Do people think Marvel would make better X-Men movies then Fox?

[cc008]

People seemed to like Deadpool and Logan well enough.

That's what I'm saying. Are we on the same team right now?

[Alan2099]

Marvel films are entertaining but very formulaic - there won't be any new ground broken.

How many movies have they spent going into Wolverine's backstory adn Magneto being an evil guy but they forgive him and at the end?

[mace11]

Marvel films are entertaining but very formulaic - there won't be any new ground broken. That said, they certainly know how to handle an ensemble cast better than Fox.

But you also won't get the plus side of taking risks - Deadpool could never have been made by Marvel.

There are those that will disagree with this view.
I Think know you that and the mcu films have taken risk too.
Of course there are those that will agree that marvel mcu films are entertaining and even more entertaining then the dceu and the x-men marvel films.
Here is a list of groundbreaking superhero movies.

10 Superhero Movies That Defined the Genre | Collider

While the superhero movie genre has certainly hit its stride over the last decade or so, it’s been around for much longer and went through a number of fits and starts to get here. There have been films that offered a groundbreaking take on comic book material that forced audiences to look at the genre a different way; there have been films that shook up the formula just enough to kick-start a new trend; and there have been films that have set the superhero genre back.

Superman (1978)
Batman (1989)
X-Men (2000)
Spider-Man (2002)
Catwoman (2004)/Elektra (2005)
Batman Begins (2005)
The Dark Knight (2008)
Iron Man (2008)
The Avengers (2012)
Deadpool (2016)

http://collider.com/10-superhero-mov...re/#/#superman

7 Movies That Could Revolutionize the Superhero Genre | moviepilot

Introduction
If you couldn't tell from my 30+ articles I've written so far, I'm somewhat obsessed with superheroes, movies, and especially, superhero movies! Marvel and DC being the big dogs in the comic book industry makes me want to see their characters on the big screen, and the fact that these amazing characters that both companies have are going to be on the big screen for year and years to come, is like a dream come true for comic book nerd like myself.
I've talked and talked and talked about how much I am excited for movies or speculated on how I feel certain movies will play out and connect, but what I want to talk about in this article specifically is how some of the films that are being released by Marvel Studios and Warner Bros./DC could have the opportunity to change movie history and I'll go more in-depth into that in just a second. We first need to understand that just because a movie may be a superhero movie, doesn't mean it can't be revolutionary.

Three Revolutionary Superhero Movies

The three films that you see in the picture above are, in my personal opinion, three of the most revolutionary superhero films and will remain as iconic staples in the history of superhero films. I've written an entire article about it actually and you can read it here: 3 Superhero Movies that Redefined the Genre


Spider-Man 2 had introduced to us, that superhero films could indeed, have more substance beyond just some flashy cinematography and campy one-liners. The movie had heart and emotion as well as action and humor. It is an underrated film that has been forgotten overtime, but I believe that if this movie would have been released nowadays instead of 2004, it would get more deserved attention than it currently does.

The Dark Knight showed us that superheroes and their stories can actually be handled in a more serious tone and people will like it. What I love about The Dark Knight is that it more or less expresses everything I've been saying in that not all superheroes, comics, etc. are for kids. There is a treasure trove of great stories and characters in both the world's of DC and Marvel that can be explored in the movies, stories that are far more complex than people give them credit for.

The Avengers brought five different superhero franchises together and united them as one, we all knew that this was the plan, but for it to actually have happened was still a dream-come-true for many fans. It was amazing to see this previously unheard of formula of expanding universes in movie making, become such a hit. What Avengers has done was so popular, that it is the formula that all other companies with the rights to superheroes on film, are trying to emulate this same method. That's a win-win for me.

https://moviepilot.com/posts/2601703

Iron Man, The Avengers and the Movies That Redefined The Superhero Genre

When the genre of superhero movies is discussed, it's fairly common to think that these movies involves one good guy and one bad guy fighting, in which the good guy wins in the end. Well, in the last five years, superhero movies are trying their best to change this perception and by the end of 2020, it looks like they will be quite successful.
The genre rose to fame after the Superman, Spiderman and X Men movies. Whatever these movies did turned into a cliche over time. Although these movies were pretty amazing, the audience didn't want the same thing again. That was the start of the revolution of superhero movies.
Both the big wigs, Marvel and DC, are to be given due credit for their contributions in redefining the genre. Here are the movies that changed the superhero genre for good.

