I don't like this thing, so this thing is a failure.
$9 billion in worldwide ticket sales
But they're generic
$9 BILLION. with a B.
$9 billion in worldwide ticket sales
But they're generic
$9 BILLION. with a B.
I do not like MCU films
- Thread starter Dales
- Start date
A failure? Obviously not. Though quality is something that varies from person to person. In my world, there is no way the Transformers films would make a couple billion dollars between them. But, here we are...
The problem with the Nolan movies is that (like with the Burton films) they're really more about the villain than the Hero. Without Ra's there'd Batman Begins would have little to it, Dark Knight was entirely the Joker/Dent movie, and Bane and Catwoman drive TDKR more than Batman does.
BTW, Marvel had its most successful year ever, beating 2013's numbers.
I, for one, loved the Nolan trilogy over all. To me it felt like an excellent deconstruction of superheroes, kind of the same way DS9 deconstructed TOS/TNG. By contrast, Man of Steel just tried wayyy too hard to be serious and important, and to me it came across as a new type of camp in that regard, with a lot of scowling and anger from a character classically not known for that.
With that said, I think Marvel has some pretty mediocre movies, but the ones I enjoyed the most tended to be the biggest variants to their formula. Their world is a little brighter, a little more sarcastic, but definitely not as cynical, and a bit more celebratory of the source material. I'll grant that it's perhaps not as textured or layered as the Nolan Batfilms, but I'll take something cheesy and escapist (much of Marvel) than pretentious (MoS). And really, that has very little bearing on DC's upcoming movies, which we have no real idea about other than titles, though Suicide Squad looks questionable at best.
With that said, I think Marvel has some pretty mediocre movies, but the ones I enjoyed the most tended to be the biggest variants to their formula. Their world is a little brighter, a little more sarcastic, but definitely not as cynical, and a bit more celebratory of the source material. I'll grant that it's perhaps not as textured or layered as the Nolan Batfilms, but I'll take something cheesy and escapist (much of Marvel) than pretentious (MoS). And really, that has very little bearing on DC's upcoming movies, which we have no real idea about other than titles, though Suicide Squad looks questionable at best.
I was just thinking about my comic-reading days (which ended in late 80s) and the difference between DC and Marvel. Things like X-Men are touted as important because of their focus on character issues, which in theory sounds like a good thing, but in practice too frequently devolves into soap opera and reduces villains to catalysts for main character issues. DC OTOH tended to focus on single heroes rather than teams, which meant more of a focus on developing villains which in turn gave more weight to the story conflict.
As an example of how I see the divide in the movies, Marvel fans generally prefer X2 to the first movie, but I feel the opposite. X1 (?) was based in character journeys and a deep link between hero and villain; X2 was about piling on more characters with flashy powers, lots of biff bam boom and CG phenomena, and soap opera churn rather than deep character development.
All subjective, of course.
My problem with X1 was that they focused on the wrong X-Man.
*coughs and subtly points to avatar*
But shoot it in the right direction
Make making it your intention - ooh yeah
Live those dreams
Scheme those schemes
Got to hit me
Hit me
Hit me with those laser beams
Ow ow ow ow, laser beams
Make making it your intention - ooh yeah
Live those dreams
Scheme those schemes
Got to hit me
Hit me
Hit me with those laser beams
Ow ow ow ow, laser beams
Well that's just great, now you have me hoping that they play this song for Scott in the next movie, since it's set in the 80s (historical accuracy be damned!).
They're not laser beams! /nerd rage
Like I said, historical accuracy be damned!
I am writing interesting stuff.And the rest of us should care about your non-substantiated opinions... why?
Write something interesting or not at all.
you would think I would have a case when when the people who act in marvel films are saying the same thing some choosing not to go on in marvel films because they dont want to make dumb films anymore. Joss whedon and mickey rouke are perfect examples.
I am writing interesting stuff.And the rest of us should care about your non-substantiated opinions... why?
Write something interesting or not at all.
Rourke wanted Iron Man 2 to be all about him, and Whedon was just burnt out from all the work he put into AOU.
I am writing interesting stuff.And the rest of us should care about your non-substantiated opinions... why?
Write something interesting or not at all.
Rourke wanted Iron Man 2 to be all about him, and Whedon was just burnt out from all the work he put into AOU.
that is not true , mickey wanted a villian with depth but marvel told him to act dumb because that us what sells. a villian with depth does not mean he wants the film to be about him. this is what mickey said
He didn't want to play your typical villain:
Mickey sums up MCU pretty nicely. they are one dimensional and mindless films.
Marvel isn't totally wrong wither. I wouldn't say that dumb sells but lots of people do want comic book movies that don't take themselves too seriously.