will NEVER try to downplay their success. People love those movies and are going to see them..end of story. Same with a lot of stuff I don't like.

I'd much rather spend my time talking about the stuff I love instead of constantly engaging other posters here. It's just a waste of everyone's time.

[Conn Seanery]

Next time read comments falsely vague about "certain posters" (gee, I wonder who you're talking about), or any comments directed at anyone on a personal level, those people are gone. You have an ignore list, if someone bothers you so much put them on it before your mouth gets you in trouble.

Focus on the topic, not each other.

[Rincewind]

This is just not true. I am no Beatles hard core scholar but the Beatles were universally loved and were considered ground-breaking when they first started.



Not one point, were Beatles ever seen as mediocre or not revolutionary. The album Rubber Soul does not count among their later stuff but, it was considered a ground breaking album. so ground breaking than The Beach Boys had to try and compete with that by releasing Pet Sounds , another album many times you see on the greatest of all albums list. Not to mention they had the Hard Days Night thing going on before Rubber Soul.

When you think of Beatles and their movie equivalent, it is more about mentioning the best directors and their greatest movies of all time. You are better of comparing Beatles music to the filmography of Spielberg or Tarentino, just even in hard content not any Disney fluffy cooperate stuff, when you think how Beatles were among the least cooperate artists of all time.

You. Are. Wrong.

Well, you are correct in that you are not a Beatles hard core scholar. But you are wrong to think that the Beatles were always acclaimed.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-x...209-story.html

Los Angeles Times

Feb. 11, 1964

With their bizarre shrubbery, the Beatles are obviously a press agent’s dream combo. Not even their mothers would claim that they sing well. But the hirsute thickets they affect make them rememberable, and they project a certain kittenish charm which drives the immature, shall we say, ape.

Boston Globe

Sept. 13, 1964

An estimable critic writing for National Review, after seeing Presley writhe his way through one of Ed Sullivan’s shows … suggested that future entertainers would have to wrestle with live octopuses in order to entertain a mass American audience. The Beatles don’t in fact do this, but how one wishes they did! And how this one wishes the octopus would win….

The Beatles are not merely awful; I would consider it sacrilegious to say anything less than that they are god awful. They are so unbelievably horribly, so appallingly unmusical, so dogmatically insensitive to the magic of the art that they qualify as crowned heads of anti-music, even as the imposter popes went down in history as “anti-popes.”

Feb. 24, 1964

Visually they are a nightmare, tight, dandified Edwardian-Beatnik suits and great pudding bowls of hair. Musically they are a near disaster, guitars and drums slamming out a merciless beat that does away with secondary rhythms, harmony and melody. Their lyrics (punctuated by nutty shouts of “yeah, yeah, yeah”) are a catastrophe, a preposterous farrago of Valentine-card romantic sentiments….

The big question in the music business at the moment is, will the Beatles last? The odds are that, in the words of another era, they’re too hot not to cool down, and a cooled-down Beatle is hard to picture. It is also hard to imagine any other field in which they could apply their talents, and so the odds are that they will fade away, as most adults confidently predict. But the odds in show business have a way of being broken, and the Beatles have more showmanship than any group in years; they might just think up a new field for themselves. After all, they have done it already.

Yes, I remember that form James Bond but every artist back gets insulted by one person at some point. Frank Sinatra once said rock music is not music. however, equating the Beatles to marvel films is just not possible. Marvel films by reception, earnings and content should be compared to other Disney entertainment live action products because that is factually their structure. What we usually have here is heated discussion many times from comic fans on if marvel should sometimes movie away from that primarily Disney structure that cannot even allow edgier convincing adult stories on film even if their comics on paper allows that?

Also Are we really going to still drag the Beatles here, when the Beatles talked and even celebrated the drugs culture so heavily that in the UK, The BBC had to ban many of their songs that had drug innuendos like Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds? It's really is a joke to compare the Beatles content to Disney Marvel.

This was not one person. This was the most popular movie character at the time. The attitudes about the Beatles are the epitome of "The Generation Gap". James Bond actors, writers, directors, editors, and producers were on one side of the gap.

[Castle]

[QUOTE=Username taken;5630857]

T

Marvel has gotten a ton of awards and nominations for their work.

Just say you don't like that they are successful and leave it at that. I don't understand why their success has hurt you so badly but you need to let it ago.

All this talk about Joker, TDK e.t.c is totally pointless when Marvel is getting similar acclaim from the same critics and the same awards ceremonies.

But to be honest, Marvel is not getting the same similar acclaim to TDK and Joker . This is even on paper impossible because their content are not the same.

The talk of Joker and TDK is relevant because Joker and TDK are showing that you don't need to water down comic book stories. these acclaim just gives the genre a better reputation

Like I said earlier, Marvel's success has troubled you so badly that you started making stuff up. You've made up stuff about awards given out for wokeness or that Marvel was somehow changing the MPAA ratings.

