Is The MCU The Greatest Franchise Of All Time?

[SpiderClops]

Sorry to hear that.



Linking movies is not film quality,greatness or creativity. MCU movies have not done anything new with movies apart from the link. It’s becoming a crop out.

Yes, if you remove the special thing, then it's not special. You already said that.

I would really want to see someone attempting movies like Infinity War and Endgame in a vacuum.

[luprki]

There is nothing great about the MCU, it just a childish franchise based on old comic book stories. And that’s all it will ever be.

[sammy_hansen]

This could be a topic for a great discussion, if people left their obvious prejudices at the door and make reasoned arguments for and against. If you come in here with your opinion only and don't intend to change people's minds then we could have a good discussion.

Now, I don't think it's the greatest franchise. I absolutely love the MCU and love what it has achieved. I think you really need to define by what you mean "Greatest." Is it financially? Is it longevity? Is it artistically? Is it culturally?

I think the questions of finance and artistically are moot, to me anyway. There's a lot of films that have made a lot of money but we look back at them and we wouldn't say they are great. Just like we wouldn't say McDonalds has the greatest food or Toyota has the greatest cars.

The question of artistry is more subjective. I appreciate Kieran Frost's comments on the Statue of David and Venus de Milo - really thought-provoking. But I disagree with the point to say there's art in what the filmmakers are doing but the product isn't art itself. To put any film together is a piece of art, especially ones as large and complicated as these. A black and white photograph of a butt is art. The Simpsons is art. Cannibal Corpse is art. Twilight is art. Art is not determined by your liking or disliking it, because someone else will come along and like or dislike it.

Longevity: Nobody can deny the MCU has had a fantastic run. I don't consider any of these films to be flops. Someone mentioned Incredible Hulk. I disagree. I think a flop is two things: it doesn't make back its money, and it is critically panned. (As an aside, something can flop at the box office but get many more views later and become a cult hit and make money that way, but nevermind.) But in reality the MCU has only been going for twelve years. James Bond has been around since 1962, Star Wars since 1977. Let's wait a few decades and see.

Culturally: I think this is the most important. MCU has definitely had a massive cultural impact and has expanded nerd culture far and wide in the last decade. More and more people all across the globe are exposed to it. It's often kids' first foray into nerd culture and their first fandom. But there's an important distinction that needs to be made: MCU did not exist in a vacuum. These same characters have existed since for more than 80 years. Iron Man, while hardly a superstar superhero, wasn't an unknown quantity.

Who was Darth Vader? Who was Princess Leia? Luke Skywalker? Star Wars is the greatest, in my opinion. It's longevity and cultural significance outshine all others. I think you could argue it was the first fandom. Think about the toys, and how toy collecting exploded after that, not to mention the hunt for that mysterious Boba Fett figure. Think about the way it change cinema and reinvented the blockbuster, reinvigorated the sci-fi genre. Is Darth Vader not the greatest villain? It's had three sets of trilogies, all of which had made a stack of money. Nobody got tired, even if some of the output wasn't stellar.

It has even spawned a religion. And the line, "May the force be with you."

Just my opinion. Oh, and my favourite films are The Lord of the Rings, but I don't really consider them a franchise.

[LordMikel]

The Godfather
Lord of the Rings
Star Wars
Harry Potter
Back to the Future

I have not seen every MCU movie, there are so many of them that I lost track. I have seen the essentials. Captain Marvel, Spiderman Homecoming, Thor, Captain America, Avengers, Endgame, Iron Man and Black Panther. The movies are breezily entertaining for the most of it.

MCU lacks creativity and film quality. I prefer Hugh Jackman's X-Men, Men in Black 1 and 2, Wesley Snipes Blade films and Raimi's Spiderman Marvel films. MCU is great at linking every film together. There is nothing special about their films once you remove the link.

Actually I will take that challenge of removing the link. Because you are right, removing the link doesn't make the movies special.

But.

Let's talk about the one thing that MCU does do, that only three other movies have done in the past.
Avengers, took characters from other movies, Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, (We can debate Hulk) and put them together into one movie. That alone should be applauded.