The Dark Knight Trilogy (2005-2012)

Iron Man (2008)
Iron Man officially marked the start of the "most epic franchise ever" a.k.a. the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It didn't have an out of the box story, but the action, the humor and everything was utterly perfect. It had a typical good guy beats bad guy feature to it, but it was one hell of a awesome movie which marked the start of MCU's redefinition of the genre.

Thor (2011)
Marvel Studio's first attempt at making a fantasy movie mixed with the basic superhero elements was Thor. The movie proved that Marvel was headed in the right direction. I mean, who would have thought a movie like this would be a hit in, say, 2005? Marvel did justice to the character's origin and relationships, further cementing its position on the superhero battle ground.

Captain America: The First Avenger
Captain America was basically a war film with a super human soldier kicking some Nazi butts. The film, although not THAT good, was a pretty awesome foundation for what Marvel was planning the whole time. It was a film that got appreciated for its casting and story. The sub division continued and after this movie, The Avengers in 2012 was released.


The Avengers
The Avengers is one of those movies, you can't afford to miss. This movie introduced the idea of bringing multiple protagonists in one single movie for beating the hell out of a villain and his army. The Avengers with its ensemble cast and brilliant direction and writing is one of the best Marvel movies ever made.

Captain America: Winter Soldier
Captain America makes another entry in this article. Being a political thriller, this one movie launched Captain America and its directors to great fame. The movie looked more of a "Mission Impossible" angle than a typical superhero movie. The movie was fresh, exhilarating and a really intriguing joy ride.

Guardians of the Galaxy
Honestly, there would be no difference in this movie, even if the term "superhero" was not associated with it at all. This movie mainly a sci/fi alien adventure, which was pretty badass. It was exciting, fun and gripping all at the same time. It was one of Marvel's biggest risks which paid off pretty well for the studio. This movie again proved that the audience yearned for new narratives and interesting characters and that Marvel was doing that just right.


Ant-Man
Ant Man again was a heist movie with a guy who had advanced tech. The movie, although being Marvel's second lowest earning movie, was loved by the critics and fans alike. It was expected to be a "silly" movie, and a probable box office bomb, but it proved itself as quite the opposite. It cemented its position in the hearts of the fans as one of the best Marvel films till date.

Future
These movies are to be released in the future. These movies are expected to be ground breaking in terms of narrative and story, so these make their position in the list.


Captain America: Civil War
Although it's been said that Captain America: Civil War is not a Captain America movie, Cap Am makes an entry the third time. It is expected to change the complete scenario and turn heroes against heroes for one heck of a battle. Directed by the Winter Soldier duo, this film is expected be the biggest Marvel film to date.


Doctor Strange
Benedict Cumberbatch is set to star in this Fantasy/Horror Movie, which is yet another variation from the typical superhero movies. This movie is expected to come out next year, with Tilda Swinton hopefully playing The Ancient One. The casting has already got the fans' approval and support.


Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
The second movie of the DCCU, this movie is one of the most anticipated movies of next year. Although the concept of this movie is largely similar to what Civil War is offering, it is to be noted that it is different from the typical superhero movie. The director, Zack Snyder, who is one of the most creative action directors of Hollywood, has succeeded in making the people pumped and ready for this upcoming action blockbuster. Check out the trailer yourself -

Honorable Mentions
Blade
Blade is one superhero movie that introduced the horror/superhero genre. With a super skilled half- vampire superhero, this movie lead to the creation of a trilogy, although the movies released later were not as appreciated as the first and one.

Kick-Ass

The Conclusion
These were the movies that changed the superhero genre and introduced some interesting new narratives and stories. I hope y'll liked it!

To read more open link below.
https://moviepilot.com/posts/3577605

Note- I thought Captain America: The First Avenger was great movie by the way.

[mace11]

Why Marvel’s Success Story is More Than Just a ‘Formula’

“Formula,” as it relates to observations of storytelling techniques, probably didn’t start out as a negative criticism. The use of the word formula to describe a reliable sequence of actions implies a certain level of benign harmlessness in the idea – a sense of neutrality associated with the scientific method as opposed to the more emotive connotations of “recipe,” “concoction” or “scheme.” But it became one, as media-analysis in the form of popular-entertainment criticism moved from academia to mainstream journalism in the early 20th century, and by the time film critics in particular were popular enough to get their own TV shows and catchphrases in the 1980s, much of the popular culture had well and truly absorbed the idea that being able to recognize a familiar story-structure in a work was a flaw (in the work) in and of itself.


