Is the Marvel Age Of Movies Done?

[Castle]

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.





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.

I stand by what I said that Beatles were mostly always acclaimed. the way you have found articles that are anti-beatles, I can find 200x more articles talking about how the good Beatles were but that is not even the real issue here. the real issue here is equating the Beatles legacy of music to marvel movies and I am saying that is not an equivalent because the Beatles legacy to music is more like the legacy Alfred Hitchcock or Scorsese has left on movies as for 2021 since maybe the 70s. that is the standard Beatles have. You can tell me anything different about the beetles but I doubt you can equate marvel movies Alfred Hitchock and Scorsese movies.

[80sbaby]

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.

So when the awards agree with you, they're valid but when they don't then they aren't valid. And you honestly don't see what's wrong/hypocritical with you using the word "objective", do you? Amazing.

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.

It's not my interpretation. It's the actual meaning in this context. That's why it's call the "Age of..." Your talk of "growth" is irrelevant.

[Castle]

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.

1. People made arguments HBO game of thrones was porn because of the strong sex scenes and excess nudity that even many times felt unnecessary, but Game of Thrones is very well acclaimed for been an extremely deep and complex show with many mature themes you will never find in an MCU or disney series.

The sex scenes of game of thrones does not change that acclaim that game of thrones is just not some pop corn fluffy fun fantasy series Disney Aladdin and their Wandavision. Games of thrones is so way above anything Disney can ever do with story and characters and that does matter when people and I mean those in screen writing school do take into big account in what they see as ''better'' acclaimed.

2. When it comes to Avatar and Endgame, I was not talking about who owns them, I was talking about their film making approach only. It is not a competition for studios but it felt like a competition for some fans on the side of Endgame and Cameron and all I did was just point out the obvious beyond fans taking sides that, Avatar just had more in the tank when it came to film making to get the crown back.

[Castle]

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.

It depends a lot with pushing the envelope. X-MEN 1 pushed the envelope 20 years ago, TDK pushed the envelope and was the first comic film to make over a billion even if in fairness the movie was re-released during Oscar season for it to hit a billion, but Joker has shown you can get great 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.

Yes I think so too that Disney will stick to what they see as appealing to larger audiences, I get that vibe more so far with phase 4, but I just feel They will not find it all that easy anymore to get away with some of their films. Not with X-MEN and Blade and if they don't want Sony to get the rights of Spiderman back after No Way Home and if Spiderverse 2 is even a bigger success than the first film.

[choptop]

The MCU is probably going to reboot one way or another in a few years but they will keep making marvel movies in or outside of the MCU so to be clear is the age of MCU movies ending? Probably in a few years us the age of marvel movies over definitely not we may get a few years of rest but CBM will continue.

[CTTT]

The MCU is probably going to reboot one way or another in a few years but they will keep making marvel movies in or outside of the MCU so to be clear is the age of MCU movies ending? Probably in a few years us the age of marvel movies over definitely not we may get a few years of rest but CBM will continue.

I think the MCU will keep on going for a long time to come. If not in theaters then on Disney+ for sure

[phonogram12]

Two upcoming MCU movies have award winning directors at the helm. I think they still have a little bit of steam left in them.

[Castle]

The MCU is probably going to reboot one way or another in a few years but they will keep making marvel movies in or outside of the MCU so to be clear is the age of MCU movies ending? Probably in a few years us the age of marvel movies over definitely not we may get a few years of rest but CBM will continue.

I agree that CBM will continue but maybe not to the same excitement of connected comic films from DCU and MCU. they are already tiring but not don't think they will wear it self completely out. I also feel this is why WB is putting so much weight on Rob Pattinson's The Batman.

There is more at stake with that The Batman than Shazam 2 or Wonder Woman 3 or Aquaman 2. I don't feel Marvel feels this way about any of their future films, where what they want is a game changing artistic stake for CBM, even their X-MEN they wanted the rights back so badly will likely still be another MCU film in their list like the rest of the other MCU films although I am sure it will make a lot of money but I don't think it will differ further from how MCU does things now and dont they love it when a superhero team were colourful costumes

[Maestro 216]

The X Men alone can provide a wide range of films to explore.

[phonogram12]

Don't forget Fantastic Four!

[Username taken]

1. People made arguments HBO game of thrones was porn because of the strong sex scenes and excess nudity that even many times felt unnecessary, but Game of Thrones is very well acclaimed for been an extremely deep and complex show with many mature themes you will never find in an MCU or disney series.

The sex scenes of game of thrones does not change that acclaim that game of thrones is just not some pop corn fluffy fun fantasy series Disney Aladdin and their Wandavision. Games of thrones is so way above anything Disney can ever do with story and characters and that does matter when people and I mean those in screen writing school do take into big account in what they see as ''better'' acclaimed.

Both Alaadin AND Game of Thrones were critically acclaimed. Alaadin in particular received near universal acclaim upon release in 1992. I'm not going to compare Alaadin to Game of Thrones because one is a movie and one is a tv series. But I will say that Wandavision was just as good as Game of Thrones and in many ways was better. But that's my opinion and unfortunately there's nothing anyone can do to change that. And if we are talking about acclaim, Wandavision just got 20 Emmy nominations.

