I do not like MCU films

[M.A.C.O.]

You know what? Spielberg's right. The comic book genre will implode. But its not JUST because of the MCU. Its because there are tons of comic book movies out there. It's called oversaturation. Eventually, they will reach a point of diminishing returns. Then they will come back, but perhaps be a little more tempered. It has happened with nearly every film genre there has been. Look at the westerns. Hell, look at STAR TREK.

Yeah, the DCU could be dangerous. Not because it won't be any good (although I have real doubts) but just because it will be more superhero films.

Then again, westerns were around for a very long time and most of them weren't particularly good...

I think Marvel is the one who will oversaturate the market, not DC.

The biggest part of Marvel's Phase 3, is that they will be releasing 3 movies a year, instead of two. Just look at the list.

Captain America Civil War --- May 6, 2016
Dr. Strange --- November 4, 2016
GOTG 2 --- May 5, 2017
Marvel's Spider-Man --- July 27, 2017
Thor Ragnarok --- November 3, 2017
Black Panther --- February 16, 2018
Infinity War Part 1 --- May 3, 2018
Ant-Man and Wasp --- July 6, 2018
Captain Marvel --- March 8, 2019
Infinity War Part 2 --- May 4, 2019
Inhumans --- July 12, 2019
3 Unnamed Movies for 2020

Add in the Sony/Marvel Spider-Man solo movies and the Sinister Six movie Sony still wants to make happen, and you've got your recipe for crash right there.


Fox will more or less be out of the game after 2016, when
Deadpool and Apocalypse come out. After that we have Old Man Logan, Gambit and New Mutants. All of which have been announced but none have started preproduction or have scheduled release dates.

WB has their films, but they're spread out to be either summer movies or winter movie release dates. While Marvel is staking a claim for winter dates, summer dates and early spring (February/March) dates for their phase 3 movies.

It will be really crowded, either way.

 

[Dales]

You know what? Spielberg's right. The comic book genre will implode. But its not JUST because of the MCU. Its because there are tons of comic book movies out there. It's called oversaturation. Eventually, they will reach a point of diminishing returns. Then they will come back, but perhaps be a little more tempered. It has happened with nearly every film genre there has been. Look at the westerns. Hell, look at STAR TREK.

In the 2000-2010s when it was just the xmen, batman and raimi's spiderman films no one talked of the comic book genre imploding.

the point is when you make generic stuff it will implode with time.

if mcu were making great comic films no one will say the genre will implode not even Steven Spielberg


mcu is over-saturated yes but when you add that to how bad their films are it makes the genre a lot easier to implode.

 

[Campe]

Like I said, it's not just Marvel. It's the fact that we have about seven movies coming out every year from 2016 until 2019. That's a lot! Yeah, three a year are from Marvel. And why not? They've proven they are successful. Are they all the best in the world? No. They have some flaws. But they obviously appeal to people because they're killing at the box office.

Personally, I love what Fox is doing. Two a year. That's fine by me.

DC on the other hand? DC I'm not so sure about. I was not a fan of Man of Steel and I feel they're going about this the wrong way with a team-up movie with BvS into their group superhero film with Justice League, Parts 1 and 2. I would think they would do better to prove themselves than to go all in.

But that's, admittedly, just me!

In the 2000-2010s when it was just the xmen, batman and raimi's spiderman films no one talked of the comic book genre imploding.

the point is when you make generic stuff it will implode with time.

if mcu were making great comic films no one will say the genre will implode not even Steven Spielberg


mcu is over-saturated yes but when you add that to how bad their films are it makes the genre a lot easier to implode.

Okay. Stop. Just stop. YOU don't like the movies. Fine. I don't care! That does not make them "bad." That means you don't like them.

Second, no. People didn't talk about oversaturation because it wasn't a concern. There were maybe 3 movies coming out a year. NOW it is. NOW you have 7 movies coming out a year from different properties. Is Marvel a big part of that? Yup. So are DC's 2 movies every year. So are Fox's.