The first time was Abbot and Costello meet the Wolfman, which had the Wolfman, Dracula, Frankenstein, and the Invisible Man. And while a good movie, it didn't have the crossover really. They were all simply in the movie.
Aliens vs Predator and Jason vs Freddy were the other two. Which only involved two movies.

So I'm not arguing for "This makes it the best franchise" because that is not definable, we should at least give respect to the MCU for the achievements it has done.

[Valentis]

Lord of the Rings did not have that specialness of linking movies, not that it needed it. The franchise is greater than the MCU. A lot of elements that went into creating The Lord of the Rings franchise is greater than the MCU. Without the link, MCU movies are generic. they have the most straightforward story ploys about super heroes and villains. The most important thing is that MCU may restrict people's knowledge about movies, making them only going for the shock of visuals not the story or depth.

Lord of the Rings taught Harry Potter a lot of things about VFX, writing, CGI character modelling and refined creative movie outlooks. MCU has not taught other movies anything aside from studios looking for new ways to increase their bank accounts. Other franchises act annoyed by the MCU and want to keep them at arm’s length.

[Username taken]

There is no greatest franchise ever. It’s entirely subjective.

That being said, is the MCU the greatest example of universe building in movie history, that argument can be made.

All this being said, I can’t think of any other movie franchise that’s connected with audiences (maybe since the original Star Wars) like the Avengers movies and the MCU as a whole. It takes something very, very special to do stuff like that and not drop the ball in between. I mean, look at Star Wars and The Hobbit, the new movies aren’t bad but they’ve just not connected with audiences like the MCU has in recent years.

In modern times, i would say the MCU is the greatest franchise of the modern generation (by quite a distance to be honest) but I’m hesitant to name it the greatest of all time.

[Username taken]

Given how many Studios failed to create Shared Universes I disagree.

This.

What Marvel has achieved is pretty special. Pretty much every major studio tried and with the exception of the DCEU, all failed.

[SpiderClops]

Lord of the Rings did not have that specialness of linking movies, not that it needed it. The franchise is greater than the MCU. A lot of elements that went into creating The Lord of the Rings franchise is greater than the MCU. Without the link, MCU movies are generic. they have the most straightforward story ploys about super heroes and villains. The most important thing is that MCU may restrict people's knowledge about movies, making them only going for the shock of visuals not the story or depth.

Lord of the Rings taught Harry Potter a lot of things about VFX, writing, CGI character modelling and refined creative movie outlooks. MCU has not taught other movies anything aside from studios looking for new ways to increase their bank accounts. Other franchises act annoyed by the MCU and want to keep them at arm’s length.

No franchise or movie needs to do anything. What matters is how well they do whatever they set out to do. And MCU's interconnected movies narrative is unparalleled.

Lord of the Rings have one great trilogy. And one mediocre one. MCU has 20+ movies and they're still going strong. Black Panther, Infinity War and Endgame are at least on par with LotR movies if not above, just to name a few movies.

I am not even going to bother with "no depth" argument. It clearly shows your bias.

LotR movies were never strong with their VFX. They were decent, it got the job done, but they were never the franchise's strong suit. On the other hand, MCU Thanos. Argument over.

[Kieran_Frost]

Sorry but you remind me why I hated Art School.
1: You will never convince me of the Greatness of David or Venus so agree to disagree ok.

I suppose my two follow up questions would be:
a) do you like any statues? And it's totally fine if it's not your cup of tea, but obviously I'm not going to try and persuade someone David is a masterpiece if they fundamentally don't even like statues. That would be like trying to make someone appreciate the Exorcist (1973) who hates horror films?
b) have you seen them in person? Much like Shakespeare is supposed to be seen, not read; I think the effect of David is meant to be experienced, not glanced at in a book.

2: I don't care if MCU, Star Wars, or Avatar it take Artistry to Imagine Worlds and bring them to life same with Kingdoms like Wakanda or Atlantis in Aquaman.

