What Marvel films are worth seeing?

[M'rk son of Mogh]

Don't be "that guy", even in jest; just don't.

Reloaded and Revolutions are just as good as The Matrix, and are actually better, IMO, than some of the stuff we've seen come out of the MCU.

"That guy" represents most of earth, I imagine. The second movie was so bad I never bothered with the third. That second movie taught me even action can somehow be boring, first time that happened for me (it has happened since, but still).

But that's what's cool about this planet, there are movies for everyone and it's interesting to see the patterns of individuals with what they generally don't and do like and see the consistencies of like-minded persons.

It's unfortunate the MCU movies went off the rails for many people, though, as these are the movies I look forward to now every year, and have since they started.

 

[Anwar]

Don't be "that guy", even in jest; just don't.

Reloaded and Revolutions are just as good as The Matrix, and are actually better, IMO, than some of the stuff we've seen come out of the MCU.

Better at being pretentious maybe.

 

[Tallguy]

No, no, I'm totally "that guy". (Three Indiana Jones movies and one Ghostbusters.) But look at it this way. You have two more Matrix movies you enjoy than I do. Kudos!

I guess Reloaded and Revolutions made me go all The Last Jedi 15 years before TLJ. They just undid or ignored so much of what I loved about The Matrix.

OTOH, (as I think I've mentioned in this thread) that before Infinity War we watched the whole MCU. (Movies. I didn't go back and watch all the TV shows.) I found that even films I didn't like as much (Iron Man 2) when put into the whole arc of the MCU held up much better than I remembered. I didn't think there was a bad film in the bunch. Maybe a few OK ones.

And by Gum, Age of Ultron is one of my favorites!

 

[Morpheus 02]

Regrading Thor...i avoided the first one because i thought it was going to be a waste of time. But after seeing it on Redbox, i was VERY excited to see the next one. Dark World felt way more COSMIC to me, and while yes, Eccleston was wasted, overall it was a fun movie.

Not for Ragnarok, i did NOT have a high expectation of seriousness (like say Captain AMerica or Black Panther)...and the commercials set me up well to expect something fun, which it was for me.

So i guess, what I am saying...not the "best" film, but they are fun to watch...maybe lower on your priority list. But not made I watched any of 'em.

Don't be "that guy", even in jest; just don't.


Reloaded and Revolutions are just as good as The Matrix, and are actually better, IMO, than some of the stuff we've seen come out of the MCU.

I think there were PARTS of the seuquels that were really good (like the highway chase scene, with the music, the battle in the bay of Zion), but some parts just didn't work (the rave/sex scene), and some parts where it felt like too much (a 4th movie might have helped). Didn't have quite the same impact as the first one.

 

[suarezguy]

Marvel Studios films have critical praise, audience praise, fan praise and massive box office.

Pretty much every blockbuster these days gets praise from critics, viewers and most of the fans, DCCU and The Last Jedi aside, so I don't think that's really saying much.

What other metric of success is there for these big tentpole blockbuster films?

At least one other is, though I may be in the minority in thinking this, self-consistency.

 

[JD]

You must be following very different blockbusters than I am, because I've seen a lot that pretty much crashed and burned across the board with fans and critics.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

My favourites are the 3 Captain America-movies. Liked the stories, the characters, the drama.

The only jewels in the MCU crown.

absolutely despised Ragnarok, though. 2 absolutely wasted hours of my life.

Yeah, that was an identity-challenged mess. Terrible way for a final Thor film.

 

[Anwar]

The only jewels in the MCU crown

Well, aside from all the others. But we keep underestimating all the damage Nolan and Singer did to the genre and how people still think they're supposed to be ashamed of non-grounded superhero movies.

Yeah, that was an identity-challenged mess.

Nah, just not a pompous, self-serious mess.

 

[Tallguy]

Well, aside from all the others. But we keep underestimating all the damage Nolan and Singer did to the genre and how people still think they're supposed to be ashamed of non-grounded superhero movies.