Does Spielberg explicitly state Marvel? No.

So just stop.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

Like I said, it's not just Marvel. It's the fact that we have about seven movies coming out every year from 2016 until 2019. That's a lot! Yeah, three a year are from Marvel. And why not? They've proven they are successful. Are they all the best in the world? No. They have some flaws. But they obviously appeal to people because they're killing at the box office.

Personally, I love what Fox is doing. Two a year. That's fine by me.

DC on the other hand? DC I'm not so sure about. I was not a fan of Man of Steel and I feel they're going about this the wrong way with a team-up movie with BvS into their group superhero film with Justice League, Parts 1 and 2. I would think they would do better to prove themselves than to go all in.

But that's, admittedly, just me!

Are you saying it's cool for the Avengers and X-Men to have multiple heroes in one movie but not the characters who make up the Justice League?

 

[Campe]

Like I said, it's not just Marvel. It's the fact that we have about seven movies coming out every year from 2016 until 2019. That's a lot! Yeah, three a year are from Marvel. And why not? They've proven they are successful. Are they all the best in the world? No. They have some flaws. But they obviously appeal to people because they're killing at the box office.

Personally, I love what Fox is doing. Two a year. That's fine by me.

DC on the other hand? DC I'm not so sure about. I was not a fan of Man of Steel and I feel they're going about this the wrong way with a team-up movie with BvS into their group superhero film with Justice League, Parts 1 and 2. I would think they would do better to prove themselves than to go all in.

But that's, admittedly, just me!

Are you saying it's cool for the Avengers and X-Men to have multiple heroes in one movie but not the characters who make up the Justice League?

Absolutely not. But I don't feel the DCCU has done a single thing to prove themselves. They're putting all of their eggs into one basket and very early on. Marvel had to work up to it and, despite what Dale says, earn it. It feels (and again it might just be me) that DC just feels entitled to do it.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

Like I said, it's not just Marvel. It's the fact that we have about seven movies coming out every year from 2016 until 2019. That's a lot! Yeah, three a year are from Marvel. And why not? They've proven they are successful. Are they all the best in the world? No. They have some flaws. But they obviously appeal to people because they're killing at the box office.

Personally, I love what Fox is doing. Two a year. That's fine by me.

DC on the other hand? DC I'm not so sure about. I was not a fan of Man of Steel and I feel they're going about this the wrong way with a team-up movie with BvS into their group superhero film with Justice League, Parts 1 and 2. I would think they would do better to prove themselves than to go all in.

But that's, admittedly, just me!

Are you saying it's cool for the Avengers and X-Men to have multiple heroes in one movie but not the characters who make up the Justice League?

Absolutely not. But I don't feel the DCCU has done a single thing to prove themselves. They're putting all of their eggs into one basket and very early on. Marvel had to work up to it and, despite what Dale says, earn it. It feels (and again it might just be me) that DC just feels entitled to do it.

At the same time, X-Men didn't work up to anything. They just did a series of team movies, with great success. Doing it the Marvel way isn't a sure fire way for success or a way to establish merit, ya know. Look at Sony and their now cancelled Amazing Spider-Man Cinematic Universe.

WB has wanted a Batman/Superman movie since 2005, and a Justice League movie since 2007. Had Superman Returns not underperformed, we would've had these things from WB sooner.

 

[Campe]

Fair. But, isn't X-Men, by definition, a team property? When you think of the X-Men, you don't first think of Cyclops. Or Xavier. Or Jean Grey. You think of the X-Men.

And no, Marvel's way is not the only way. I agree wholeheartedly. But I just think with all the fan backlash from Man of Steel, and the tepid response to much of the early stuff from BvS, they might want to reconsider this. Like I said, I don't think they've earned it. But, for the third time -- that's just me!