Just acknowledge that you don't like Marvel, make peace with it and move on. It's not that deep.

Oh dear, Marvel success does not trouble me, anymore than Twilight, Fast and Furious and Disney live action troubles me. I know the film industry and know that these kind of movies have the most success. that should not trouble anyone who just knows films and Hollywood. If anything I feel it is the other way around.

I know this first hand because I saw , read and replied to many of the reaction when Avatar surpassed Endgame again at the box office, Some acted very negative and even were throwing bad shade at James Cameron and I was one of the few who just pointed the fair truthful facts that both Endgame and Avatar both got re-released to get to the number 1 spot.

Also Avatar just has more film making advantage going for it that makes it technically very easy to get back to number 1 as we have already seen with another Cameron movie that was re-released with more film work done with it that it made go past 2 billion, that would be Titanic and I am not even a big Avatar fan but funny, I was never called a hater or just not liking Cameron films when I said Avatar was not as overall as good as other Cameron films even if it is the number box office movie again. I wish some will also use that logic with me here and comic films of Marvel, DC and whatever.

Also if you notice I don't really talk much about success in terms of money, I care more about the artistic aspect of movies. which is what I mostly talk about here. you cannot discuss much with box office or streaming but you can sure discuss what is good or bad VFX or which story you think is getting dumbed down and which isn't.

That's not what the OP is talking about. And the rest here is your opinion which based on your posting history and just how many things you've gotten wrong... I can't really take very seriously.

The OP is implying Marvel is stuck, he even thinks their Disney shows are not as good as their netflix shows even Iron Fist and all their movies of recent are just alright on in his words sub-par . I think that is pretty fair from my own POV to say, what marvel needs is to grow from where they are to the next stage of what we know the genre can be.

[Username taken]

But to be honest, Marvel is not getting the same similar acclaim to TDK and Joker . This is even on paper impossible because their content are not the same.

Level of acclaim doesn't have anything to do with content.

The talk of Joker and TDK is relevant because Joker and TDK are showing that you don't need to water down comic book stories. these acclaim just gives the genre a better reputation

This is not the point of the thread. I won't address this further because at this point we are derailing the thread.

Oh dear, Marvel success does not trouble me, anymore than Twilight, Fast and Furious and Disney live action troubles me. I know the film industry and know that these kind of movies have the most success. that should not trouble anyone who just knows films and Hollywood. If anything I feel it is the other way around.

I know this first hand because I saw , read and replied to many of the reaction when Avatar surpassed Endgame again at the box office, Some acted very negative and even were throwing bad shade at James Cameron and I was one of the few who just pointed the fair truthfulfacts that both Endgame and Avatar both got re-released to get to the number 1 spot.

Also Avatar just has more film making advantage going for it that makes it technically very easy to get back to number 1 as we have already seen with another Cameron movie that was re-released with more film work done with it that it made go past 2 billion, that would be Titanic and I am not even a big Avatar fan but funny, I was never called a hater or just not liking Cameron films when I said Avatar was not as overall as good as other Cameron films even if it is the number box office movie again. I wish some will also use that logic with me here and comic films of Marvel, DC and whatever.

Also if you notice I don't really talk much about success in terms of money, I care more about the artistic aspect of movies. which is what I mostly talk about here. you can discuss much with box office or streaming but you can sure discuss what is good or bad VFX or which story you think is getting dumbed down and which isn't.


The OP is implying Marvel is stuck, he even thinks their Disney shows are not as good as their netflix shows even Iron Fist and all their movies of recent are just alright on in his words sub-par . I think that is pretty fair from my own POV to say, what marvel needs is to grow from where they are to the next stage of what we know the genre can be.

Doesn't Disney own Avatar? Intercompany rivalry is pretty pointless IMO. Avatar is the biggest film of time and I'm very sure Disney is happy with owning the two biggest films of all time.

The OP has his own opinion which is fair. We've all posted that we don't agree with him and stated reasons why.

There's no need to keep quoting the rest of us when we've already stated the reasons why we disagree. The OP can speak for himself.

[Bruce Wayne]

I think law of diminishing returns demonstrates that pushing the envelope further will not give you equivalent results. Rather I think Disney and the MCU will settle on just making the movies appeal to the largest audience possible. We have seen how modern day blockbusters are sometimes constructed in post-production based on reactions from sample audiences. I am sure they'll depend further on that. Given that the MCU is already a money machine, I think maintaining the inertia of the status quo at Marvel Studios will have some appeal to Disney.

[Castle]

Level of acclaim doesn't have anything to do with content.



This is not the point of the thread. I won't address this further because at this point we are derailing the thread.



Doesn't Disney own Avatar? Intercompany rivalry is pretty pointless IMO. Avatar is the biggest film of time and I'm very sure Disney is happy with owning the two biggest films of all time.

The OP has his own opinion which is fair. We've all posted that we don't agree with him and stated reasons why.

There's no need to keep quoting the rest of us when we've already stated the reasons why we disagree. The OP can speak for himself.

