I do not like MCU films

[Awesome Possum]

Man of Steel had its moments and I hope that Wonder Woman is going to be good.

I just want good movies and so far Marvel Studios is the only one pulling that off. They at least seem to feel like they actually like their characters and want to tell a good story over making a billion dollars per movie. WB feels like they have a chart that tells them what to stick in a movie to it is a success according to some algorithm.

 

[ichab]

This is still irrelevant to me. Why? Because it all boils down to preference. There are a lot of fans of the "Transformer" films. A lot. Which is why those movies generate a great deal of money. But whether the fans only love them or not, it is still all irrelevant, because it's all subjective. The only opinion that should matter is your own. Or my own. The old "majority rules" factor is meaningless to me, except in terms of profit.

The idea that we're supposed to be accept that the Marvel films are better, because film critics or a large number of movie fans say so is irrelevant. I don't accept this view, because I don't share it. I've seen a lot of comic book movies in my time. From my perspective, only the individual movies count. I don't care whether they're Marvel, DC Comics or whatever comic book company that the movie came from. And considering that art and entertainment are subjective in the end, what's the point in declaring that Marvel films are better or that DC Comics movies are better? It's a waste of time to me. And irrelevant. I think we all should concentrate on liking whatever movies that appeals to us and not bother on which company makes the better films.




Judging from what I have read and seen, I have a different opinion. But it's just me.

I do kick a kick out of the double standard that has arisen. None of the three DCU movies have hit a billion dollars so they are "failures" in some peoples eyes. Yet Marvel didn't even see a billion dollar movie until their SIXTH film and that was the Avengers. Their other billion dollar films are Avengers 2, Ironman 3 and Civil War. So out of 13 films only four are "successful" according to that weird criteria and frankly with the exception of Avengers One they are pretty forgetable movies.

 

[Kemaiku]

I do kick a kick out of the...

Um...

 

[Awesome Possum]

I do kick a kick out of the double standard that has arisen. None of the three DCU movies have hit a billion dollars so they are "failures" in some peoples eyes. Yet Marvel didn't even see a billion dollar movie until their SIXTH film and that was the Avengers. Their other billion dollar films are Avengers 2, Ironman 3 and Civil War. So out of 13 films only four are "successful" according to that weird criteria and frankly with the exception of Avengers One they are pretty forgetable movies.

I consider them failures because they fail as stories first. There are plenty of movies that bomb, but are still a good story. The DC movies aren't failing because of critics or people being pro-Marvel to the point they hate DC, they just aren't that good. I mainly blame studio interference, but Snyder has made two movies and he's more interested in filming slow motion than having a compelling story.

 

[ichab]

I consider them failures because they fail as stories first. There are plenty of movies that bomb, but are still a good story. The DC movies aren't failing because of critics or people being pro-Marvel to the point they hate DC, they just aren't that good. I mainly blame studio interference, but Snyder has made two movies and he's more interested in filming slow motion than having a compelling story.

Different strokes for different folks. I found Man of Steel barely average, BvS great and Suicide Squad pretty good. But thats me.

 

[JD]

I think part of the problem is at least with BvS is that they were trying deconstruct the characters before they ever constructed them. Deconstructions can work as an alternate version you compare to the regular version, but they really shouldn't be the regular version.

 

[Makarov]

WB feels like they have a chart that tells them what to stick in a movie to it is a success according to some algorithm.

That's what Marvel usually feels like, copy and pasted elements they know are going to be a success. The same tone, the same quippy humor, rinse and repeat. Probably the reason why Civil War didn't do anything with it's plot and wasn't a very good story. It didn't deviate from the formula at all.

 

[LJones41]

Different strokes for different folks. I found Man of Steel barely average, BvS great and Suicide Squad pretty good. But thats me.

I've really enjoyed the recent three movies of the DC Comics movies - especially "Batman v. Superman". Of the seven Marvel movies that have been released since 2012's "The Avengers", I've really enjoyed at least four of them - "Thor 2", "Captain America 2", "Guardians of the Galaxy" and "Ant-Man". That's pretty good.

If you care so little what other people think, then why bothere even coming onto message boards like this? The whole point of coming onto sites like this is to share our opinions, and to discuss them.