 

[JD]

I kind of see what you're saying, and I do somewhat agree. I do think there's a chance they could be making a mistake by trying to introduce so many characters in just two movies. I can understand not wanting to be seen as mimicking Marvel, but at the same time, it did work for them for a reason.

As for Marvel, part of what I've loved so much about them is that they aren't all the same. There is no way somebody is going to confuse The Winter Soldier with Guardians of the Galaxy, or Iron Man 3 with Thor: The Dark World. They are definitely not all generic.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

Fair. But, isn't X-Men, by definition, a team property? When you think of the X-Men, you don't first think of Cyclops. Or Xavier. Or Jean Grey. You think of the X-Men.

And no, Marvel's way is not the only way. I agree wholeheartedly. But I just think with all the fan backlash from Man of Steel, and the tepid response to much of the early stuff from BvS, they might want to reconsider this. Like I said, I don't think they've earned it. But, for the third time -- that's just me!

Fair enough mate. Although I will say the alledged fan backlash is overstated. The numbers show that more people liked it, than disliked it.
http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Man-of-Steel#tab=summary

Just compare MOS's gross in theaters and all the money on homevideo to any of the Marvel movies, except Iron Man and Avengers, and you'll see WB came out ahead.

Plus the $160 million MOS got from sponsors of all those annoying ass product placements. MOS made a mint for WB. It's likely why they greenlit a sequel with Batman so early. To compete with Marvel and crush the market harder.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

MCU films are the films with the same plot and their tiring formula that even Speilberg thinks the comic book genre will implode because of MCU.

I have my own criticism of the MCU, but Spielberg seems sort of full of it. When the film industry jumped on the sci-fi / hope for blockbuster bandwagon between the late 70s - mid 80s, and producers great and small were pumping out truckloads of alien films, space adventure films, kids/teens in fantasy films, etc., he did not say the genre was going to implode. In fact, whether he was directing or producing, he was happy to churn out his fantasies, and did not pay attention to all of the other producers all thinking they were going to ride that same gravy train.

In a way, one might suspect he's saying this because his own interest in superhero films (even when he had a few in development) either did not get off the ground, or the fact a long-famous modern mythology succeeded without his vainglorious touch / interpretation.

That success is nothing new: in the 70s, Superman was one of the biggest films of the decade and for the first time, made the world think superheroes could be believable on film. By the end of the 80s, Batman did the same thing. Since the early 2000s, between the well regarded Raimi Spider-Man movies (well 2 out of 3), the Nolan Batman films and now some of the MCU, the superhero genre has a firm place on the big screen (for now). Such fantasy attractions are not limited to dinosaurs gone wild, time traveling "teenagers," or anything else he's been associated with, so that appears to bother him.

Every genre has highs and lows, but Spielberg's comment seems more like wishing, that an objective look at this genre's movement.

 

[Campe]

Just compare MOS's gross in theaters and all the money on homevideo to any of the Marvel movies, except Iron Man and Avengers, and you'll see WB came out ahead.

Do they?

Sure, you've got a few in there that don't (and while Ant-Man probably won't overtake either, its not entirely fair to include that when it hasn't come out on video yet.) But seven out of twelve ain't bad.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

You know what? Spielberg's right. The comic book genre will implode. But its not JUST because of the MCU. Its because there are tons of comic book movies out there. It's called oversaturation. Eventually, they will reach a point of diminishing returns. Then they will come back, but perhaps be a little more tempered. It has happened with nearly every film genre there has been. Look at the westerns. Hell, look at STAR TREK.

Westerns lasted for decades. Marvel would kill for the kind of longevity westerns had. That being said, westerns didn't die because of oversaturation, westerns died because changing cultural norms created a general feeling of unease with the whole Cowboys vs. Indians thing and films like Dirty Harry provided a similar outlet for movies with "cool" violence. I don't see any of those factors for westerns. Sure, it could implode, but that doesn't mean westerns create a precedent.