You keep talking about film school but you don't seem to realize that the guys that vote for a lot of awards and a lot of film critics actually went to film school. They know more about movie making than most of us on this board, so ultimately I will defer to them on evaluating a movie's quality and/or artistic merit. That's not to say that awards ceremonies are the be all and end all but when actual film makers and industry veterans decide what's best from a "film making perspective", then there isn't really much more to debate on that.

When it comes to Avatar and Endgame, I was not talking about who owns them, I was talking about their film making approach only. It is not a competition for studios but it felt like a competition for some fans on the side of Endgame and Cameron and all I did was just point out the obvious beyond fans taking sides that, Avatar just had more in the tank when it came to film making to get the crown back.

[/QUOTE]

No..you spoke about Avatar's box office and it becoming the biggest film of all time again and how it affected some fans (funny enough, I don't even remember anyone caring).

I needed to point out that Disney made it take the crown once again. Disney will continue to re-release their movies to make as much as money as possible for them.

Just like how Endgame got a re-release the same year, Disney could re-release it some time in the future and then release Avatar again. Studious just do this to maximise their returns, not for any other reason.

[WebLurker]

For the most part, mostly light-hearted action-comedy fast paced comic films that are all produced in the same fashion.

Might want a little more elaboration what you mean by "produced in the same fashion" (not sure what you're thinking there). So far as the rest goes, that's not a formula. Descriptions of tone and genre aren't formulas. For example, the old mystery show Columbo and cartoon Pinky and the Brain had formulas; a standardized plot of how the mystery/scheme unfolded, running jokes, and the occasional variation to make a twist, etc. The MCU movies don't fit that, esp. in recent years and, considering how their upcoming stuff is being marketed, they're not looking back.

On paper, what it shows so far is that they may be able to tell some derivate version of X-Men

Which, if true, would just mean that they make stuff on the level of the worst of the Fox stuff. However, think about it (spoilers for Black Widow):

spoilers:

Black Widow is about human trafficking and the exploitation of women; two modern day problems (the crew have cited that "Me Too" gave them a lot to work with for making a story relevant to the here and now). We get an opening montage of the horrors of the Red Room in the same league as the concentration camp opening of the first X-Men movie that you have repeatedly cited being an example of why that movie is what "mature" comic book films should aspire too. While there is comic relief elements, the themes and horror of the trafficking ring are not played for laughs. As a bonus, we get a lot of rich character work (including some pretty messy dynamics). Exploration of "important" themes in a film that takes the drama seriously, with a side of well-written characters; that's exactly what you want out of an X-Men movie. Heck, that's the kind of stuff the Fox series was in their best installments. Who knows? Maybe this time around, we can get something deeper than just "racism is bad, okay?"

end of spoilers

[Midvillian1322]

The MCU is probably going to reboot one way or another in a few years but they will keep making marvel movies in or outside of the MCU so to be clear is the age of MCU movies ending? Probably in a few years us the age of marvel movies over definitely not we may get a few years of rest but CBM will continue.

They have films and shows in the works right now for atleast 5 years, if not more. Shang Chi,Eternals,Dr Strange 2,CM2,and BP2 all need to fail to the point that those franchises are done. F4 ane Xmen would also need to fail out the gate. If previous track record is any indication they won't fail which means just off sequels of the titles listed and any spinoff. MCU has content easily for another decade. Also with what they are doing with the multiverse the next itteration of the MCU can really just be a soft reboot the continues out from however they choose to end this MCU timeliens story. Have the last story spring board into another timeline that let's them reboot.

Curious why you think they would reboot in a couple years? Outside Hulk and Cap none of the Avengers were house hold names. Nobody knew who the GOTG,Antman,Black Panther,Dr Strange,Captain Marvel etc.. were. No reason to think the next wave of character won't be just as big with the trajectory Marvel is on. Not to mention they haven't gotten to the real household names like F4 and Xmen yet. Or even Blade for that matter thanks to Snipes he's has more name recognition then 98% of Marvel heroes lol. There are so many characters they haven't even gotten to yet. The audience will move on from the MCU some day but I see no evidence it will be anytime soon.

[inisideguy]

Here is the way I look at all of this. I look at it like soccer( or football to you purist). You can be critical of it, you can call it boring, you can complain about no goals, or shootouts, or players lying on the field for non existent injuries and wasting time. But its the biggest most popular sport in the world. And you may like some other sport better thats your right. But that isn't changing that soccer is the biggest most popular sport in the world by far. No matter how may flaws you see in it. It is what it is. And so is the MCU.

[John Venus]

Everything waxes and wanes; Marvel Studios just hasn't hit their wane yet. I mean, there was a time when Pixar and the the Transformers movies were too big to fail and we know how that turned out. I think it'll be interesting to see how the next batch of movies go, since a lot of fan favorites from the Infinity Saga have been retired and we're getting a lot of unproven franchises coming up. Marvel Studios has proven that they can make superstars out of stuff like that (e.g. Black Widow's supporting cast), but it's always a gamble.

Since their biggest success came from elevating lesser known characters it would be ironic if they end up tripping over themselves when they finally get to adapt their big gun franchises after getting the rights back to them, i.e X-Men and the Fantastic Four.

Or Fiege, Victoria Alonso, Louis D'Esposito can no longer be in charge and without the key figures, the entire house of cards come crumbling down. Or like the comics, the fanboys who grew up with the MCU take over and manages to sink it into the ground by trying to make their fan fiction canon.