On the one hand, this was hardly an overall bad thing. As neutral an endeavor as formula plotting may be, a little originality seldom hurt anyone either. The ability of an increasingly media-literate audience to recognize and be “turned off” by overly familiar story beats played into the rising popularity of cinematic voices like Robert Altman, the Coen Bros and Charlie Kaufman, who often took working outside of traditional story structure as a personal challenge. And it isn’t like observing patterns hasn’t been part of media awareness all along, with literary analysis often working outward from the so-called “big five”: Man vs. Man, Man vs. Nature, Man vs. Society, Man vs. Technology and Man vs. Self.

The latest most popular target for this sort of pop-pedantry is the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which in under a decade has gone from being something new and unique to something… well, still pretty unique but now very much established as a benchmark much of the rest of blockbuster filmmaking aspires to. Near-constant success (the MCU cycle has yet to produce an outright box-office failure or particularly unanimous critical dud) breeds jealousy within the industry, but within a popular culture obsessed with a social-media aggregated version of empiricism it breeds an attempt to crack the “code” behind it – particularly for those who find themselves on the outside of something the popular culture has widely taken a shine to. If you’re not seeing the appeal, it must be some sort of identifiable marketing sorcery that’s winning everyone else over.

This has been exacerbated by the unexpectedly negative reception of the first attempt to launch a legitimate “rival” to the MCU’s presence in Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice, which was savaged by many film critics, received with less enthusiasm than expected at the box-office and (fairly or not) invited frequent negative comparisons to its Marvel counterparts. The supposed “formulaic” nature of said counterparts, then, has become a favorite pushback in the culture-wide discussion of what to make of the so-called DC Extended Universe’s future; and as Marvel/DC arguments go it’s not a bad one: “Batman V Superman may be flawed, but at least it’s trying to do something different.”


The problem with the kind of superficial analysis that typically defines a fixation with movie “formulas” is that it often ignores the line between the cultivation of an aesthetic and the adherence to a schematic. Movie studios establishing a brand-identity is a time-honored tradition in Hollywood for good reason; it’s why people know what you’re talking about when you say “MGM musical,” “Warner Bros. gangster movie” or “Disney family film.”

It’s that last model that Marvel operates most in the tradition of, and why it was almost cosmically appropriate that the company (whose filmmaking arm started out as an independent venture with a distribution deal through Paramount Pictures) would become part of the Mouse House itself. Just as “Uncle Walt” made his ubiquitous signature a sign that denoted “high-calibre family entertainment,” while making films across dozens of genres, Marvel has spread its superhero characters through myriad genres (techie action-comedies for Iron Man, fantasy for Thor, a period war movie and two political thrillers for Captain America) and successfully expanded into non-superheroes (Doctor Strange barely meets the definition, nor do the Guardians of The Galaxy) by establishing a unifying thematic identity with audiences.

In other words, that familiar red logo isn’t simply saying “we made this movie,” it says “this movie has that same ephemeral ‘thing’ you like about our other movies.” And despite how easy it can seem to define that in terms of adherence to story formula, it’s more about selling a governing sensibility that exists “above” the story – or the genre. The “Marvel brand” is about guaranteeing audiences witty, likable protagonists, storylines that stress inward conflict and/or personal struggle, and a careful balance between the most reliable elements of the original comics and present-day storytelling sensibilities. That brand has proven popular enough with audiences that the Sony Corporation just dismantled and rebuilt much of its film division in order to earn its endorsement for the Spider-Man movies.

Yet that’s not exactly a “formula,” and neither is a familiar unifying theme. If it was, filmmaking operations more esteemed than Marvel would be facing the same type of accusations. Quick – how many Pixar movies does the following summary describe: “A seemingly comfortable but flawed situation is upended by an outside interloper whose presence unwittingly exposes deep problems, necessitating a journey that ultimately improves the original situation?” The answer is “a lot of them.” So is that evidence of formulaic writing, or smart use of a familiar theme?