Star Trek has never been anywhere near as popular as comic book movies are now. Even then, the reason for its decline in popularity is that it isn't a genre. It's one or two productions at a time and the quality declined dramatically (in addition to moving to a network that didn't even have 100% availability nationwide, there's the fact that TV viewership is more spread out anyway). The counterexample is it's more popular than ever when an exciting movie was made. It's not Star Wars popularity, but it never has been. And it certainly hasn't imploded.

 

[Anwar]

That's not true and this are characters all squeezed into one film.

Guardians of the Galaxy did a better job with developing its characters than X-men did with any X-Man that wasn't Wolverine or Xavier.

MCU have stand alone films and their films are still terrible and their characters made into jokes.

Care to justify that statement?

the religion thing is a big deal to night-crawler and it was displayed well in the films and in the comics to even the animated series when he had 2 guest appearance.

It's actually never been that big in his character. Neither the Fox series nor the movies bothered with his more adventurous romantic side.

MCU films are the films with the same plot and their tiring formula that even Speilberg thinks the comic book genre will implode because of MCU.

Spielberg really has little to justify his stance, and the MCU films have had more variety to their plots than the X-films have. They've just been telling the same one plot over and over again for 15 years.

 

[DWF]

If the formula a villain trying to control and/or destroy the world and the hero or heroes saving the day is getting old, then it's hard to imagine Doctor Who and James Bond lasting so long. It's a given that the MCU movies wil come to and end, but I think we should enjoy them while they're here.

 

[fireproof78]

A quick note before my larger point-I loved Nightcrawler as he was presented in X2. I think we would have seen more of his swashbuckling, adventurous side, if they had bothered to include him in the next film. They didn't and that's too bad. Missed opportunity, but I also think they wasted Rogue, so YMMV.

As to the MCU, I personally have enjoyed the wide variety of different styles of films and characters presented, especially in the early part. I didn't like Iron Man, but Captain America and Thor were a blast for me. Avengers was probably my favorite comic book film of all time, and worked very well, despite the ensemble cast. The others have been hit and miss, but I expect that from such a large franchise.

 

[eyeresist]

Are you saying it's cool for the Avengers and X-Men to have multiple heroes in one movie but not the characters who make up the Justice League?

Absolutely not. But I don't feel the DCCU has done a single thing to prove themselves. They're putting all of their eggs into one basket and very early on. Marvel had to work up to it and, despite what Dale says, earn it. It feels (and again it might just be me) that DC just feels entitled to do it.

I think DC's venture into movies has been pretty tentative so far, just a Superman or Batman movie every few years. This is a necessary gamble to make DC a substantial movie presence - go (brave &) bold or go home.

Whether their plans succeed or flop, as a DC fan I really want to see them at least try to become more than also-rans.

 

[RoJoHen]

That's not true and this are characters all squeezed into one film.

Guardians of the Galaxy did a better job with developing its characters than X-men did with any X-Man that wasn't Wolverine or Xavier.

This is probably a terrible argument, but did the X-Men movies really need to develop its characters?

The general public had no idea who/what Guardians of the Galaxy was, but I'd wager most of us had some familiarity with the X-Men. Heck, most of the target audience grew up watching the cartoon on FOX.

It's like Batman or Spiderman. Do we really need their origin stories? Do we need lots of exposition to introduce us to the characters? No. We all know where they came from.

If anything, though, the X-Men movies at least manage to change the status quo. The cast and characters are constantly changing and evolving. At the end of every Avengers movie, aside from a little PTSD for Tony Stark, everything always seems to be back to the way it was at the beginning.

I mean, hell, wasn't SHIELD destroyed in Winter Soldier? Did that have any impact on the story of "Age of Ultron?" They had to meet at Hawkeye's ranch instead of SHIELD headquarters, but the damn helicarrier still managed to fly in and save the day.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

That's not true and this are characters all squeezed into one film.

Guardians of the Galaxy did a better job with developing its characters than X-men did with any X-Man that wasn't Wolverine or Xavier.

