Why do some people think Marvel Studios can do no wrong?

[TitanMax]

i know i participated but, honestly, is this a real conversation?

some people like things other people don't like. Stop the presses.

This is the internet this is the only thing that happens

[Troian]

The movies were servicable. Many were not that good imo but they weren't outright bad. I don't give a **** about any of the characters because I know they will stretch out each one of them and try to make sure each one can stay for as long as they can if they're popular with the crowd.

The plots all blur together tbh and I don't like the too connected feeling but hey they make fun popcorn flicks that I still go and watch.

[Troian]

i know i participated but, honestly, is this a real conversation?

some people like things other people don't like. Stop the presses.

This is a message board on the internet. Many of the questions asked and discussed here and the internet in general could easily be answered in less then a sentence but people like discussions, different perspectives, justifications and reasons.

[WebLurker]

As far as the main topic: Not all of them are classics to be sure. Most of them do have flaws (just like every single movie ever made), but I think the MCU did garner a lot of good will thanks to the movies maintaining a consistent entertainment level. Even the worse ones are movies I find enjoyable, whether it be the characters, set pieces, or some combo thereof.

As far as the movies changing things from the comics: They're adaptations. They need to make some changes for the stories to work in the different medium and/or in the context of the larger movie series. Besides, at the end of the day, if the movie is good on its own terms, it's not really relevant how faithful or fast and loose it plays with the source material. I do find it weird how the public can be fickle about this.

Case in point, Doc Ock in Spider-Man 2 is considered one of the great comic book movie villains despite being very different from his comic book counterpart. Conversely, hear anyone complain about Deadpool in the first Wolverine movie, it all boils down to: "He's different from the comics and that sucks because it's not exactly like the comics." No one seems to ask the important questions, like "Would a comic-faithful Deadpool work in the X-Men movie series?" (I don't think so), or "Did movie Deadpool work as a supporting character within the context of the movie itself?" (I'm not sure).

[Inversed]

Were they, though? What barometer are you using?

I'm looking at it using general filmmaking techniques, directing and stylistic choices, theming, how the story is told, and its editing, all of which are executed well in the film. You may not think the story choices were good themselves, but they are handled fine in the production.

The reason why Iron Man 2 is the worst MCU film is because it has the least focus in direction, its themeing, not sure what story it wants to tell, and because of that the editing from scene to scene is all over the place, making the whole thing really incohesive.

This is similar to Suicide Squad, only SS does it on a much worse scale, due to just how badly the editing and stylistic choices are executed in the film. This video explains it way better than I ever could:

[dragonmp93]

I'm looking at it using general filmmaking techniques, directing and stylistic choices, theming, how the story is told, and its editing, all of which are executed well in the film. You may not think the story choices were good themselves, but they are handled fine in the production.

The reason why Iron Man 2 is the worst MCU film is because it has the least focus in direction, its themeing, not sure what story it wants to tell, and because of that the editing from scene to scene is all over the place, making the whole thing really incohesive.

This is similar to Suicide Squad, only SS does it on a much worse scale, due to just how badly the editing and stylistic choices are executed in the film. This video explains it way better than I ever could:

Am i blind ?, or is just that is not that obvious for casual viewers ?.

[Dboi2001]

Dboi2001 :

go and create Your movie if this is so easy

changing mantis or drax ? (but people like drax, i don't know about mantis)
or
changing Rogue and Cyclops?(and people didn't like X3 for example)

Punjabi_Hitman:

It would be better to look differently at box office

box office + ratings
healthy franchise should look like GotG - GotG 2 earned more than GotG1

Avengers 2 earned less which is bad.

X-men are worse
they were earning more and more up to X3(and people didn't like this movie)
then FC earned very little
DOFP earned a lot
Apo again earned very little

that's not good. If X-men would have good movies then they would earn at least 750 millions (DOFP level). For some reason even people who like X-men movies don;t want to go to the cinema to watch their movies.

Personally i think that's because they have stories about 3 white old guys. and they also have very generic stories. nothing unique about them(apocalypse).

harry potter = good franchise because more and more people was watching these movies.
transformers = they were good (first movies) and have problems now (last 2 movies).


what about year of release?
Do You know that more people watched first X-men trilogy than second? (US)
X-men second trilogy earned more thanks to inflation.