That’s not to say that formula filmmaking doesn’t exist, more that it traditionally describes a more rigid set of similarities – usually in service of a storytelling shortcut. The early James Bond films hewed to a reliable structure (you can almost set your watch to when 007 will encounter the good girl, the bad girl, the villain, the henchman, the death-trap, the backup-army for the big finish, etc.) because the film-to-film “innovation” was focused on gadgets and exotic locales. Friday the 13th and its descendants followed a blueprint so recognizable it’s possible to make parodies of their parodies.

It’s also not to say that Marvel is innocent of sticking with things that work. The studio loves its joke-punctuated action scenes, malleable magic MacGuffins that can mean anything from film to film (Loki’s scepter was also part Infinity Stone? That seems somehow both overly-complicated and yet not complicated enough…) and by now they’ve all but perfected the idea of narratively-disposable supervillains (Ronan doesn’t “need” to be interesting because the real conflict is whether or not The Guardians get over their personal hangups and act as a unit). And yes, Iron Man, Captain America, Ant-Man and The Hulk seem to be magnets for bad guys who fall into the “evil version of the hero” category.

Arguably, the closest Marvel comes to a film-to-film formula is a general approach to plotting that upends the typical view of “stakes” in action filmmaking. It’s not an accident that Marvel films are all named after their respective lead figures – these are character-focused stories first and foremost, and everything else comes second. Making the main character(s) likable (or, rather, compelling enough to follow from film to film to semi-annual crossover event) is the focus, and the arc of the story is usually also the arc of character growth. Which mean, yes, the world can be on the verge of ending (as it typically is in these movies) and it’s all just more opportunity for stunts and one-liners, because the drama is meant to be in whether or not the good guys overcome their personal demons and (where applicable) maintain their friendships. But, again, a recurring theme doesn’t necessarily constitute a formula.


The funny thing about the seemingly futile search for a “Marvel formula” is that, truth be told, there actually is one – it’s just not the “sexy” smoking gun that dedicated nit-pickers (or rival studios) want it to be, and neither is it the “just stick to the comics, duh!” self-flattery the fans often describe it as. When a filmmaking operation succeeds as much as Marvel has, both fans and detractors want to assign some kind of magical flourish to the story of how they did it. “Write good scripts, hire good filmmakers, have a clear vision and stick to it” sounds too mundane and general – never mind what it implies if you’re in the same business and somehow not able to marshal the same success. “Start with the comics, but pay just as much attention to what the broader audience responds to” doesn’t sound as triumphant for message-board self-congratulation. It’s easier to assume that someone at Marvel (or Pixar, or whoever) has some kind of special sorcery to imbue their productions with, or some top-secret blueprint to follow.


That’s the real irony at play here: The question that keeps being asked is “How does Marvel keep making this work?,” when the question that needs to be asked is closer to “Why is everyone else somehow unable to?”

http://screenrant.com/marvel-movie-formula-brand/

Note-most of the mcu movies if i could recall do not have world ending events by the ways.

and

The Marvel Formula is why Critics hate DC?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keUFPNdbRHQ

[mace11]

Here is some more talk about mcu films and dceu films by the way.
Quote Originally Posted by NotNickFury View Post

The difference is that Marvel took its time with its cinematic universe and built a world, while Dawn of Justice tries to do too much in the span of one film.
Not to mention that the MCU does do dark films. The likes of The Incredible Hulk, and even later films like Winter Soldier and Iron Man 3 deal with some pretty serious themes. Cinematography-wise, sure, it's not like someone turned out the lights, but those films are examples of doing a dark, serious superhero film and still being able to inject humor in situations when necessary.
Are people being preemptively harder on DC? Possibly, but not like DC hasn't somewhat brought it on themselves with this haphazard approach, lack of a real critical hit, and rushing to play catch-up instead of taking its time. I doubt anyone would have an issue with DC taking a slower approach if the films as a whole were well-received, which is why there's now so much pressure on Wonder Woman.
http://forums.superherohype.com/show...=#post34566349

I don't agree with alot of what john campea has to say but i agree with his view about this what had to say below about Dark And Gritty Vs Light And Fun - What Makes A Better Comic-Book Movie

Dark And Gritty Vs Light And Fun - What Makes A Better Comic-Book Movie - The John Campea Podcast


Question starts around 30:26

[mace11]

Here some talk about the mcu/Disney vs dc/wb vs marvel fox.
Fox marvel is mention below too.
This is from the imdb batman v superman forum
The real reasons the DC Extended Universe is struggling

by Scott Harris
While Marvel Comics and Disney are riding high on the hog with one
massive box office hit after another, DC Comics and Warner Bros. are
struggling to simply get their own extended cinematic universe off the
ground. Given that DC's characters—including Superman, Batman, and
Wonder Woman—are arguably the most recognizable superheroes in the
world, you'd think this wouldn't be so hard. So why can't they seem to
figure it out? Here's a look at some of the real reasons for the
DCEU's struggles.

