What Marvel films are worth seeing?

[Claudia]

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.

Hm, but customer satisfaction usually shows in the subsequent movie - after all, you have to first watch a movie to dislike it (usually, unless you simply dislike something for the sake of it). I'd rather cite TLJ here - mega-blockbuster but very mixed audience reaction judging from this forum, the customer reviews etc... but AFAIK critics were mainly positive... and the next SW-movie, Solo, flopped (still don't understand why they didn't launch that one at the x-mas holidays because now they take a break for 18 months till ep9? doesn't make much sense IMO).

BTW, just hope they won't can the anthology-movies until they finally get that Kenobi-movie done... don't need the Fett-movie, though.

Is it planned for the MCU-movies to take a break after Infinity War 2? I mean, there's something like a saturation level approaching, within the last 6 months we had 4 new movies, incl Deadpool 2...

 

[Kane_Steel]

Spider-Man: Far From Home comes out after Avengers 4, and has the potential to do a Billion WW, since Spider-man Homecoming did 880M, and this sequel gets a boost from the hype of Avengers 4.

Same way Iron Man 3 got a boost from Avengers, and did 1.215Billion.

 

[Ovation]

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.

I stand corrected. Still not happy though as I’m NOT an Elfman fan. Oh well.

 

[suarezguy]

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.

While the program becoming genocidal was unpredictable, Bruce and, Tony knew, the others already did worry that it could go wrong and be misused. After it does go wrong he insists on making something bigger and more powerful without objections. If his guilt over it came later in CW that seems like at best deflection (claiming the whole group was reckless and indifferent to bystanders) and at worst that he really didn't learned anything from it (he justified creating Ultron on that in the best-case scenario there would be more security and lesser- and worst-case scenarios and abuses shouldn't be considered, likewise again he was trying to marginalize worst-case possibilities (although I guess he thought governmental authority would happen anyway if it was not accepted but it's not clear why accepting it would make it better)). And it's not clear by the end he thinks or we should think signing the Accords was a mistake, the guilt excessive or misapplied.

The others said nothing because they all felt some degree of collective guilt too.

I don't see why they should feel particularly guilty when, from what we were shown, the charge was destruction in general but the destruction had been and, if they hadn't been there, would be caused by the villains as much or more than it was (or there would be domination). The one time they weren't just defending from already and otherwise existing threats, where they did cause the problem, only Tony and Bruce caused it so it makes sense that the public and authorities (and film) should have been more focused on that and who was responsible.

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

I don't think that says much for his loyalty or ethics/judgment of character, if he'll support him despite how bad he was to Bruce (villainous and even reckless, although in CW he seemed a bit less unreasonable though still ruthless) he'll follow pretty much any authority.

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

It didn't feel that way although it wasn't totally clear what the Accords meant; it seemed to apply just to the Avengers, local superheroes (of which there didn't seem to be many) would remain illegal but not more illegal than before and there was no indication there would be "drafting" (on contrary people would be able to leave & retire if they disagreed strongly enough). It seems like he was willing to join a fight/mission without knowing much about it, back Captain America against Iron Man because he liked CA a lot and IM less or not at all and didn't mind breaking the law and becoming a fugitive, saw it as old so not a big deal.
If the Accords did/would apply to all local heroes Spider-Man is a hypocrite and even dense for wanting to have it and enforce it against others (and generally thinking that Tony Stark does and the UN controlling heroes will look out for the little guy) but not sign it or be bound by it himself.

 

[suarezguy]

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.

Well some of the better comics have been more intense and serious and with strong character drama, I think a good example was the story arc Demon in a Bottle (admittedly one of the few IM stories I've read), which as an adaptation Iron Man 2 feels like a butchering; the filmmakers have argued and most fans accepted that it wasn't an adaptation of it at all so shouldn't be judged as one.

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.

But it wasn't just rousing pulp, while it generally wasn't serious the background between Indy & Marion and relationship between Indy & Belloq generally were.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

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.