I would make my own Guardians if I had the rights and money

Guardians 2 only made so much money because of the success of the first one. It is losing a lot more steam compared to the first one

[Dboi2001]

As far as the main topic: Not all of them are classics to be sure. Most of them do have flaws (just like every single movie ever made), but I think the MCU did garner a lot of good will thanks to the movies maintaining a consistent entertainment level. Even the worse ones are movies I find enjoyable, whether it be the characters, set pieces, or some combo thereof.

As far as the movies changing things from the comics: They're adaptations. They need to make some changes for the stories to work in the different medium and/or in the context of the larger movie series. Besides, at the end of the day, if the movie is good on its own terms, it's not really relevant how faithful or fast and loose it plays with the source material. I do find it weird how the public can be fickle about this.

Case in point, Doc Ock in Spider-Man 2 is considered one of the great comic book movie villains despite being very different from his comic book counterpart. Conversely, hear anyone complain about Deadpool in the first Wolverine movie, it all boils down to: "He's different from the comics and that sucks because it's not exactly like the comics." No one seems to ask the important questions, like "Would a comic-faithful Deadpool work in the X-Men movie series?" (I don't think so), or "Did movie Deadpool work as a supporting character within the context of the movie itself?" (I'm not sure).

yeah but it is still an adaptation. It should still resemble the original material in some way. If not what's the point? You may as well call the character something else

I think the best adaptations are ones that keep the core and idea of the character and story but change enough to be its own thing. Like Man of Steel, Wonder Woman, Iron Man, Winter Solider, or Walking Dead (not a movie but you get my point) and from the looks of it possibly Thor Ragnarok

[Punjabi_Hitman]

yeah but it is still an adaptation. It should still resemble the original material in some way. If not what's the point? You may as well call the character something else

I think the best adaptations are ones that keep the core and idea of the character and story but change enough to be its own thing. Like Man of Steel, Wonder Woman, Iron Man, Winter Solider, or Walking Dead (not a movie but you get my point) and from the looks of it possibly Thor Ragnarok

On one side you keep saying the characters should be like their comic book counterparts, yet will defend BvS for its character assassination. So which is it?

[WebLurker]

yeah but it is still an adaptation. It should still resemble the original material in some way. If not what's the point? You may as well call the character something else

I think the best adaptations are ones that keep the core and idea of the character and story but change enough to be its own thing. Like Man of Steel, Wonder Woman, Iron Man, Winter Solider, or Walking Dead (not a movie but you get my point) and from the looks of it possibly Thor Ragnarok

I think that's a fair point and I do understand that. But what if the changed version is good on its own terms? What then?

[TooFlyToFail]

There track record when compared to the competition is much better.

Really only have 3 stinkers. TIH/TDW/IM2

Rest are average to great.

And Fox has DP/DoFP/XM2/Logan/FC

AoA/XM3/Wolverine/Wolverine Origins were all trash and XM was okay.

Or Sony with SM/SM2 being good and great.

ASM being okay and the dumpster fires the were SM3/ASM2.

Or how DC with there extended universe right now is only swing 1 out of 4.

To me the DCEU is 2(/3, if I count the BvS:UE) out of 4.

Also, the MCU targeting the GA endlessly, makes it boring. Sure, most of it is average, rather than bad, but average is boring as hell. Dr. Strange barely took on magic, and was way too similar to Iron Man. Antman, while funny, is quite forgettable, and doesn't have the pull to go back and watch it. GotG2 is a filler version of the first movie, for most of the movie.

I appreciate the first GotG, IM, and Cap2, much more than any other MCU movie.

I like that MoS and BvS:UE didn't play it safe, and traditional. I like that they're actually working on a Black Adam movie.

I appreciate DP, Logan, X2, FC, and DoFP far more as well.

I want to see MCU movies like those more often.

Civil War, imo, should've been an entire Phase, before getting to Infinity War. An entire Phase of questioning what it means to be a hero, with characters we know falling by the way side, and new characters showing up, and how the world sees the craziness, and how the world's reaction shaped the actions, and/or mindset, of the heroes would've created far more tension for the arrival of Thanos. A world where there's superheroes in positions of authority in their governments, and they have different agendas, and politics. Imagine if the MCU Stark tried to start a war against a foreign country to force the US heroes to united, and a journalist published that? Not everyone would believe it, but it would cause a rift, just like social issues cause rifts. That kind of world facing a Thanos that could come across as simply wanting his stones, and then leaving, would make for an interesting dynamic for the world.