They have a corporate mentality
In 2004, fed up after years of other studios butchering their
characters, Marvel came up a with a bold plan to make their own
movies. Their core idea: the people who make the comics and understand
the characters should be in charge of the films. That has never been
the case with DC, which has been owned by Warner Bros. since 1967. As
just one cog in a vast media machine, the decisions aren't made by DC,
they're made for DC in order to satisfy a corporate agenda. It's
filmmaking by committee, not by creators.

by Ashray
Points 1 to 4 have always been so obvious to me and the reason why i
beleive WB will never catch up Marvel.
up Marvel.
DC had been under WB since 1967 and that studio has had a 3 decades
head start with the first Superman movie before Marvel Studios
starting releasing its very first one with IM.

Both DC and Marvel, opted for different options when it comes to the
future of their properties on the big screens and that's the core
reason of the difference we see today.

DC Entertainment sold all its DC portfolio to a motion picture studio
4 decades ago and relinquished its creative MOVIE rights to them by
doing so since they were not in the business of making movie at the
time and had no studio of their own.

I think Marvel learned from DC and much later sacrificed instead its
flagships and some other properties to keep the movie and TV creative
rights within their hands for the lesser properties that were still
under their belt.

Keeping that controlling right for even one single property was the
main priority as well as keeping a door opened in case the movie
rights licence reverse to them.

They didn't sell those rights to other studio, they licence them with
conditions that could enable them to eventually get them back.

They therefore launched their own production company and independant
studio to take eventually take care of their own properties.

They were not happy with some of the effort made by those other
studios and since they still retained those movie rights as some
properties reversed to them, they decided to innovate and create the
MCU, implementing that concept to maximise the Marvel properties under
their roof.

Marvel has kept their creative freedom close to the creator.

They have been an independant studio run by CB nerds with a very flat
pyramidal organisation and a cohesive single vision that ease
communication and facilitate quick implementation.

I remember one of the MCU avctor saying that everyone has Feige
personal phone and could phone and talk to him directly which is not
something you could do with FOX or WB's top executive. That actor also
said that decisions are made around a very few numbers of people and
that basicly FEIGE is the one that decides ultimately without any
other interference from anyone, Disney big top included.

It's no surprise that Marvel ended up under Disney right after TA as
this conglomerate buys existing functional studios letting the
creative team in place while they take care of the distribution and
merchandising.
People often forget that movies like Pulp Fiction, Good Will Hunting,
Kill Bill and many others were all produced by MIRAMAX, a studio owned
at the time by Disney Corporation, functionning under the same freedom
as Marvel or Lucas Films, ect.
That's how Disney do business with Hollywood.
It buys working entities (Marvel Studios, the Weinstein, MiraMax,
Lucas Films, ect...) and let all the creative rights within the
existing team.
Disney basicly acts like a banker opening its wallet to finance
projects of existing studios under its conglomerate and collects
revenues as it opens its distribution and marketing channels to them
and take care of all the merchandising aspect.

Also, to me the main reason why the DCEU is struggling is that when
you try to emulate a concept that were implemented highly successfully
by someone else, chances are greater that you fail if you don't take
the time to understand FULLY how they did it so successfully and take
even more time to figure out how to improve the concept and make it
better.

WB hasn't done that and just tried to do a simple copy paste of Marvel
concept, putting their own twist and neglecting some important steps
because they don't undertsand the concept and only think that having
icons plastered in place of the MCU second rated characetr is enough
to maximise that concept.

It is clear to me that FEIGE and others at Marvel have thought,
planned years before IM hit the big screen.

They built different plans, different scenarios in case one step fails
so that they could get back on track quicker knowing what they were
doing and where they were aiming all along the way.

