What Marvel films are worth seeing?

[Anwar]

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

You only say that until it's a movie YOU like that gets good reviews. Just like how DCEU fans kept saying there was a conspiracy against the DCEU and how reviews meant nothing until WW got good reviews and suddenly they were praising those same critics.

Critical success counts, especially when enough of them can reach a consensus. Sure, there can be some exceptions like how John Carpenter's movies were thrashed on entry...but even then critics and audiences came around eventually and started praising them.

 

[suarezguy]

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

All the Harry Potter films, Nolan's Batman films, Pixar films, Abrams Trek, the new Planet of the Apes trilogy, four of the six X-Men films.

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

Quality is subjective but by self-consistency I meant consistency in the films' storylines and characters, I think the MCU films are badly lacking in that.

 

[Kane_Steel]

^ 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 both Transformers and Star Wars have significant diminishing returns in their box office thanks to poor audience and fan reactions, and in Transformers' case...critical reactions.

Meanwhile Marvel is growing more successful year by year for meeting audience, critical and fan expectations. Marvel Studios this year alone will draw in 4 Billion with it's 3 films. That's quality, and success.

So again, you're proving my point.

 

[Kane_Steel]

All the Harry Potter films, Nolan's Batman films, Pixar films, Abrams Trek, the new Planet of the Apes trilogy, four of the six X-Men films.

Pretty sure the latest Planet of the Apes underperformed, and Star Trek Beyond flopped. Harry Potter is probably the only decent comparison, though the MCU is at 20 films now.

 

[Kane_Steel]

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.

Shh. I don't think DigificWriter likes being Wrong.

It is hard to argue with the numbers. Quality may be subjective and vary from person to person, but there are quantitative factors to determine whether your opinion lines up with the majority or minority.

 

[DigificWriter]

You only say that until it's a movie YOU like that gets good reviews.

No; critical success means jack-squat, period.

 

[suarezguy]

Pretty sure the latest Planet of the Apes underperformed, and Star Trek Beyond flopped.

If so they still got good reviews, indicating that audiences and/or critics tend to be pleased by most new stuff. That a few franchises fail or decline even in that environment doesn't mean the environment is not pretty generous in success and praise.

EdIt: I'm not sure how big a tendency it is but looking at some positive Marvel film reviews the reviewers pretty much admit they liked it because it surpassed their low expectations.

 

[Anwar]

Quality is subjective but by self-consistency I meant consistency in the films' storylines and characters, I think the MCU films are badly lacking in that.

How, because they develop the characters and aren't afraid to shake up the setting instead of leaving everything 100% the same all the time?

No; critical success means jack-squat, period.

Tell that to all the DCEU fans who wanted Rotten Tomatoes shut down until WW got good reviews.

 

[suarezguy]

How, because they develop the characters and aren't afraid to shake up the setting instead of leaving everything 100% the same all the time?

The characters are often randomly different and usually don't have to deal with consequences for their actions.

 

[Anwar]

The characters are often randomly different and usually don't have to deal with consequences for their actions.

Examples?

 

[suarezguy]

Iron Man-created Ultron (and for at least most of the film doesn't regret it) who the fight against caused the Avengers' greatest civilian casualties, then next movie complains the group causes too much destruction. No one calls him out that the most destruction was due to a villain he created in his last attempt to create more order and security. Also worked with and for Ross, enemy of his supposed friend Bruce Banner (Banner was just not in the film to avoid that coming up).
Ant-Man-regrets being an ex-con and that he can't support or spend time with his daughter, then next film jeopardizes his freedom by joining an illegal faction against the authorized one.

 

[Ovation]

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

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

I don’t want Zimmer doing Marvel movies necessarily, I’m simply annoyed he was replaced by Elfman for Justice League.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

I don’t want Zimmer doing Marvel movies necessarily, I’m simply annoyed he was replaced by Elfman for Justice League.

Zimmer was not replaced by Elfman. Zimmer was never going to do JL, he retired from the superhero genre back in March 2016. JunkieXL was replaced by Elfman.