That's what I'm doing . . . expressing or sharing my opinions to others. Just because my opinion might differ from yours or someone else's, doesn't mean I should refrain from expressing myself.

 

[JD]

I'm not saying you should express yourself, I just meant that it seems to odd to me go to a place were other people share their opinions if the only opinion you care about if your own. I come here because I like seeing other people's opinions, and discussing their reactions to mine.

 

[Hugo Rune]

On reading around this subject I came across this fascinating article from a Strategy Consultant in Hollywood: http://iveybusinessreview.ca/blogs/...uture-of-film-i-what-happened-to-summer-2013/

The very short is:

• Of the first 6 films Marvel put out, they made a cumulative profit of $50m on the films themselves - with only 4/8 of the frist four films recouping their costs
• Of the 6 big production companies/distributors, between 2003 and 2013 in only three years did those companies make a net profit from their film releases.
• The density of Blockbusters has increased by 40%+ in 10 years, crowding the slate leading to films eating into each others box office
• Current business plans around these massive tent-pole films are designed and expected to "fail" at the box office - with the big six making a cumulative loss of $2.4b from a $34b upfront investment
• By expecting to fail, box officer revenue is designed to mitigate initial costs, not reap profit. Profit in fact comes from licensing, merchandising, VOD/Home Entertaintment sales - i.e. ancillary revenues
• Attempting to generated ancillary revenues in an original property is very difficult, if not impossible. MoS was able to generate $170m in revenue just for licensing (cars, glasses, watches etc) without anything else, offsetting a "poor" box office performance.
• The article also offers four differing tactics for the Big 6 to use to try to diversify revenue, but mostly furthering the notion that the best profits are in fact in the likes of embedded advertising and further, richer, licensing.

Well worth a read, though it does have many graphs. It is a nice point to put aside the comments of the CEO for DC who was not lamenting the fact that BvS didn't make enough money, but the negative critical response was damaging the brand. Brand is king!

On one point the articles labours upon, overcrowded markets, I am reminded of Steven Spielbergs comments a few years ago when he noted that at its current rate the Blockbuster Market could soon collapse under its own weight. One only has to look at the upcoming 2018 season and think - could that be the year.

Look at what is on the schedule:

Avengers: Infinity War, Ready Player One, Pacific Rim 2, Aquaman, Toy Story 4, Deadpool 2, Black Panther, The Flash, How To Train Your Dragon 3, Ant-Man And The Wasp, Jurassic World 2, The Predator, Fifty Shades Freed, Jungle Book: Origins, Marry Poppins Returns, Tomb Raider, Alita: Battle Angel, Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them 2, The Secret Life Of Pets 2, an animated Spider-Man movie, Hotel Transylvania 3, The Wolf Man, Wreck-It Ralph 2, the Star Wars Han Solo spinoff, the Transformers Bumblebee spinoff, Maze Runner: The Death Cure, How The Grinch Stole Christmas, Gigantic (Disney's next hand-drawn animated musical).

Here's another seven movies that, at the time of publishing, don't have solid release dates but are scheduled for 2018:

Madagascar 4, Independence Day 3, Gambit (an X-Men spinoff), The Invisible Man, Venom (a Spider-Man spinoff), Uprising (Bryan Singer's big-budget movie about a war on the goddamn moon), Mission: Impossible 6.

Even spread out over the whole year this is a MASSIVE amount of content fighting for ever reducing cinema goers and their $/£

And nearly all of them are from huge properties or with previous fandoms to turn up for the opening weekend and buy the merchandise.

Hugo - hopes there is still space for, you know, normal films too...

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

I consider them failures because they fail as stories first. There are plenty of movies that bomb, but are still a good story. The DC movies aren't failing because of critics or people being pro-Marvel to the point they hate DC, they just aren't that good. I mainly blame studio interference, but Snyder has made two movies and he's more interested in filming slow motion than having a compelling story.