I think it's important to remember, esp. when talking of the MCU, the artistry of creating the fictional worlds we see if credit that belongs to the comics. Star Wars (1977) and Avatar (2009) were films to create worlds, the MCU didn't. Neither did the Lord of the Rings (2001-2003).

3: The MCU isn't like McDonalds because McDonalds is meant to all be alike its their brilliancy in someway, you always know a Big Mac will be the same no matter where you are but the MCU films no matter how many people say are cookie cutter aren't. The GOTG films have James Gunn all over them even the music was his idea and why another person doing Vol. 3 was met with outrage. Avengers (2012) and Age of Ultron are filled with Josh Whedon's humor, dialogue, and touches, Iron Man 3 has touches of Shane Black down to Christmas, Ragnarok is a Taika Waititi film thru and thru like Gunn and GOTG, First Avengers is so much a Joe Johnston film it could be canon with Rocketeer, and as for a single vision that would be Kevin Feige's vision he road maps it all.

While I don't think they are carbon copies, there is a formula in the films that the MCU does not stray from. And that has been noted by directors who've quit the projects, that Disney wasn't allowing the freedom to think outside the box. It's not the same big mac, but it's certainly a burger. If that makes sense?

Like you said there is artistry in the Director's and their choices, the actors, the editors, the scores, and also in the people who design cities, planets, and vehicles, in people who design clothing and costumes, people who build sets, people who bring those previous mentioned cities and planets to life on screen thru computers.

There is artistry, by and large, in most professional work. Even Michael Bay has artistry on some level. I almost never give a film less than 2 stars in my reviews here because even bad films have elements worth appreciating. Out of all my reviews totaling hundreds of films, I've given 1 star three times, AND EVEN THEN none of them were rated F. I really did not care for the Irishman (2019) but I wasn't going to pretend it wasn't well made, or well shot, or professionally presented. But the presence of skill (or artistry) doesn't mean, by default, it's excellent (or 'the greatest'). The MCU is very well made, no-one is deny that. But the soul of it, the heart of the films, is not grounded in an artistic vision but a financial vision. Hence why they don't allow directors the freedom to take risks, the freedom to think beyond the formula they know works. Because they are not here for the artistic merit.

The question of artistry is more subjective. I appreciate Kieran Frost's comments on the Statue of David and Venus de Milo - really thought-provoking. But I disagree with the point to say there's art in what the filmmakers are doing but the product isn't art itself. To put any film together is a piece of art, especially ones as large and complicated as these. A black and white photograph of a butt is art. The Simpsons is art. Cannibal Corpse is art. Twilight is art. Art is not determined by your liking or disliking it, because someone else will come along and like or dislike it.

While yes "everything is art", I think it's important to separate art from artistry (or GOOD art). I've heard actors say "anyone can act/everything is a performance" and in that philosophical arguement they are right, but it doesn't mean those performances are worth appreciating. And while art (and acting, and writing, etc) is subjective in whether someone likes it, I think there is still room to say whether it's good or not. There are certain criteria that make something "good" from a critical eye; regardless of whether it floats your boat.

Culturally: I think this is the most important. MCU has definitely had a massive cultural impact and has expanded nerd culture far and wide in the last decade. More and more people all across the globe are exposed to it. It's often kids' first foray into nerd culture and their first fandom. But there's an important distinction that needs to be made: MCU did not exist in a vacuum. These same characters have existed since for more than 80 years. Iron Man, while hardly a superstar superhero, wasn't an unknown quantity.

It's had a huge cultural impact, the question will be does this sustain once the films are no longer being made? And that we don't know. Anything that's 'current' can stay in people's minds without too much effort, but will it have the power to remain in the forefront of thought once it's no longer 'new'. Star Wars did. Lord of the Rings certainly has. It obviously won't be AS hugely talked about as right now, but that's to be expected. I do wonder what "iconic" moments can be referenced? Off the top of my head, the finger click will probably stick around as a moment to parody and reference for years and years to come.

Oh, and my favourite films are The Lord of the Rings, but I don't really consider them a franchise.

SAME! My absolute favourite film of all time. And no, I don't think of it as a franchise either, it's a trilogy. To be fair, I'm not sure I think of Avatar as a franchise either. So far it's just one film.