1. Level of acclaim has a lot to do with content. please see the filmography of Scorsese and Tarentino or Clint Eastwood.

2. Disney did not own Avatar then, Avatar 1 will always be a fox film

3. The OP started a thread for general discussion.

[80sbaby]

Well after the Golden Globes controversy that made even Tom Cruise return his awards and the mess of what the Oscars have become, I am usually not concrete on awards. I dont care much that Joker or a marvel film get nominated as much as I care that marvel has issues with Joker's kind of story and would not do it because they think it is too heavy for kids.

You just contradicted yourself. Earlier you said those other films receiving awards was more impressive. Now you're claiming you don't care about awards? Make up your mind. Either they're impressive to you or they aren't.

Age has 100% everything to do with growth, that is the whole point of age.

You're wrong here. "Age" in this context means "a distinct period of time in history." Nothing to do with growth/growing.

[inisideguy]

What confuses me about the question is what the heck constitutes done? It can't be from a monetary or popularity context so we are then debating artistic merit. Which then when did it begin? I mean there are people who argue they never had any merit. So if they never were any good, then the age can't be done. It never started. So someone says well it started with Iron Man one and ended with endgame. But now I don't want to watch anymore. I mean there is no straight line here. Its basically like someone saying Star Wars is done, except for well the Mandlorian was pretty good I loved that. Well then its not done.

[Midvillian1322]

Late to the convo but Every Marvel Disney+ show dominated the news cycle while it was airing. Black Widow Supposedly just made 80m at the box office and 60m on Disney+ opening weekend. That's insane, and shows there no end in sight for the "Marvel Age". Im sure the day is coming when they will make something that fails but it hasn't happened yet and with they're track record. If they do take a Hit they can keep on rolling without any issues. It's gonna take multiple failed films to stop Marvel. I just don't see that happening anytime soon.

Also Deadpool in the MCU appears will just be Deadpool as he's always been but they bleep out the cuss words
The free guy reaction with him and Korg was hilarious. Also has to be the most expensive reaction video ever. They did a full CGI Korg to make Jokes about Fox,MCU, and Free guy.

[Castle]

You just contradicted yourself. Earlier you said those other films receiving awards was more impressive. Now you're claiming you don't care about awards? Make up your mind. Either they're impressive to you or they aren't.

No I am not contradicting myself, I am all for awards when I feel their is enough in the film to back up why it got awards beyond any political reasons or because studios can pull strings.

Age" in this context means "a distinct period of time in history." Nothing to do with growth/growing

So that is your interpretation. okay. But please remember that the reason something is many times called a distinct period of time in history is because the world or time has ''grown from that era of distinct period. that is why the term period of time is used, because most times it means the past.

I know all I need to understand when an OP makes a comments that says Iron Fist is not as good the current marvel shows or ask if anyone is excited about the future of these movies, especially if this is the same person I once explained why to why Eternals was getting compared to ABC Inhumans.

[inisideguy]

Late to the convo but Every Marvel Disney+ show dominated the news cycle while it was airing. Black Widow Supposedly just made 80m at the box office and 60m on Disney+ opening weekend. That's insane, and shows there no end in sight for the "Marvel Age". Im sure the day is coming when they will make something that fails but it hasn't happened yet and with they're track record. If they do take a Hit they can keep on rolling without any issues. It's gonna take multiple failed films to stop Marvel. I just don't see that happening anytime soon.

Also Deadpool in the MCU appears will just be Deadpool as he's always been but they bleep out the cuss words
The free guy reaction with him and Korg was hilarious. Also has to be the most expensive reaction video ever. They did a full CGI Korg to make Jokes about Fox,MCU, and Free guy.

Its hard for anyone to even compare the MCU to any other franchise in history. There is really nothing like it. There were specific genres that were hot but not an ongoing interconnected universe. The best I could really even think of is the Bond Films and they defiantly had their ups and downs but the franchise goes on and is still making money. So Bond has gone through many highs and lows but has been there since the early 60s.

[Username taken]

1. Level of acclaim has a lot to do with content. please see the filmography of Scorsese and Tarentino or Clint Eastwood.

2. Disney did not own Avatar then, Avatar 1 will always be a fox film

3. The OP started a thread for general discussion.

1. I think you misunderstand. When I say content, I’m thinking more of genre. So far the movie is not a snuff film or pornography, a movie can be about anything and get critical acclaim. And I believe in the golden age of porn, some porn movies were acclaimed.

2. Disney re-released Avatar thus allowing it to regain its crown as the biggest film ever. Disney facilitated this, like, they literally didn’t care that Fox produced it originally. Like I said earlier, Disney will be quite happy owning the two biggest movies ever. It’s not a competition to them and it really shouldn’t be considering all this does (I.e having Endgame beat Avatar and then re-releasing Avatar to beat Endgame) is boost their market value.

3. Yes, but you are choosing to respond to comments that weren’t originally directed at you but the OP.