Is the Marvel Age Of Movies Done?

[Castle]

Unfortunately, for some folks it's not a myth. It's a deeply held, and honest to them, belief. Like how some believe COVID vaccinations are government mind control conspiracies.

it is far fetched to compare what is obvious in the world of film to COVID conspiracies. If marvel does not have a formula Sam Raimi Spiderman movies would and should not even look better than it should be to the MCU Spiderman films after nearly twenty years.

[thwhtGuardian]

it is far fetched to compare what is obvious in the world of film to COVID conspiracies. If marvel does not have a formula Sam Raimi Spiderman movies would and should not even look better than it should be to the MCU Spiderman films after nearly twenty years.

So you're using your own subjective feeling to say that it's not a myth?

That's not very compelling evidence.

Why not just admit your bias? Is it so hard to just say that you have an opinion that's backed wholly by your own subjective feelings rather than trying to pretend that it has even the tiniest amount of objective backing?

[green_garnish]

Nonsense is always obvious to those who cling to it fervently in the face of overwhelming evidence against it. That is not a reach. It's the way that mindset works.

[Castle]

Nonsense is always obvious to those who cling to it fervently in the face of overwhelming evidence against it. That is not a reach. It's the way that mindset works.

If you want to film and story, the Raimi films runs circles around MCU Spiderman. this is just even a loose tip, since Raimi is among the top 3 directors of comics films that adapted to the newer style of comic books after batman and robin that has proven to stand the test of time.

So you're using your own subjective feeling to say that it's not a myth?

That's not very compelling evidence. You will not once find any story in the MCU Spiderman as compelling as this

Why not just admit your bias? Is it so hard to just say that you have an opinion that's backed wholly by your own subjective feelings rather than trying to pretend that it has even the tiniest amount of objective backing?

there are compelling evidence

1. The first Spiderman movies story is more impressive because Raimi can move peter's story beyond high school and kids stuff, which does atomically creating more compelling conflicts as seen especially in Spiderman 2 and 3.

2. Raimi does not rest easy on the narrative that it is all for kids so everything must be so basic in writing and directing. we see this in how Raimi uses VFX in Spiderman 2, even the first film getting James Cameron's help and him building a more grounded world for peter, where he deals with real day to day common situation that is very believable.


I think MCU made an error, to make Spiderman one of their most over polished kid friendly role model franchise based on a superficial image of the character, that was not even acceptable it the 90s cartoons. It is not just really true to the source material. They should have just left that style with Ant Man and GOTG, you don't do that with Spiderman, not when a good director has already made 3 complex films about the character.

This is also why Peter Parker in Into the Spiderverse works extremely well as a character, because directly or indirectly it builds and develops on what the Raimi films had done, wheras Holland's Spiderman cannot even escape the well deserved Iron Boy image. Tobey not having to deal with that, just puts him way ahead of why his Spiderman was the best of the bunch.

[thwhtGuardian]

If you want to film and story, the Raimi films runs circles around MCU Spiderman.




there are compelling evidence

1. The first Spiderman movies story is more impressive because Raimi can move peter's story beyond high school and kids stuff, which does atomically creating more compelling conflicts as seen especially in Spiderman 2 and 3.

2. Raimi does not rest easy on the narrative that it is all for kids so everything must be so basic in writing and directing. we see this in how Raimi uses VFX in Spiderman 2, even the first film getting James Cameron's help and him building a more grounded world of peter, where he deals with real day to day common situation that is very believable.


I think MCU made an error, to make Spiderman one of their most over polished kid friendly role model franchise based on a superficial image of the character, that is not really true to the source material. They should have just left that style with Ant Man and GOTG, you don't do that with Spiderman, not when a good director has already made 3 complex films about the character told in a more adult leaning way. this is why Peter in Into the Spiderverse works extremely well as a character, because directly or indirectly it builds and develops on what the Raimi films had done, wheras Holland's Spiderman cannot even escape the Iron Boy image.

These are not compelling points...just your personal feelings.

If you were to frame your point like this like, "Hey guys, this is my hot take, but I personally feel like all the recent Marvel movies feel and look the same and I much prefer the pre-disney Marvel films and the DC films but your mileage may vary" then you wouldn't catch any disrespect as we all have our own subjective feelings on things and there's no harm in that...but when you try and frame it as if you have objective evidence supporting your opinion when in fact you don't then you get the ridicule you see above.

It's pretty simple.

[green_garnish]

I really dislike the Tony Stark is Uncle Ben direction. It serves no purpose and diminishes the most important event in Peter's young life to something on the far side of irrelevant.

Making him 14/15 years old at the start of his career is the most honorable thing to the source material there's ever been. Indeed, looking at the nature of his powers, the personality of his costumed and non-costumed personae, his level of intellect, and his interpersonal relationships, there's never been a more true-to-source movie version.

[Username taken]

If you want to film and story, the Raimi films runs circles around MCU Spiderman. this is just even a loose tip, since Raimi is among the top 3 directors of comics films that adapted to the newer style of comic books after batman and robin that has proven to stand the test of time.



there are compelling evidence

1. The first Spiderman movies story is more impressive because Raimi can move peter's story beyond high school and kids stuff, which does atomically creating more compelling conflicts as seen especially in Spiderman 2 and 3.

2. Raimi does not rest easy on the narrative that it is all for kids so everything must be so basic in writing and directing. we see this in how Raimi uses VFX in Spiderman 2, even the first film getting James Cameron's help and him building a more grounded world for peter, where he deals with real day to day common situation that is very believable.