[Kieran_Frost]

There is no greatest franchise ever. It’s entirely subjective.

I mean... sure. But I always feel that's a lazy arguement in a debate. Could someone say "Twilight is the greatest franchise ever made", yes. But I think, when challenged, if all they can offer to defend it is "it's my opinion"... well, that's pretty weak. As I've said before, not all opinions carry the same weight (opinion > informed opinion > professional opinion > expert opinion)

That being said, is the MCU the greatest example of universe building in movie history, that argument can be made.

No franchise or movie needs to do anything. What matters is how well they do whatever they set out to do. And MCU's interconnected movies narrative is unparalleled.

What Marvel has achieved is pretty special. Pretty much every major studio tried and with the exception of the DCEU, all failed.

Agreed. It's very unique in that way, and that is praise worthy.

Black Panther, Infinity War and Endgame are at least on par with LotR movies if not above, just to name a few movies.
I am not even going to bother with "no depth" argument. It clearly shows your bias.

If you're going to make statements calling people out on bias... maybe comments like this should be avoided

LotR movies were never strong with their VFX. They were decent, it got the job done, but they were never the franchise's strong suit. On the other hand, MCU Thanos. Argument over.

If I may interject... I think you're mis-remembering history. The work they did with Gollum was pretty revolutionary (esp. on that scale). CGI may have come a long way since then, but what they did at the time was fantastic and without them, CGI wouldn't be where it is today. Clash of the Titans (1981) and An American Werewolf in London (1981) have been surpassed in VFX and make-up since then, but they are still trail-blazers and worthy of respect for what they did at the time. We owe them so much.

All this being said, I can’t think of any other movie franchise that’s connected with audiences (maybe since the original Star Wars) like the Avengers movies and the MCU as a whole. It takes something very, very special to do stuff like that and not drop the ball in between. I mean, look at Star Wars and The Hobbit, the new movies aren’t bad but they’ve just not connected with audiences like the MCU has in recent years.

Harry Potter springs to mind. That is HUGE! The books, the play, the Harry Potter World... it's definitely connected with people in a colossal way.

[CliffHanger2]

Lord of the Rings did not have that specialness of linking movies, not that it needed it. The franchise is greater than the MCU. A lot of elements that went into creating The Lord of the Rings franchise is greater than the MCU. Without the link, MCU movies are generic. they have the most straightforward story ploys about super heroes and villains. The most important thing is that MCU may restrict people's knowledge about movies, making them only going for the shock of visuals not the story or depth.

Lord of the Rings taught Harry Potter a lot of things about VFX, writing, CGI character modelling and refined creative movie outlooks. MCU has not taught other movies anything aside from studios looking for new ways to increase their bank accounts. Other franchises act annoyed by the MCU and want to keep them at arm’s length.

What's your definition of linking movies? All the LOTR movies are linked none of them are stand alone. Which is true for any trilogy. Even the Hobbit movies are prequels to LOTR.

[Valentis]

No franchise or movie needs to do anything. What matters is how well they do whatever they set out to do. And MCU's interconnected movies narrative is unparalleled.
.

MCU is the default winner. There are no other successful interconnected franchises out there. The closest we have is TV shows with successful spin offs.

Lord of the Rings have one great trilogy. And one mediocre one. MCU has 20+ movies and they're still going strong. Black Panther, Infinity War and Endgame are at least on par with LotR movies if not above, just to name a few movies.

Black Panther, Infinity War and Endgame are not on par with Lord of the Rings. On pure movie objectivism, They are not on par with Joker, The Dark Knight or some of Jackman's films with their story affairs, annotations, writing, artistry and performances. Joker left me shaken, Logan made me wonder about the true meaning of life and death. Black Panther, Infinity War and Endgame, I had a good old fun time at the cinema with those. Great franchises have films that continues to subvert expectations and revoke the standard normal. MCU movies are the status-quo of the standard normal.