WB clearly didn't and still don't.
It just focused on those big characters and neglect everything else,
story included, throwing things at wall to see what stick, thinking
that having A list characters and maximising on that CBM era will do
the trick.
They just went on this DCEU lazily and full of arrogance and false ideas.

WB hasn't done that and just tried to do a simple copy paste of
Marvel concept, putting their own twist and neglecting some important
steps because they don't undertsand the concept and only think that
having icons plastered in place of the MCU second rated characetr is
enough to maximise that concept.

Of course i think marvel characters and mcu characters are first rate
and more interesting then the dc ones on average and marvel has the
better characters on average and now the most well known these days.

[mace11]

Here is talk about mcu movie humor vs dc and you could say fox marvel films too.
This was posted in another thread awhile ago before captain america civil war.

I like Marvel films, they are funny and more cartoony than what DC is trying to do.
I don't want DC to follow Marvel's outline for their movies. I want Marvel's funny, a lot of times no real tension films and I want DC's serious action filled films.
We're several films in in the Marvel universe and there doesn't feel like there is any real danger for their heroes. Thor takes a subway ride during his climax. Starlord break dances during that climatic battle. No one big has really died, just secondary characters. DC's decision to kill one of their most iconic characters was a bold move that set the tone for the universe going forward. The battles have consequences and are dangerous. Characters will die.

I disagree.
There are others that would disagree with this view as well.

Here some chat about this stuff from another forum.

by msdantemax

Sigh, you have no idea how much I hate the constant "DC is more serious, mature and dark while Marvel is kiddy, dumb and bright" comments.
Sure Marvel films are light in their tone but that's for a reason, you know why so many comic book movies in the past have been recieved so badly? Because their tone was overly serious, something that didn't allign well with the fact that they were based off of comic books. Remember Daredevil?
The reason Marvel utilizes the comedy element isn't because it's a "dumb flavor of the month" thing, like Snyder put it, but a storytelling element to break down the wall between seriousness and comic book movies.
If a comic book movie takes itself too serious while still utilizing sci-fi/CBM elements it will simply not work well as the suspension of disbelief within the viewer won't kick in. The comedy element creates a illusion of self irony wich breaks the wall and allows Marvel to go full on comic-book. Hence the helicarriers, Hulk, spaceships, aliens, gods, ant-riding-thieves etc.
If a film purposefully goes full on broody like BvS did it needs to base itself more in reality (like the TDK trilogy did), the viewer won't be able to suspend his disbelief as much if the heroes constantly frown and appear super-serious.
Say or think of the DC/Marvel war what you will but this "we're dark and thus more worthy" sounds like a petulant 13 year old wearing a Metallica T-Shirt while watching anime.
DC chose to go with a tone and storytelling concept that simply doesn't work as well as the MCU concept does, they need to adjust their tone or keep going with it. But this has nothing to do with maturity, longevity or seriousness. Just a mere faux-pas in the writing departement

Dark humor not 12 year old rumor like marvel

POSTED By ----

Wrong.
So he is kinda hot is dark humor?or the jokes lois lane had in mos was darker humor then anything in the mcu?
Get out out here with bias DC non-sense.The humor in the mcu films is no more kiddie then current dc films.

The humor in the mcu is for kids and older folks,so it's not just 12 year old humor.
In fact the humor in the mcu is more targeted to teenagers and adults then younger kids on average and it is suppose to be like that and should be like that on average anyway.

Mcu MARVEL formula

by MamaLukuBuku
The formula works, and I will tell you why they shouldn't apply it to
future films: Tiers that offer something a little different for all
kinds of fans.

Tier 1: Films- Big budget, over the top, with a target audience of
kids. This is where the money comes from that makes the other 2 tiers
possible. They can juggle lighthearted and semi-serious here without
ruining their target audience.

Tier 2: TV- Agents of Shield and Agent Carter. Dramas that cater to an
older crowd, not necessarily meant for a younger audience. Fills in
gaps here and there for the movies. Shows a much bigger world of the
MCU.

Tier 3: Netflix- This is where Marvel can let loose in a no holds
barred grimy bloodbath for the adults. This is the "graphic novel"
section of the MCU. Super focused, and as real as it gets with street
level heroes.
3 different levels of the MCU for different kinds of fans. Of course
some fans will enjoy all 3 so they have the full MCU experience, but
what they are doing is perfect and they shouldn't change it.