I think MCU made an error, to make Spiderman one of their most over polished kid friendly role model franchise based on a superficial image of the character, that was not even acceptable it the 90s cartoons. It is not just really true to the source material. They should have just left that style with Ant Man and GOTG, you don't do that with Spiderman, not when a good director has already made 3 complex films about the character.

This is also why Peter Parker in Into the Spiderverse works extremely well as a character, because directly or indirectly it builds and develops on what the Raimi films had done, wheras Holland's Spiderman cannot even escape the well deserved Iron Boy image. Tobey not having to deal with that, just puts him way ahead of why his Spiderman was the best of the bunch.

All these are just your opinions.

It's not a problem though, so far it's not based on anything, Marvel don't really have to change anything.

There are some valid criticisms of the new Spider-man movies (the connection to Tony Stark isn't something I would go for) but him being in High school is just in line with the source material.

Peter Parker became Spider-man at age 15 in the comics. That's what Raimi's movies did and that's the right approach IMHO.

[Castle]

These are not compelling points...just your personal feelings.

If you were to frame your point like this like, "Hey guys, this is my hot take, but I personally feel like all the recent Marvel movies feel and look the same and I much prefer the pre-disney Marvel films and the DC films but your mileage may vary" then you wouldn't catch any disrespect as we all have our own subjective feelings on things and there's no harm in that...but when you try and frame it as if you have objective evidence supporting your opinion when in fact you don't then you get the ridicule you see above.

It's pretty simple.

I wonder why Gunn said GOTG 3 will be heavier than their last 2 films. Why not keep the status quo of the current GOTG movies. why go heavy? what does he need or have to proof?


I think this is because heavy comic films has by many times be proven as the top high class films of the comic book genre. Raimi Spiderman films were heavy and that matters.

[green_garnish]

I wonder why Gunn said GOTG 3 will be heavier than their last 2 films. Why not keep the status quo of the current GOTG movies. why go heavy? what does he need or have to proof?


I think this is because heavy comic films has by many times be proven as the top high class films of the comic book genre.

You do realize that "heavier" than the first two films is not a very high bar to cross, right? Both those movies had a heavy scene. If the next one has two such scenes, or one that is twice as long, it will be heavier,

I can't see this being another Joker or even X-Men given Thor's current head space, if not for the racoon and tree. You go on about this as if you think GotG3 will not be a farce. It doesn't take studio interference to land on the idea that the concept of GotG is a comedy.

[Conn Seanery]

"I like Raimi's Spider-Man films" + "I like heavy comic films" =/= "Raimi's Spider-Man films are heavy."

[Castle]

"I like Raimi's Spider-Man films" + "I like heavy comic films" =/= "Raimi's Spider-Man films are heavy."

But even if I did not like it personally, I will still acknowledge that the heaviness of the Raimi films puts it in a higher place of films than the other Spiderman films. I think this area of heavier comic films is just a consistent objective pov with the genre and I am pretty sure Gunn know this.

Many people don't like TDKR or Batman in it as a character, but it is rare to see anyone rank that film lower than Batman Forever even if they may say their personal favourite is Batman forever. Batman Forever was ridiculous in the goofy story style and over comic bookie thing. It will for this reason never be in any range of what Nolan did as a director and I am not saying Nolan is perfect.

[WebLurker]

But even if I did not like it personally, I will still acknowledge that the heaviness of the Raimi films puts it in a higher place of films than the other Spiderman films. I think this area of heavier comic films is just a consistent objective pov with the genre and I am pretty sure Gunn know this.

"Heavier" doesn't automatically mean "better." A well-made comedy is is better than a badly-made drama, after all. It's all in what the project is supposed to be and how well it lives up to that.

So far as Gunn goes, seeing how he's made it clear that he thinks the worst mistake to be made is blindly aping other successful stuff, his saying that he's planning to make a heavier Guardians movie (and bear in mind that even his previous ones had some of the heaviest content in the genre), it's probably because that's the direction he wants to go.

Many people don't like TDKR or Batman in it as a character, but it is rare to see anyone rank that film lower than Batman Forever even if they may say their personal favourite is Batman forever. Batman Forever was ridiculous in the goofy story style and over comic bookie thing. It will for this reason never be in any range of what Nolan did as a director and I am not saying Nolan is perfect.

See above r.e. intent and execution.

[Dunkelzahn]

True. The backstories were very dark and not to forget the things Ego did to his other children in part 2 were no picnic either. One of the funny things is that a director that made "just a comedy" did the darker stuff a lot better than directors that are called serious by some.

[Captain Smith]

I think the poor showings of Black Widow and Suicide Squad predict that the Eternals will not be so long-lived. Another set of folks in pseudo-Roman bath robes and some convoluted nonsense about why they didn't show up in all the uproar. It will be yawn as they don't have a real fan base. Iron Man was a gamble but he was fairly well known. Guardians fit into the paradigm and the larger story line. These folks, who cares.

Fly around, throw energy, angry family angst, some villain out of nowhere THAT THREATENS EXISTENCE! Been there, done that.

[inisideguy]

I think the poor showings of Black Widow and Suicide Squad predict that the Eternals will not be so long-lived. Another set of folks in pseudo-Roman bath robes and some convoluted nonsense about why they didn't show up in all the uproar. It will be yawn as they don't have a real fan base. Iron Man was a gamble but he was fairly well known. Guardians fit into the paradigm and the larger story line. These folks, who cares.

Fly around, throw energy, angry family angst, some villain out of nowhere THAT THREATENS EXISTENCE! Been there, done that.

News Flash. Black Widow is the highest domestic movie of the year. There are no movies doing well in case you have not noticed.