Before you call me bias for the second time, let me tell you that I don’t think any comic book franchise can be considered as the greatest franchise. While MCU keeps going strong with their entertaining business model films, Other films more then MCU entertainment like Joker and Logan has not sustained itself in putting out movies of the same identical quality.

LotR movies were never strong with their VFX. They were decent, it got the job done, but they were never the franchise's strong suit. On the other hand, MCU Thanos. Argument over.

Gollum, Shelob, The Witchking, The Nazguls, The spirit of Carnan have stronger VFX than Thanos. An advice I will give is not to say this in front of the next wave for movie technologists. You could paint yourself into a tight corner for saying MCU VFX is more innovative than Lord of the Rings.

I mean... sure. But I always feel that's a lazy arguement in a debate. Could someone say "Twilight is the greatest franchise ever made", yes. But I think, when challenged, if all they can offer to defend it is "it's my opinion"... well, that's pretty weak. As I've said before, not all opinions carry the same weight (opinion > informed opinion > professional opinion > expert opinion)




Agreed. It's very unique in that way, and that is praise worthy.


If you're going to make statements calling people out on bias... maybe comments like this should be avoided


If I may interject... I think you're mis-remembering history. The work they did with Gollum was pretty revolutionary (esp. on that scale). CGI may have come a long way since then, but what they did at the time was fantastic and without them, CGI wouldn't be where it is today. Clash of the Titans (1981) and An American Werewolf in London (1981) have been surpassed in VFX and make-up since then, but they are still trail-blazers and worthy of respect for what they did at the time. We owe them so much.


Harry Potter springs to mind. That is HUGE! The books, the play, the Harry Potter World... it's definitely connected with people in a colossal way.

Star Wars VFX was revolutionary. Lucasfilm did keep things up with The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi. The VFX Throne room scene in Last Jedi surpasses the VFX creativity of Infinity War and Endgame.
Snoke's VFX model effects are better than Thanos. Snoke’s modelling looks natural.

[Valentis]

What's your definition of linking movies? All the LOTR movies are linked none of them are stand alone. Which is true for any trilogy. Even the Hobbit movies are prequels to LOTR.

MCU is an Omni-Universe. Lord of the rings is a universe.
Only one franchise can compete with MCU as a true equal. A DC franchise that has most of their heroes and villains existing in the same place.

[stargazer01]

greatest is a matter of taste and opinion. Personally, I don't care for it.

Most successful? I guess so. It still doesn't mean it's the BEST.

[Kieran_Frost]

Black Panther, Infinity War and Endgame are not on par with Lord of the Rings. On pure movie objectivism, They are not on par with Joker, The Dark Knight or some of Jackman's films with their story affairs, annotations, writing, artistry and performances. Joker left me shaken, Logan made me wonder about the true meaning of life and death. Black Panther, Infinity War and Endgame, I had a good old fun time at the cinema with those. Great franchises have films that continues to subvert expectations and revoke the standard normal. MCU movies are the status-quo of the standard normal.

I think stand alone films have a lot more potential to be powerful pieces of cinema. Telling a unique and finite story, with a clear message that is unchangeable. The problem I always have with Superman is he should only be a finite story, and they keep stretching him out for too much.

Before you call me bias for the second time, let me tell you that I don’t think any comic book franchise can be considered as the greatest franchise. While MCU keeps going strong with their entertaining business model films, Other films more then MCU entertainment like Joker and Logan has not sustained itself in putting out movies of the same identical quality.

Some raised this elsewhere, I can't remember which thread. The "danger" of a franchise or so many sequels is you start to lose the individuality of the film. As a complete work of art it's... blends into one. You can't necessarily remember which moment happened in which film, and the "concept" becomes an over-reaching story that gets muddled and diluted for easy of understanding to new audiences. Or the story feels only truly complete at the end, and a lot of the middle becomes redundant by what follows. A problem with a franchise is the element of danger is gone. In Infinity Wars: the death of all the heroes didn't effect me. Because it's a franchise. They are not killing off Spiderman and Black Panther. So... it became... almost irrelevant? Had they killed off the original cast, then I would wonder if it was for real and it's the new cast to save the day.