I do not like MCU films
- Thread starter Dales
- Start date
I generally like the MCU a little bit more, but that's because I grew up with the Adam West Batman. Nothing will top that
I like that the MCU films are fairly upbeat and optimistic despite occasionally trending towards a dark tone. I like that they're still escapism and not grim reminders of the world outside the theater.
But they are in the same universe, with their supposedly consequential, per-film events having some effect on the world they live in..or that's what should have happened in plot and tone. Anything less, and it comes off like some Golden or early Silver Age comics, where big events occurred in one title, but said events in the same city as the other titles) have little no effect or reference. They may as well be movies from different franchises.
I can point to Superman stories from the 1970s where he was serious, and not some winking line art version of George Reeves, and he certainly was not that in the 80s, pre-or post Crisis on Infinite Earths.
..and that's another problem: using some films as little more than a teaser to the next movie, as if they are nowhere near the actual story. Everything following The Winter Soldier--if we are to believe that the complete, years-long infiltration of the world's greatest security force was so damaging--should have colored every film to follow--more than a reference in Civil War as part of Ross' "hit list.". It should be felt deeply everywhere--but that has not happened yet. The world is a very small place--the effects of major security agencies eating away at even more space, so the individual movies should not still feel like no one--or their bigger than life situations are not connected--naturally, or by force of circumstance. By the way, I'm not referring to the events of Avengers 1 & 2, but the full weight of the Hydra matter in TWS.
With few exceptions, we get too many are wisecracking heroes still cloning the quip/comic relief model restarted in the original Star Wars movies, and since that time, that has been run into the ground in movies, live & animated TV and video games. That's not a necessary component for films with characters not aimed at 6 year olds.
For the most part they at least reference things that happened before. It just isn't important to the story or a fairly minor element. Like how the Battle of New York lead to S.H.I.E.L.D. gaining increased power allowing their flying death weapons.
There's a major difference between serious and grimdark. At the core, Superman is supposed to be an optimistic character. He exists in a world where good is the default because his job to stop bad guys from destroying things and fixing anything that is destroyed. It doesn't have to be the cheesy 30s Superman, but when he gets there the audience should feel like the day is saved. He certainly shouldn't be a metaphor for 9/11.
Now if it turns out to be the setup for an Injustice type universe where Superman turns evil, then these movies might be genius. Because at this point I wouldn't be shocked if this Superman turned evil. It would also be neat to have the actual good Justice League with good Superman show up to stop him.
What else do you want them to show? Avengers 2 deals with the fallout of Hydra. It's still an issue but it's really more about how the existence of superheroes is affecting the world, Hydra is just a symptom of it. Both Avengers 2 and Civil War show that the public is increasingly pushing back against groups like the Avengers and SHIELD running things. Could the UN create the Accords if not for the events of the previous movies? It's more than just the Ultron attack and the bombing in Civil War. It's due to a major security group being overrun by actual Nazis who intended to kill thousands. Having oversight to any group is going to be a major concern in that world, especially as each battle seems to be causing more damage. It's the entire point of the movie.
When that formula stops working, maybe they'll stop. But it's been a part of cinema for decades, people seem to like it. It's certainly more popular than Superdepressingman v Bummerman. Those movies are failing critically and at the box office while Marvel Studios succeeds for a reason. There isn't a conspiracy against DC, people aren't just bigger Marvel fans and Disney isn't paying people off. They just aren't that good. There is one Superman movie that works and it's the one that DC has gone out of their way to avoid any comparison to. Maybe its because Superman Returns wasn't the hit they wanted. They tried to turn Superman into Batman because the Dark Knight was a hit. But Superman doesn't work as a character like that without breaking the character or becoming something else entirely.
Loud people arguing on the internet may give off that impression, but if you look at how much money these movies are making I think the reality is a lot of people like both.
I like cheese, but I like for the most part both the MCU and DC universe
For 20 minutes? I wasn't that interested in how the Avengers dealt with HYDRA. I was more interested in how Captain America 3 dealt with the organization. And they did . . . for about 20 minutes or or so. I found this disappointing, considering that Steve's arc has more or less been about HYDRA.
So far, I prefer the MCU over the DCEU, but that's mostly because there's more movies in the MCU to give a real clear impression. Sofar, the official DCEU has had 3 movies, one of which I haven't seen yet. I really loved Man Of Steel, and liked BvS well enough, but more flawed than Man Of Steel. Suicide Squad I'll catch on bluray I think, unless my local cinema will do a 2D showing at some point.
I'm just not interested in suicide squad.
I guess I am kind of odd in that I love Man Of Steel. I always have fun when I watch that.
I guess I am kind of odd in that I love Man Of Steel. I always have fun when I watch that.
Oh no, I loved it aswell. I understood how the disaster-porn at the end was way over the top, but the movie itself was well done I feel. I really disliked Superman in BvS. He seemed like a total dick at times.
Because we all know good movies never do badly (Dredd) or have bad critical reception (John Carpenter's The Thing).
Marvel's formula works most of the time but staying in the exact same mold all the time kept Civil War from telling a good story.
The Accords plot was never enough to generate a real war in the first place, that's what made the Comics Civil War such a lousy storyline. Besides, these guys are comrades and friends, they aren't going to go around killing each other.
No the philosophical difference was quite enough in the comics. That's something worth fighting over - just maybe not in Marvel's film universe where they can't get serious about issues. Bucky was a pretty lame substitute and made the characters look dumb, Tony flipping out like he's never heard of Bucky's mind control issue before.
I generally like the MCU a little bit more, but that's because I grew up with the Adam West Batman. Nothing will top that
I too. When I was growing up, DC seemed to be more available to watch as Adam West Batman was on regularly and the Superman films were also just coming out.