Many have said the same about the lifeless Thor: The Dark World, the soulless, coloring book AKA Avengers: Age of Ultron, Iron Man 2, Ant Man and The Incredible Hulk, to name a few. Marvel does not have a universal, strong formula on making "great" superhero films. Some are all over the place in tone and intent; for example, The Winter Soldier does not look like its direction, political message, etc., is in the same universe as Avengers 1 & 2 or Guardians and despite some MCU fan say, "they're building toward something," i will remind that someone that they've been building since TWS, and the tone and intent is still all over the place, with the exception of TWS' direct sequel, Civil War.

In the DC films, there is a definite, consistent world structure and tone--this is all one universe, with no film feeling creatively or ideologically (in-universe) out of place with the other. That is interesting, successful building, as one can say Suicide Squad, DoJ and MoS not only exist in the same universe, but were all moving its world toward a next, logical chapter. There's no planet-sized hiccups or selective memory as we see with certain MCU films (e.g., the Hydra matter with SHIELD not having greater, far reaching impact in every film following TWS). While none of the 21st century superhero films were perfect, I think some of the MCU has suffered from an assembly line approach to just adapting every thing off the shelf, or trying to bring every "big event" to screen, which--after awhile--starts to melt into one another--spectacle, explosions and characters jumping around, with not much heart or substance.

I understand that all MCU films cannot be The First Avenger, IM3, The Winter Soldier or Civil War...but they would be better off if they moved in that lane more than they have.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Many have said the same about the lifeless Thor: The Dark World, the soulless, coloring book AKA Avengers: Age of Ultron, Iron Man 2, Ant Man and The Incredible Hulk, to name a few. Marvel does not have a universal, strong formula on making "great" superhero films. Some are all over the place in tone and intent; for example, The Winter Soldier does not look like its direction, political message, etc., is in the same universe as Avengers 1 & 2 or Guardians and despite some MCU fan say, "they're building toward something," i will remind that someone that they've been building since TWS, and the tone and intent is still all over the place, with the exception of TWS' direct sequel, Civil War.

In the DC films, there is a definite, consistent world structure and tone--this is all one universe, with no film feeling creatively or ideologically (in-universe) out of place with the other. That is interesting, successful building, as one can say Suicide Squad, DoJ and MoS not only exist in the same universe, but were all moving its world toward a next, logical chapter. There's no planet-sized hiccups or selective memory as we see with certain MCU films (e.g., the Hydra matter with SHIELD not having greater, far reaching impact in every film following TWS). While none of the 21st century superhero films were perfect, I think some of the MCU has suffered from an assembly line approach to just adapting every thing off the shelf, or trying to bring every "big event" to screen, which--after awhile--starts to melt into one another--spectacle, explosions and characters jumping around, with not much heart or substance.

I understand that all MCU films cannot be The First Avenger, IM3, The Winter Soldier or Civil War...but they would be better off if they moved in that lane more than they have.

They aren't all great, I've mentioned before that Thor 2 and Iron Man 2 aren't that great. Avengers 2 has some issues, mainly shoving in the bit with Thor setting up Phase 3. But I'd actually think one of the strengths is that the movies look and feel different from each other. It keeps the universe varied and prevents burn out. Antman is a comedic heist movie that happens to have a superhero in it. Winter Soldier is a political thriller with a superhero in it. It's actually perfect because it's more in line with the comics themselves. The individual comics all have different art styles, tone and even genre. But they're all part of the same universe and can blend in interesting ways.

It's my personal preference. If you want all your comic movies to look exactly the same, then enjoy them. I'd like some variation over dark, brooding and gritty. Especially when it goes completely against the established tone of characters like Superman.

I do agree that Marvel Studios is far from perfect, but most of the time I enjoy their movies. Even when they miss, there is at least some core element that works. Thor 2 isn't the best movie, but there are a lot of great scenes. It relies too much on Loki, who is the best part of the movie, and that takes away from the actual villain. I do wish they weren't so focused on building towards the next phase. The best part of Civil War was Spider-Man and I'm far more excited to see the direction those movies take than the next Avengers.

 

[JD]

I'm with AP here, I think there really has been a lot of variety in the MCU movies, and that has been one of my favorite things about them. Each of the series really do have their own unique identity, but still have enough connections to feel like they share a universe.