There's no one kind of superhero comic or superhero film, so the silly such as Guardians / Avengers / Age of Ultron / Ant Man, etc., is not the pattern all other comic book-based films must follow. Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy and MCU's Captain America: The Winter Soldier (to name a few) proved that comic book movies do not have to be glorified episodes of the Power Rangers in order to succeed as comic book-based films.

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.

I've had my criticism of Raiders, but it was not the infantile "roller-coaster ride" that its first sequel would be. The dominant tone of the film was the threat of not only the Nazis attempting to find the Ark, but the Ark itself. Once Jones leaves for Cairo, the film is rather serious, with nearly every main character--Jones, Belloq and Sallah all speaking of the Ark in ways that hint at something larger (and/or darker) than one can imagine. The search and eventual miracle of the Ark was a frightening payoff to the increasingly darker build-up of the last half of the film. That's part of the reason why Raiders was not some pulp adventure (its rip-offs would be, like TV's Tales of the Gold Monkey) and )is the far and away best film in that series, since out of the gates, it had a sinister, world-hangs-in-the-balance edge completely absent from its sequels.

 

[Anwar]

There's no one kind of superhero comic or superhero film, so the silly such as Guardians / Avengers / Age of Ultron / Ant Man, etc., is not the pattern all other comic book-based films must follow. Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy and MCU's Captain America: The Winter Soldier (to name a few) proved that comic book movies do not have to be glorified episodes of the Power Rangers in order to succeed as comic book-based films.

Dark Knight? The film that needed an omnipotent villain and was too ashamed of it's protagonist to make him the lead in his own movie?

Winter Soldier had plenty of ridiculous and over-the-top stuff too.

This whole attitude shows how plenty of people just can't own up and admit they're ashamed of comics. Anytime the hero and villain have a fight with powers or the characters wear proper costumes instead of sell-out stuff like black leather you say it's all "power rangers".

Well some of the better comics have been more intense and serious and with strong character drama, I think a good example was the story arc Demon in a Bottle

Demon in a Bottle had some REALLY silly moments in it.

While the program becoming genocidal was unpredictable, Bruce and, Tony knew, the others already did worry that it could go wrong and be misused. After it does go wrong he insists on making something bigger and more powerful without objections.

There were objections, they almost started fighting over it.

If his guilt over it came later in CW that seems like at best deflection (claiming the whole group was reckless and indifferent to bystanders) and at worst that he really didn't learned anything from it (he justified creating Ultron on that in the best-case scenario there would be more security and lesser- and worst-case scenarios and abuses shouldn't be considered, likewise again he was trying to marginalize worst-case possibilities (although I guess he thought governmental authority would happen anyway if it was not accepted but it's not clear why accepting it would make it better)). And it's not clear by the end he thinks or we should think signing the Accords was a mistake, the guilt excessive or misapplied.

The whole point was that we're still not supposed to be sure in the end if the Accords are right or wrong.

I don't see why they should feel particularly guilty

Heroic individuals usually do, even if things weren't their fault wholly.

I don't think that says much for his loyalty or ethics/judgment of character, if he'll support him despite how bad he was to Bruce (villainous and even reckless, although in CW he seemed a bit less unreasonable though still ruthless) he'll follow pretty much any authority.

His guilt made him decide to defer to him.

It didn't feel that way although it wasn't totally clear what the Accords meant; it seemed to apply just to the Avengers, local superheroes (of which there didn't seem to be many) would remain illegal but not more illegal than before and there was no indication there would be "drafting" (on contrary people would be able to leave & retire if they disagreed strongly enough). It seems like he was willing to join a fight/mission without knowing much about it, back Captain America against Iron Man because he liked CA a lot and IM less or not at all and didn't mind breaking the law and becoming a fugitive, saw it as old so not a big deal.
If the Accords did/would apply to all local heroes Spider-Man is a hypocrite and even dense for wanting to have it and enforce it against others (and generally thinking that Tony Stark does and the UN controlling heroes will look out for the little guy) but not sign it or be bound by it himself.