1) I think the MCU has been pretty grounded. Maybe depends on your definition of that word. With the exception of Guardians and to a lesser extend Ragnarok they all work pretty much the way one might expect it to given the people and technology that exists in them. I think 1978's Superman was grounded. I don't think Batman Forever was. The Rocketeer was. The Phantom jumped around.

Nah, just not a pompous, self-serious mess.

I would hardly call either of the first two Thors pompous or self-serious. They both kind of play against type in that regard. That's part of the joke, I think.

Are there any MCU movies that aren't afraid to poke fun at their heroes at least a little bit? The one most immune to this would seem to be Cap, and really only in his own two sequels and Infinity War. Whedon had no problem having a good natured laugh at Steve's expense. All the other MCU movies have heroes who have to screw up in hilarious ways at least once in a while.

To borrow from Nick Meyer, the MCU is very good at "tap dancing".

 

[Kane_Steel]

That doesn't mean they're all good/great films. It just means they're popular, and popularity has nothing whatsoever to do with quality.

Yes it does, when it comes to 200M+ tentpole pictures.

The Marvel Studios films, again, have critical praise, audience praise, fan praise and massive box office.

What other measure of 'quality' for blockbusters of this budget and scale is there?

Marvel wins on all fronts.


Marvel's success is so great that it exposes the failings of other franchises that fail to meet those four areas of quality.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Yes it does, when it comes to 200M+ tentpole pictures.

The Marvel Studios films, again, have critical praise, audience praise, fan praise and massive box office.

What other measure of 'quality' for blockbusters of this budget and scale is there?

Kane_Steel, that's no measure of quality. For example, the Transformers franchise earned $1,455,206,012, which some might claim is proof of winning with audiences or being of some quality, but the record shows the films were never critical darlings at all. Further, the James Bond franchise has grossed $2,112,905,402 (unadjusted for inflation), but history shows several of the films had suffered negative criticism, the point being that money does not and never will equal universal acceptance or quality. After all, McDonald's makes money every second of the day despite the earned reputation of much of its menu being...junk.

 

[Anwar]

Kane_Steel, that's no measure of quality. For example, the Transformers franchise earned $1,455,206,012, which some might claim is proof of winning with audiences or being of some quality, but the record shows the films were never critical darlings at all. Further, the James Bond franchise has grossed $2,112,905,402 (unadjusted for inflation), but history shows several of the films had suffered negative criticism, the point being that money does not and never will equal universal acceptance or quality. After all, McDonald's makes money every second of the day despite the earned reputation of much of its menu being...junk.

So money, critical acceptance AND the acceptance of the public isn't enough for you? Cripes, not enough Hans Zimmer music and villains being the real stars of the show?

 

[Ovation]

So money, critical acceptance AND the acceptance of the public isn't enough for you? Cripes, not enough Hans Zimmer music and villains being the real stars of the show?

Certainly not enough Hans Zimmer.

 

[Tallguy]

Keep your Zimmer off of my Marvel. (And bring back Patrick Doyle.)

(That's not just a Thor thing, I like Patrick Doyle.)

 

[Kane_Steel]

Pretty much every blockbuster these days gets praise from critics, viewers and most of the fans, DCCU and The Last Jedi aside, so I don't think that's really saying much.

What other blockbuster franchise gets this level of praise on such a consistent basis?

Even the early reactions to Ant-Man and the Wasp are incredibly positive, calling it the next Winter Soldier-level sequel.

At least one other is, though I may be in the minority in thinking this, self-consistency.

Marvel Studios has kept the quality consistent for 20 films, that's definitely a record for any studio or franchise.

 

[Kane_Steel]

Kane_Steel, that's no measure of quality. For example, the Transformers franchise earned $1,455,206,012, which some might claim is proof of winning with audiences or being of some quality, but the record shows the films were never critical darlings at all. Further, the James Bond franchise has grossed $2,112,905,402 (unadjusted for inflation), but history shows several of the films had suffered negative criticism, the point being that money does not and never will equal universal acceptance or quality. After all, McDonald's makes money every second of the day despite the earned reputation of much of its menu being...junk.