This is probably a terrible argument, but did the X-Men movies really need to develop its characters?

The general public had no idea who/what Guardians of the Galaxy was, but I'd wager most of us had some familiarity with the X-Men. Heck, most of the target audience grew up watching the cartoon on FOX.

It's like Batman or Spiderman. Do we really need their origin stories? Do we need lots of exposition to introduce us to the characters? No. We all know where they came from.

No character needs a specific story, ever. Origin stories are only ever necessary when they're part of the story the movie is trying to tell. But, yes, even Batman and Spider-man need development. Characters with no development at all are boring, even when they're well known characters.

If anything, though, the X-Men movies at least manage to change the status quo. The cast and characters are constantly changing and evolving. At the end of every Avengers movie, aside from a little PTSD for Tony Stark, everything always seems to be back to the way it was at the beginning.

I mean, hell, wasn't SHIELD destroyed in Winter Soldier? Did that have any impact on the story of "Age of Ultron?" They had to meet at Hawkeye's ranch instead of SHIELD headquarters, but the damn helicarrier still managed to fly in and save the day.

It's a little too early in the shared universe to judge how much effect these things are having. Certainly the concept of Civil War seems to suggest that the combined effect of Project Insight, The Battle of New York, London and Sokovia is intended to have a huge impact on this world. We just haven't gotten to that impact yet, because most of the movies so far have been hard stand alones with only superficial connectivity, but that is changing. Once phase 3 is done, if MS are really following up on their stated intentions, then that whole world should be noticably different. (And I will be very surprised if we don't start losing characters at some point, even if only temporarily). We will see, either way.

Meanwhile Fox's 'changing the status quo' is usually just killing off characters before they even got a decent story, or otherwise just never mentioning someone again. Is that really supposed to be something to look up to?

 

[suarezguy]

Both the X-Men and Marvel films could benefit from not resurrecting any more apparently-dead characters, that's one trope I really dislike.

Jean Grey and Nightcrawler got a fair amount of attention in the second film and Storm in the second and third (and Mystique in the prequels) but otherwise the other characters were indeed pretty neglected.

Jean wasn't much more than a love interest for Logan in X2 aside from her sacrifice (which wasn't even that well explained or well-done)

There was also her loving and feeling more committed to Scott, reacting to him being mind-controlled and, related to her sacrifice, increasing her level of power and fearing that she might lose control of it and become dangerous to others, good set-ups for actually turning villainous later.

... And I'm still waiting for any argument or explanation as to why either movie Joker, Ducard, Bane, Talia, or Scarecrow are not "one-note" villains, and just what constitutes their alleged depth, because all I see in that line-up are straight-up psychos, with variety in presentation for sure (cue Heath Ledger licking his lips), but very little in substance.

I thought movie Scarecrow was shortchanged and none of them are great villains but I think some are more interesting than the MCU villains; Ducard was motivated by similar concerns as Bruce but was much more ruthless in his response, Scarecrow used similar tactics for nefarious ends and his position relates to Gotham's corruption, Joker has pretty much the opposite aims of Batman but enjoys fighting him and trying to corrupt him and is particularly sadistic and nearly unstoppable; OTOH Loki, Killian are motivated by jealousy (and the latter by arms-related greed, like Stark used to be, but that's not revealed until the end) and Red Skull seems neither very related to the hero nor unbeatable.

 

[RoJoHen]

It's a little too early in the shared universe to judge how much effect these things are having.

That's the thing, though. It's NOT that early. The first Iron Man movie came out over 7 years ago, and since then we've gotten...

2 more Iron Mans
2 Captain Americas
2 Thors
2 Avengers
Guardians of the Galaxy
Ant-Man

Am I forgetting anything? That's 11 movies! How many more am I supposed to watch before things actually start having consequences?

Individually, the movies are fine. But as a series, I find the whole thing lacking.