He's a minor still, that's how he probably got out of it. That an Tony pulling some strings.

 

[suarezguy]

Dark Knight? The film that needed an omnipotent villain and was too ashamed of it's protagonist to make him the lead in his own movie?

I thought it, though better than many other films, was overrated, mostly because it was too a little pretentious-hyperbolic in its themes and OTOH too vague and halfhearted in the stances it took toward them.

There were objections, they almost started fighting over it.

Yes, but Tony still felt there shouldn't be objections.

The whole point was that we're still not supposed to be sure in the end if the Accords are right or wrong.

It seems more like we should think they're wrong as the pro side was controlled by revealed-to-still-be-ruthless Ross and at the end seems pretty disbanded (the Vision never very much for them and really out of it/not focused on/featured in the last part of the film after concluding that he regretted the catastrophic split, Rhodey still for them but admitting he's not sure he hasn't changed his mind, Spider-Man maybe still for them but it's not clear they were really why he was fighting, Black Panther fighting not really for them but due to wanting to kill Bucky, and even Tony seeming to not going to try to recapture the prisoners) while it's presented as righteous that the against side (although they were also actually mostly fighting about something else, the fate of Bucky and trying to stop the plot) is freed from prison and then operating on its own.
If they're right (aside from that they should have been more the focus aside from whether or not to kill/accept the killing of Bucky) then his accepting them was not guilt from what he had done before becoming excessive.

Heroic individuals usually do, even if things weren't their fault wholly.

But Captain America, Falcon and Scarlet Witch didn't seem to feel that guilty (Natasha did have a pretty nuanced, believable reaction including guilt and thus willingness to be more subservient) and it would be odd if they only had enough to manifest in not pointing out that Iron Man was most responsible for the bad the group had done (well Scarlet Witch was also quite responsible for Ultron and the catastrophe in Sokovia but then midway through CW she seemed to feel and act as if she was really really not responsible or guilty including for the most recent problems).

His guilt made him decide to defer to him.

It's a pretty odd guilt that leads to putting more blame for problems on colleagues and to siding with an unethical and even destructive person.

He's a minor still, that's how he probably got out of it. That an Tony pulling some strings.

He still seems hypocritical and dense to support its side but not sign and be bound by it (and yet still act on his own locally). It's pretty unclear why he would support it and its implications given his general strong desire and effort to keep his identity secret; it's at best skimmed and just vaguely implied why he did fight for Iron Man against Captain America and as bad if not worse why Hawkeye and Ant-Man and Scarlet Witch did the inverse.

 

[DigificWriter]

Several things:
1) The Last Jedi is an objectively good movie; The Force Awakens is not

2) The Last Jedi is not even remotely as divisive as perception would have you believe, and those who have most vocally criticized it are a tiny subset of the overall SW fandom and only appear to have a louder and larger presence because of the vdisgusting tactics they've employed to make themselves seen and heard

3) Solo's failure to make a profit was not in any way connected to perceived disappointment with The Last Jedi; general audiences simply didn't choose to go see it

Pulling this back on topic, the vast majority of the MCU fails because every film repeats the same basic narrative beats ad nauseam and bring very little "new" to the table. Kevin Feige and his collaborators have gotten lazy and complacent and have taken it for granted that general audiences will come out and see an MCU movie simply because it's an MCU movie and have therefore stopped caring about narrative consistency and storytelling quality.

 

[Anwar]

Pulling this back on topic, the vast majority of the MCU fails because every film repeats the same basic narrative beats ad nauseam and bring very little "new" to the table.

So like X-Men and DC...in fact, MCU has innovated far better than they have most of the time.