By the way i see the mcu movies targeted for kids and adults
and they are more serious then some
folks think,more so the captain
america movies and hulk movie.
The mcu shows have stronger stories on average then the mcu movies


Keep in mind dc shows is lighter in tone then the marvel mcu shows and about the same tone as mcu films overall.In fact the mcu tone is closer to the early dc films like superman 1 and 2 overall.Of course marvel fox movies are darker in tone then the mcu but darker does not better.
Justice league will be lighter in tone THEN bvs anyway and some of the other upcoming dc films.
Civil war will be the darkest mcu film so far.
Darker by the way does not mean deeper.in fact the marvel films and shows are deeper then dc shows and movies.

This is what some else said about mcu and current dc.

Marvel movies have a tight script, lovable and interesting characters and a very relatable world and tone - it doesn't feel as foreign as the DCEU feels - which is strictly thematic in its design. So yes, Marvel might have a formula - but it works and each film is unique in its own right.

Marvel mcu vary from good to really good on average from critics and audiences.They make smart films,there stories are strong,they have strong character development and good to really good action scenes.

[mace11]

I edited/added views about mcu movie humor vs dc and fox marvel above.
Anyway i think x-men movies have been good to really good,but on average i think the mcu films are better movies then fox marvel movies so far.
If you in include the fantastic four fox marvel movies i would say the mcu movies on average are even more so better then fox marvel movies.

[DMadCat]

My problem with Singer's X-Men boils down to one thing. Who are The X-Men?

When you ask, who are the Avengers, by now you can probably name them. Even the additions to the original team were introduced in ways that made sense.

Now ask yourself, who are The X-Men?

With the X-Men, you just have a jumble of "mutants". And every movie seems like a different jumble of random mutants, many of whom weren't X-Men in the comics.

The original trilogy made Colossus and Nightcrawler into bit players, Storm was a sad sad joke, and everyone else was just there to keep Wolverine engaged and it ended with arguably the worst of the modern super hero movies.

The new trilogy sought to 'fix' the original timeline (but just made it more confusing) and once again we have a puzzling group of mutants. Havok (originally Cyclop's brother) is now some kid they pulled from Juvie or some crap, back in the 60s. Mystique, while she may have worked with them from time to time, was never an X-Man much less a founding member. But none of that really matters because the majority of them have zero character development. They're just there to fire off powers while Professor X, Wolverine, Mystique, and Magneto dominate the actual dialogue.

It was the same with the villains. Mostly just a slapdash of "mutants of the week" that Singer finds interesting. What they did to the Hellfire Club made my heart sink. Also I can never forgive them for "Mutant and proud!" (::: vomit! ::

[Divine Spark]

^

Nightcrawler wasn't really a bit player.

And who said that DOFP was there to fix the timeline? Because that is not what they say in interviewers. Also I don't know how where you got the idea that Magneto dialogue. Because Jean, Scott, and Hank's dialogue had more than him in the last movie according to the transcript.

Check don't guess.

EDIT: Mystique was a X-Man in the mid-2000s. It was in an Apocalypse story.

[Jokerz79]

Just going to say it that awesome Black Panther trailer makes me wish Storm could be in.

[BishopsJuice91]

Look at BP trailer then look at NM trailer and it should be blatantly obvious who makes the better movies. It’s not up for debate! I’m an xmen fan by the way and Marvel is leagues beyond fox if you say otherwise you are delusional.

[Celestial]

Look at BP trailer then look at NM trailer and it should be blatantly obvious who makes the better movies. It’s not up for debate! I’m an xmen fan by the way and Marvel is leagues beyond fox if you say otherwise you are delusional.

And if people want to be picky, compare the NM teaser with the BP teaser from a few months ago. BP was still better by far.

[Divine Spark]

Look at BP trailer then look at NM trailer and it should be blatantly obvious who makes the better trailers. It’s not up for debate! I’m an xmen fan by the way and Marvel is leagues beyond fox if you say otherwise you are delusional.

Fixed for you. Though those films are two different genres.

Didn't know having a different opinion on a subjective matter means delusional.

[Carabas]

Look at BP trailer then look at NM trailer and it should be blatantly obvious who makes the better movies. It’s not up for debate! I’m an xmen fan by the way and Marvel is leagues beyond fox if you say otherwise you are delusional.

The best superhero movies anyway.