That's why I dismiss the notion of the Civil War in Cap 3. It plays it safe, by keeping the civilians as faceless phantoms that don't matter, ultimately. In BvS:UE, the people the heroes affect, directly, indirectly, or not at all, all matter. That makes the heroics matter, because the people the save matter. People have ability to shape the perception of everything, and that perception affects the POV of everybody, in someway, either changing it, or enforcing it.

In MCU movies, the GA seems to think that they're better heroes than the DCEU heroes, because they're more fun, and make jokes, but the DCEU Superman actually gives a damn about what you have to say about him, and he takes that to heart. There's more intimate, and grounded, scenes of Superman and Batman interacting with civilians than the MCU characters, and that makes them feel more real.

I hope Homecoming can do that with Spider-Man.

[TheSeaDragon]

To me the DCEU is 2(/3, if I count the BvS:UE) out of 4.

Also, the MCU targeting the GA endlessly, makes it boring. Sure, most of it is average, rather than bad, but average is boring as hell. Dr. Strange barely took on magic, and was way too similar to Iron Man. Antman, while funny, is quite forgettable, and doesn't have the pull to go back and watch it. GotG2 is a filler version of the first movie, for most of the movie.

I appreciate the first GotG, IM, and Cap2, much more than any other MCU movie.

I like that MoS and BvS:UE didn't play it safe, and traditional. I like that they're actually working on a Black Adam movie.

I appreciate DP, Logan, X2, FC, and DoFP far more as well.

I want to see MCU movies like those more often.

Civil War, imo, should've been an entire Phase, before getting to Infinity War. An entire Phase of questioning what it means to be a hero, with characters we know falling by the way side, and new characters showing up, and how the world sees the craziness, and how the world's reaction shaped the actions, and/or mindset, of the heroes would've created far more tension for the arrival of Thanos.

That's why I dismiss the notion of the Civil War in Cap 3. It plays it safe, by keeping the civilians as faceless phantoms that don't matter, ultimately. In BvS:UE, the people the heroes affect, directly, indirectly, or not at all, all matter. That makes the heroics matter, because the people the save matter. People have ability to shape the perception of everything, and that perception affects the POV of everybody, in someway, either changing it, or enforcing it.

In MCU movies, the GA seems to think that they're better heroes than the DCEU heroes, because they're more fun, and make jokes, but the DCEU Superman actually hives a damn about what you have to say about him, and he takes that to heart. There's more intimate, and grounded, scenes of Superman and Batman interacting with civilians than the MCU characters, and that makes them feel more real.

I hope Homecoming can do that with Spider-Man.

Too bad we dont have a like button here, pal

[SuperiorIronman]

Marvel doesn't suck. General answer for a general thread title.

Real answer;
Marvel has had few critical failures and it's a financial goldmine when it comes to everything that makes it marketable. People remember and go to the mcu movies because they aren't Batman versus superman, they aren't Green lantern, and usually leave the audience satisfied and creates threads like this where we debate over what is truly good or not because successful brands don't exist when at not D.C. And Disney totally pays critics.

[TooFlyToFail]

Marvel doesn't suck. General answer for a general thread title.

Real answer;
Marvel has had few critical failures and it's a financial goldmine when it comes to everything that makes it marketable. People remember and go to the mcu movies because they aren't Batman versus superman, they aren't Green lantern, and usually leave the audience satisfied and creates threads like this where we debate over what is truly good or not because successful brands don't exist when at not D.C. And Disney totally pays critics.

Kind of a pointless post. No one said that the MCU doesn't make good movies. People arguing against the MCU here are complaining the mostly vanilla flavor they put into the movies, or how the MCU gets away without explaining certain obvious things, but others do not get away with the same thing, or for trying new things.

The MCU doesn't explain why major plot points, like Stark retiring at the end of IM3, or Thor being able to hot to other world's without the rainbow bridge, being dropped like they didn't happen, but the DCEU gets crap for John Kent struggling on how to raise his son to be a good man, but also keep him safe from those that won't understand him, or that Batman has seen his mission as futile for 20+ years, and that's put him a dark place.

At least that's my issue.

[phonogram12]

On one side you keep saying the characters should be like their comic book counterparts, yet will defend BvS for its character assassination. So which is it?

Exactly this.