(It was easier to get Marvel comics - but only Spiderman was a regular)
The whole reason the Avengers didn't have oversight, was because of the fall of S.H.I.E.L.D.. In the first movie it was S.H.I.E.L.D. who brought the Avengers together, and was their support and oversight, but after TWS the Avengers were totally on their own.
Pretty much all of the movies have impacted and tied into each other somehow.
IM 1: Started the whole thing, introduced Tony Stark/Iron Man, S.H.I.E.L.D, and briefly introduced the Avengers Initiative.
IM2: Introduced Black Widow, made Rhodey War Machine, and developed the Avengers Initiative.
Thor: Introduced, Asgard, Thor, Loki, and Hawkeye.
IH: Introduced Bruce Banner/Hulk, General Ross,
Cap 1: Introduced Cap, Bucky, Peggy Carter, The Howling Commandos, Hydra and the Tesseract/Infinity Stone 1
Avengers: Birth of the Avengers, Battle of New York
IM3: Dealt with aftermath of BNY
Cap: TWS: Introduced Falcon, brought back Bucky,
Thor: DTW: Dealt with Thor, Loki post BoNY, Infinity Stone 2
GotG: First good look at Thanos, explain Infinity Stones, Infinity Stone 3
Age of Ultron: Introduced Scarlet Witch, Sokovia, Infinity Stone 1 again
Ant-Man: Introduced Ant-Man, featured Peggy Carter and Howard Stark, and established relationship between Falcon and Ant-Man
Cap: Civil War: Introduced Spider-Man, Black Panther, Sokovia Accords, brought back Ross, set up Thanos coming to Earth
No it wasn't, that's why everyone acted so crazy out of character and the whole thing was contrived.
They do, they just don't act like petty morons and are able to settle things like adults. This isn't DC.
Tony had been pushed to the razor's edge by everything, and Zemo's last revelation was enough to make him unreasonable and irrational. That's why he's calmed down by the end and not on a crazy hunt for Steve and Bucky.
That's an aside with no direct comment on the Hydra infiltration, and regrading the Battle of New York, the WSC's launching a nuclear missile at Manhattan (and the unprecedented mass death it would have caused) should have been a solid, tonal continuity change for all MCU characters--super-powered or not, but that entire matter (remember...it was a nuclear missile fired at Manhattan) was unrealistically swept away in favor of dealing with Project Insight. Long before Civil War, the MCU should have been in the grip of a fever of anger and paranoia about these shadowy "global caretaker" organizations deciding from (their version of) "On High" to annihilate mass populations without so much as safeguard or counter, other than Fury & Iron Man's attempt to stop it.
But, it was--apparently--more important to just jump to Civil War, with its focus on superheroes being the problem, than "complicate" the MCU by moving the story in the natural direction of the world not trusting clearly dangerous organizations.
Why not have both, and steer the MCU in a believable direction, rather than halfway with the only logical movements happening in TWS / CW? Too dark for those who want G.I. Joe / Star Wars-ian quips and just moving on to the next set up for big fights?
The day cannot always be saved--even heroes cannot be saved at times--that is a lesson from the source--the comics. Darkness happens. The original Doom Patrol sacrificed themselves (died) to save others. Spider-Man failed to save Capt. Stacy or his daughter. Crisis-era Flash and Supergirl died. There's no drama in superhero comics that give the audience the guarantee that a Super Friends ending is always a....guarantee. Comic readers expected more generations ago, and movie audiences--like those criticizing certain parts of the MCU, also expect that.
You're pushing the idea that MoS/BvS Superman is so "wrong" that he could be the groundwork for turning evil. Again, the "he's too dark / not 'real;' Superman" --is a false premise. The movies--in this era--do not have Superman free of his own conscience, a conscience that makes him aware that he's not God. Realizing that, he cannot (realistically) be everywhere at all times to save the day / always be able to stop great threats sans some loss. In no way does that mean he's not completely without a moral compass (like MCU's WSC in their liberal use of nuclear missiles), so he's not moving toward the edge of becoming evil. He just happens to live in a world where a larger form of darkness is driving the threats to the world (universe, really) and he cannot smile his way through that., and sign off with comic relief from the Wonder Twins.
Barely. The plot was overflowing with cartoon fights with flying robots, a pointless, emotion-free death of Quicksilver and another big spectacle to end the film..oh, and yet more Easter eggs about Infinity.
One, they are not failing at the box office.
Two, many of the Marvel movies have been blasted as being hollow, illogical or inspiring yawns.
Three, you attack the DC films for being dark. I will say this: several critics were less than kind to The Empire Strikes Back in 1980--some whining about how "dark" the plot and characters were compared to Star Wars, but it was--at that time--a superior film with a story and tone that said the good times were over--crushed with a galaxy-sized mallet. TESB--some 36 years later--is near universally considered the runaway greatest of all Star Wars films for the very reasons it was criticized in 1980.
When this era of superhero films is long gone, I will bet you that the path of the DC films with weather the storm / hold up with its consistent development better than most MCU films that might be seen as Transformers in tights, with the exception of The Winter Soldier...the film some MCU fans complained was "too dark & edgy." Go figure.
Last edited:
That's what all the criticism of the MCU boils down to in the end. Some people, both fans and detractors, see that the MCU films have a cartoony, humourous tone to them and they dismiss these films as shallow fare for kids without noticing the deeper parts* of these films. Movies can only be deep if the tone is dark and gritty with the main characters scowling all the time. It's the same thing as when people dismiss cartoons with bright colours and lots of humour like Adventure Time, Stephen Universe, or Gravity Falls as silly shows for kids. There's a reason that people who dismiss the Marvel films always praise the dark and gritty Netflix shows.
* Of course, they're still summer blockbusters, so the deep parts aren't all that deep. But fairly deep for summer blockbusters.