Kevin Feige and his collaborators have gotten lazy and complacent and have taken it for granted that general audiences will come out and see an MCU movie simply because it's an MCU movie and have therefore stopped caring about narrative consistency and storytelling quality.

No, they care. They just have a better idea about narrative consistency and storytelling quality than you do.

 

[DigificWriter]

So like X-Men and DC...in fact, MCU has innovated far better than they have most of the time.

"Nope".

No, they care. They just have a better idea about narrative consistency and storytelling quality than you do.

Still "Nope".

There is not a single film released thus far in either the XMCU or DCEU that can be described as being "formulaic" or "same-y"; this is not the case with the MCU.

 

[Anwar]

"Nope".

Yep, X-Men for the longest time was stuck in the year 2000. It's only now years later they bothered to try something new. Too little too late.

There is not a single film released thus far in either the XMCU or DCEU that can be described as being "formulaic" or "same-y"; this is not the case with the MCU.

X1, X2, DOFP, Apocalypse.

MOS, BvS.

 

[DigificWriter]

Yep, X-Men for the longest time was stuck in the year 2000. It's only now years later they bothered to try something new. Too little too late.



X1, X2, DOFP, Apocalypse.

MOS, BvS.

Endlessly repeating the same nonsense doesnt make it true.

There is nothing at all formulaic about any of the movies you cited based on their actual contents.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

There is not a single film released thus far in either the XMCU or DCEU that can be described as being "formulaic" or "same-y"; this is not the case with the MCU.

Wonder Woman was formulaic in every sense of the word. In fact, it was almost a perfect mash-up of the first Thor amd the first Captain America movie.

Still absolutely loved it, though. But you really need to take those closed-minded blinders off.

Especially with the laughable stance that Last Jedi is any good. What movie did you accidentally see instead that you enjoyed so much?

 

[Anwar]

There is nothing at all formulaic about any of the movies you cited based on their actual contents.

Prove it.

 

[suarezguy]

So like X-Men and DC

X-Men movies have definitely tended to do the same story and beats over and over again and not as well.

They just have a better idea about narrative consistency and storytelling quality than you do.

What narrative consistency? How is it quality or consistent to give characters, even supporting characters, weak motivations for extreme acts and to let them do bad or controversial things and not have to deal with consequences from them, just have them be forgotten or overlooked?

 

[Anwar]

X-Men movies have definitely tended to do the same story and beats over and over again and not as well.

Not to mention how Xavier moronically let Magneto go twice.

What narrative consistency? How is it quality or consistent to give characters, even supporting characters, weak motivations for extreme acts and to let them do bad or controversial things and not have to deal with consequences from them, just have them be forgotten or overlooked?

Consequences for Tony weren't forgotten, seeing how Cap and the others have been fugitives for 2 years, and Thor and Star-Lords' actions led to the death of half the Universe. What else do you want?

 

[suarezguy]

I haven't seen IW but for consequences to come in the seventh movie starring or co-starring Iron Man and fourth movie with the Avengers and for them to be not for him or how other characters regard him but just that his allies-turned-adversaries have to live with a status they reluctantly chose for themselves seems underwhelming.

 

[Anwar]

I haven't seen IW but for consequences to come in the seventh movie starring or co-starring Iron Man and fourth movie with the Avengers and for them to be not for him or how other characters regard him but just that his allies-turned-adversaries have to live with a status they reluctantly chose for themselves seems underwhelming.

What were you expecting, the Outlaw Avengers to go after him or something?

 

[suarezguy]

I was expecting that there be consequences earlier, like that other characters be less willing to join him and more strongly point out the downsides of what he was urging and how it was not so different from his past actions. A little internal regret and change, indication that he was learning from his mistakes, would also go a big way to making it seem that the films weren't just giving him a pass for his actions as would characters who would disagree more strongly not being absent.

And again Iron Man, though he is particularly striking, isn't the only character whose actions seem undermotivated and who doesn't get enough criticism for them.