LOL.

You just countered your own point.

Transformers is a terrible comparison because while those films did have box office, they had poor critical reviews and declining audience interest. Poor sign of quality.

Consequently, the Transformers box office went down over time, and now the franchise is in reboot mode.


Meanwhile the Marvel Studios films have had critical praise, audience praise, fan praise and impressive box office.

But because of those first 3 metrics, a film like Avengers Infinity War did over 2 Billion WW, despite being the 19th Marvel Studios film.


Funny that you don't hear about franchise fatigue with the Marvel films nearly 20 films in, that's a sign that people love them.

 

[DigificWriter]

^ He didn't "counteract" his own point; you're deliberately misconstruing his point.

The Transformers movies are the perfect example to use, BTW, because they represent a franchise that has been monetarily successful while simultaneously not being of the highest quality by any objective metric. However, since you're bound and determined to ignore that example, here's another one: The Force Awakens. When judged on a purely objective level, TFA is not a good film (it ignores proper storytelling technique, rehashes plot points lifted whole-sale from A New Hope, and takes shortcuts for no reason other than that its writers didn't want to bother with exposition even where it was needed) and yet it was tremendously monetarily successful.

 

[Anwar]

^ He didn't "counteract" his own point; you're deliberately misconstruing his point.

The Transformers movies are the perfect example to use, BTW, because they represent a franchise that has been monetarily successful while simultaneously not being of the highest quality by any objective metric. However, since you're bound and determined to ignore that example, here's another one: The Force Awakens. When judged on a purely objective level, TFA is not a good film (it ignores proper storytelling technique, rehashes plot points lifted whole-sale from A New Hope, and takes shortcuts for no reason other than that its writers didn't want to bother with exposition even where it was needed) and yet it was tremendously monetarily successful.

And critically. You all keep ignoring that and act like these are just money-makers. Fact is that the MCU movies are hits with the public, the critics and make tons of cash. All great indicators of quality.

But apparently unless they make the movie be all about the villains, have people stand around giving operatic monologues because that's the only way to get a point across and we're constantly being bombarded by Hans Zimmer over-dramatic music which fills in for real emotion, the movies can't be "quality".

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

^ He didn't "counteract" his own point; you're deliberately misconstruing his point.

The Transformers movies are the perfect example to use, BTW, because they represent a franchise that has been monetarily successful while simultaneously not being of the highest quality by any objective metric. However, since you're bound and determined to ignore that example, here's another one: The Force Awakens. When judged on a purely objective level, TFA is not a good film (it ignores proper storytelling technique, rehashes plot points lifted whole-sale from A New Hope, and takes shortcuts for no reason other than that its writers didn't want to bother with exposition even where it was needed) and yet it was tremendously monetarily successful.

You're missing the point. They just shelved future Tranformer movies until they see how Bumblebee does, and Solo is having the studio rethink how Star Wars does their one-off movies.

That's a sign that things are missing, mostly money and praise.

20 movies in, Marvel is setting records. 6 movies in, Transformers is on life support. Are you having trouble seeing that huge discrepancy when comparing the franchises?

Franchises can make money, but if people don't love them, the franchise will die. That is the point. Marvel makes money AND is beloved 20 movies in. There is no comparison to any other franchise. At all.

 

[DigificWriter]

You're missing the point. They just shelved future Tranformer movies until they see how Bumblebee does, and Solo is having the studio rethink how Star Wars does their one-off movies.

I didn't say anything whatsoever about Solo, but even if I had, the assertion that it has caused Lucasfilm to rethink its plans for future standalone Star Wars films is a false one.

And critically. You all keep ignoring that and act like these are just money-makers. Fact is that the MCU movies are hits with the public, the critics and make tons of cash. All great indicators of quality.

Wrong. "Critical success" means jack-squat, especially since it's 250% subjective.