 

[Admiral2]

In the DC films, there is a definite, consistent world structure and tone--this is all one universe, with no film feeling creatively or ideologically (in-universe) out of place with the other.

Yeah, it's all one universe, where the two lead male "heroes" are brooding assholes and the lead female hero is a snarling fashion model that lets her sword and shield do her work for her.

You like that universe? You can keep it.

Make Mine Marvel.

 

[Anwar]

Batman already knew Superman was trying to do good, and the movies goes very in depth on his reasoning for why he still wanted to kill him, giving the audience a lot to think about, relatively speaking.

Not really, he just came off as a hypocrite. At worst, he came off as a racist who was only marginally better than Luthor.

The whole movie was building towards them fighting each other, it's not a very long fight and it does develop Batman. Meanwhile in Civil War there is no such equivalent, there's an airport brawl where the characters make joke after joke and then a final fight about Tony's parents.

All it does is make Batman a very fickle person who tosses out years of planning just because the guy had a mom with the same name as his. Civil War was about the two sides NOT wanting to fight but being forced into it. And no, the airport fight wasn't full of jokes. It just wasn't full of gore.

That is the Marvel movies in a nutshell... and I have no turning my brain off to enjoy them, but Civil War had potential to be a much better story.

If you go for that soulless "grounded" stuff, or idiot heroes who want to kill each other at the drop of a hat.

 

[Awesome Possum]

If the Joker's mother was named Martha, would Batman keep fighting him if he found out?

He may be his nemesis, but he saw Superman as an existential threat to the planet. That's a tad worse than the Joker. He can only kill a few people at a time, Superman can wipe us all out.

 

[dahj]

If you want all your comic movies to look exactly the same, then enjoy them.

You like that universe? You can keep it.

If you go for that soulless "grounded" stuff, or idiot heroes

ITT People telling other people what they like is wrong.

 

[Makarov]

If the Joker's mother was named Martha, would Batman keep fighting him if he found out?

He may be his nemesis, but he saw Superman as an existential threat to the planet. That's a tad worse than the Joker. He can only kill a few people at a time, Superman can wipe us all out.

That's not a similar situation at all, but in a general sense yes, yes he would stop fighting him. In The Killing Joke Batman realizes they come from similar beginnings "one bad day" and he offers to help rehabilitate the Joker.

People who want to make fun of the Martha moment just focus on the mom's name without thinking of what it really means. Because what it means is perfectly appropriate to the character of Batman.

All it does is make Batman a very fickle person who tosses out years of planning just because the guy had a mom with the same name as his. Civil War was about the two sides NOT wanting to fight but being forced into it. And no, the airport fight wasn't full of jokes. It just wasn't full of gore.

There is no gore in the big fight in BvS. But yeah the airport fight is all jokes, including one giant joke with ant-man and Black Widow / Hawkeye joking about how they're only pretend fighting. I'm not saying a Marvel movie shouldn't be funny, but it really isn't much of a Civil War if the biggest fight is just a laugh.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

I find their films generally boring, simplistic, having no plot very watered down for kiddies and very generic. the marvel forumla has been bad for the comic book genre. I prefer the bryan singer's xmen films or the nolan's batman films to mcu films because those films tried to move the comic genre away from been just dumb and about explosions. Is there anyone else who hates MCU films.

Hear, hear !

Watching Marvel movies is like watching a (young) kids cartoon but with real live actors instead of animation. No threat, no suspense, no thrill. Plus they're so formulaic that if you've seen one you've seen them all. Give me Richard Donner's Superman, Tim Burton's Batman, Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight, Brian Singer's X-Men, Sam Raimi's Spider-Man, Alex Proyas' The Crow, heck even Ang Lee's Hulk! At least these directors have talent and vision!

 

[Anwar]

Donner's Superman is more childish than anything in the MCU...

There is no gore in the big fight in BvS. But yeah the airport fight is all jokes, including one giant joke with ant-man and Black Widow / Hawkeye joking about how they're only pretend fighting. I'm not saying a Marvel movie shouldn't be funny, but it really isn't much of a Civil War if the biggest fight is just a laugh.

So Ant-Man isn't some grim bitter vigilante man, and BW and Hawkeye are open about how they don't hold this against each other.