I do not like MCU films
- Thread starter Dales
- Start date
I do not like green eggs and ham.
I do not like them, Sam I am.
MCU's a-ok. I'm hyped for what Fox and WB do in the future. Competition breeds excellence, and I think we're in for more good films going forward.
But Iron Man 2 also has things like Tony's disease, and him creating new element, that add nothing to the film.
Plus the plugs for the upcoming Avengers movie, the friction between Stark and Hammer, Tony and Pepper's issues, and Rhodey becoming War Machine. Iron Man 2 was stuffed with a lot of things that didn't really need to be included.
Mickey Rourke's performance being cut short, was just a casualty of the mandates Marvel was making.
I feel the same way about Age of Ultron too.
Okay.
Noted.
Feel better getting that off your mind?
I really like them. And disagree with your entire post.
I prefer them to Nolan's Batman films and Singer's X-Men films, but more the former. Things is I don't hate those, I just find them less re-watchable.
I feel better.
Burton's Batman isn't a "dumb" movie? Come on.
And Nolan's Batman Begins and TDKR were pretty darn stupid, too. A tainted water supply becomes poisoned when vaporized, but apparently no one noticed showers and boiling water becoming deadly over the course of several days? A lone billionaire spends years on the other side of the world "studying the criminal mind?" Hint, jackass: people turn to crime when they feel they have a lack of legitimate and safe law-abiding potential, and when surrounded by other criminals. Not that complicated. Oh, and a secret society of ninjas that periodically destroy major cities for being too corrupt (because we all know no corruption ever results from large-scale destruction and emergencies)? That's a sixth-grader's idea of a cool villain if I ever heard one. And how about virtually every cop in Gotham hustling into an obvious ambush... because, apart from being utter morons, all cops are on duty at the same time, right?
The MCU is easy to attack on account of its uniform house style, but make no mistake: just because other comic book movies may have different styles, some which ape the look and feel of genuinely sophisticated movies (cough, Nolan, cough) doesn't mean they're not every bit as ludicrous and vapid.
The way Rourke talks, it does. He was upset that the film actually was about Tony Stark.
This whole criticism of the MCU having "lame" villains is simply because comic book movies have usually always been more about their villains than their heroes. MCU actually bothers focusing on the hero as more than just someone who opposes the villain, which is confusing for the traditionalists.
Prime example is TDK, wherein the Joker is nigh-omnipotent. But no one complains about this, mainly because it's considered bad taste to criticize dead actors.
Villains are important though. They are supposed to be threatening and give the hero a chance to be brave.
The lion's share of MCU villains have been one-dimensional punching bags, with little motivation for their actions.
Blonsky wants to fight the Hulk, so he forces Stein to make him into the Abomination.
Whiplash wants to revenge himself on Tony, for something Tony's father did, and Justin Hammer is a cream puff who indulges Vanko.
Aldrich Killian wanted Pepper Potts as a trophy and he wanted to "own the war on terror".
Malekith and Ronan have grudges against respective planets and seek to destroy them using Infinity Stones.
Ultron wanted to evolve and crash a meteor into Earth.
Yellowjacket and Obadiah wanted to use the super suits of their rivals, in order to make money.
With the exception to Alexander Pierce, Johann Schmidt and Loki, all the other Marvel villains come off as generic cookie cutter bad guys. You are correct, that Marvel focuses a lot on their heroes, but an effect of that is the villains lacking depth.
I have to agree. It's ironic on a certain level because for years, Marvel was praised for having excellent villains, and for certainly living up to the practice that a good hero is defined by their villain. In the comics, Red Skull, Dr. Doom, Magneto, and Loki were prime examples, and Stan Lee often talked about the value of delaying the big fight in order to increase the personal stakes, by delving into the villain. Even a dumb brute like Juggernaut got to be humanized when it turned out that he was a victim of childhood abuse and bullying. The MCU movies, on the other hand, kind of do the opposite by reducing the villains into someone to just fight, and oftentimes just evil copies of the hero.
The way Fox Studios has handled Magneto, I think, is superior to the way the MCU generally treats its villains, and hence why keeps coming back movie-after-movie, no matter the threat. Raimi also did a great job with Otto Octavius.
If the hero is a flawed and interesting enough character, and there's enough internal conflict between the Hero and others on his side then the villain doesn't need to be more than a plot device.
Look at Ghostbusters, they didn't need the villain to steal the show to be a good movie.
Most of them have believable motivations, the movies just don't forget they're really about the heroes.
If the story is really about the hero, then the villains don't really need much focus.
Fox Magneto is a great example of the director really caring more about the villain instead of the hero(es).
I found Rourke's Vanko kind of unpleasant to watch anyway, so I don't mind if some of his material got trimmed.
For the record, I almost posted a lame Dr. Seuss joke several days back, but like Vanko's alleged depth, it wound up on the floor.
For the record, I almost posted a lame Dr. Seuss joke several days back, but like Vanko's alleged depth, it wound up on the floor.
Yes and no. Yes, the director cares about the villain, but frankly, the X-Men movie franchise as a whole has typically been "Wolverine and Friends." Even if you count a cameo or how Logan was removed from the battlefield early in the climax of DoFP, and how Magneto's been played by two primary actors, Jackman-as-Logan has roughly 3x the screen time of Magneto.
Winter Soldier was actually my least favourite MCU film. While I haven't always walked out of all of them 100% satisfied, that was one I actually didn't enjoy at all. Mind you, the promotional material was part of the problem, particularly if you see the trailer for the movie you can pretty much figure out the ending twenty minutes in.
I've never been into comics, so I have no real attachment to the stories or franchises (or even comic book films in general). I've found the MCU films to be, on average, mostly ... average ... middling in terms of quality, and better than average in terms of entertainment (when compared to other sci-fi/fantasy fare). I don't look forward to every installment but will watch the films that seem appealing to me. I would say that, at this point, my favorite was CA: TWS because I enjoyed how the characters were portrayed. But that wasn't at the same level as TDK, Spider-Man 2, X2, and was, maybe on par with Burton's Batman.
Bottom line: They can be entertaining but are (for me), mostly, disposable.
Bottom line: They can be entertaining but are (for me), mostly, disposable.
Same for me as well, marvel may be making bad villains because they do not want to scare children which is what their films caters too to the most thanks to disney.
Umm... I just watched 400 dudes get slaughtered in The Winter Soldier. Including a guy being shot twice in the chest at close range. Whether you personally like them or not, these movies haven't been aimed at children.
No, they just want the story to be about the hero instead of the villain.
If X-Men was made by the MCU, they'd actually bother focusing on more than Wolverine and Xavier and have the plot be driven more by internal conflict between the X-Men. And they'd probably use someone else as the villain other than Magneto.