 

[Anwar]

Iron Man-created Ultron (and for at least most of the film doesn't regret it) who the fight against caused the Avengers' greatest civilian casualties, then next movie complains the group causes too much destruction. No one calls him out that the most destruction was due to a villain he created in his last attempt to create more order and security. Also worked with and for Ross, enemy of his supposed friend Bruce Banner (Banner was just not in the film to avoid that coming up).
Ant-Man-regrets being an ex-con and that he can't support or spend time with his daughter, then next film jeopardizes his freedom by joining an illegal faction against the authorized one.

No one could have predicted that the Mind Stone would do that to the Ultron program, and when his guilt over this showed up in CW it, like his ego, grew out of control to support the Accords. The others said nothing because they all felt some degree of collective guilt too.

He worked with Ross because Ross WAS the Secretary of State, and Bruce wasn't around.

Ant-Man joined up because either way he was in trouble because the Accords meant people would be coming for him no matter what.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

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

Exactly.

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.

Well said, and this applies to other franchises--like the MCU, where there's never been universal praise, but there have been complaints of several of its films being cookie-cutter, repetitious affairs .

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.

Yep.

 

[Anwar]

Well said, and this applies to other franchises--like the MCU, where there's never been universal praise, but there have been complaints of several of its films being cookie-cutter, repetitious affairs .
.[/QUOTE}

That's just because there's been so many of them and because the don't obey genre trends like making the villain the real star of the show.

 

[Greg Cox]

I gotta admit I don't get the complaint that "well, they're just popcorn action flicks."

Um, they're movies about comic-book superheroes. They're supposed to be fun and colorful and exciting. That's the nature of the genre. They're not supposed to be serious art films or searing social dramas or whatever. Nobody goes to a movie titled GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY or ANT-MAN expecting MY DINNER WITH ANDRE or THE SEVENTH SEAL.

One might as well complain that SINGIN' IN THE RAIN is "just" a feel-good musical and not a serious exploration of an industry beset by rapid technological change. Or that RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK is "just" a rollicking pulp adventure story that fails to seriously engage with the intersection of Nazism and religion.

Depends on what you're in the mood for. Sometimes you want high-cuisine. Sometimes you want popcorn--of all things--at the movies. Imagine that.

These are Saturday-matinee adventure flicks on an epic scale . . . and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[Kane_Steel]

Well said, and this applies to other franchises--like the MCU, where there's never been universal praise, but there have been complaints of several of its films being cookie-cutter, repetitious affairs .

Coming from the tiny inconsequential minority.

The numbers prove that the MCU has been getting as close to universal praise on a consistent basis that you're ever going to get. 20 films in. No franchise has never maintained this level of quality control before, that resulted in this much success.

And the success continues to grow. All the Marvel Studios films this year alone are getting strong audience, fan and critic approval, and Marvel Studios is going to do over 4 Billion for these 3 franchise films, this year. That's unprecedented.

Also, Ant-Man 2 reviews are starting to come out, and currently sitting at 90% after over 50 reviews. That is a sign that Ant-Man 2 will have a solid Cinemascore and good Word of Mouth as well. And it's the 20th MCU film....


Marvel has been making all the right moves. Had they done anything different, we wouldn't be at this level of success and acclaim now, and Marvel could be as troubled and damaged as the DCEU.

Feige's leadership and love for Marvel made all the difference here.

 

[Anwar]

Apparently that's not enough for some people. The MCU's success is somehow an affront to folks who think stuff like the FoX-Men movies or Dark Knight are the only worthwhile CBMs.

 

[Kane_Steel]

Apparently that's not enough for some people. The MCU's success is somehow an affront to folks who think stuff like the FoX-Men movies or Dark Knight are the only worthwhile CBMs.

The vast minority.

For Avengers Infinity War to have done over 2 Billion WW, it must have garnered 4 quadrant appeal from varied demographics.

The WOM was strong and the positivity is at an all-time high.

I'll lay odds that Avengers 4 will be even-more successful, because IW leaves audiences wanting Part 2.