• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

I do not like MCU films

The Marvel films are better by pretty much any yardstick one would like to employ.

Suicide Squad somehow managed to be worse than BvS. At least the latter tried to say something, right up to the point where it forgot what it was about and went straight into disaster porn.
QFT

I managed to bury my own lead in my concerns around DC/WB in the SS review thread talking at first about the suitability of the DC films to younger viewers. Though, clearly, my concerns there are not shared by others (puritanical me?), the point I was aiming at was rather DC does not know what it wants from its properties, but it does want MONEY. So, it plays both sides of the card - appealing to the adult comic book generation with its grim look, high end gun and psycho-sexual violence AND then dripping it in juvenile teen-style angst and wobbly (at times stereotypical and racist) humour, advertising it to help bring in the younger set to help sell their toys and merchandise. So you end up with products whose tones are ever shifting creating a patchwork products that feel disjointed, fragmented and without a grace.

MoS is by far the best try out of the three released so far, though it (like the other two films) turns into a mess of violence, disaster porn and, more importantly, weird character actions well out of the established wheelhouse of the character.

BvS is the classic example of WB desperately wanting it all - convoluted detective story, high minded ethical drama, prequel to Justice League, monster movie, AND superhero wrestling match. Sadly it all falls apart under its own weight and the extended cut, while edited better, in fact highlights that the film doesn't really have a centre and doesn't know how to combine everything into a contiguous whole.

SS is a mess top to bottom and the more I think on it the worse the taste in my mouth. Ayer has been revelling in 80's machismo his entire career, but without any notion of self deprecation or realisation how much he repeats the same themes again and again (Shane Black is a better example of this form of storytelling, but he understands how ridiculous it is and highlights it in his films). Ayers' toxic masculinity pervades every scene in every film. Sometimes he has something interesting to say (Training Day, End of Watch) but most of the time he simply seems to find thrill in ribald masculism. And yet, clearly WB have put a yoke on him as a million bullets are fired and barely a flesh wound to be found. Another faceless, non human monster that can be obliterated with machine gun to the face with no blood. Like a A-Team episode ramped up to 11. But that is the least of the films problems, with paper thin characters, a wafer-thin plot that actually doesn't make any sense when reviewed, very poor action direction and terrible editing. And the more I think about how he handled Harley (the worst portrayal of a Domestic Violence victim I have seen on screen in a very long time) the worse I feel.

For me, DC/WB needs to figure out what it wants to be. Does it want to be the "grown up" comic book film franchise, or does it want to play in the same sandpit as Marvel, who for all its faults, has found a formula that works, makes money, well received by fans (overall) and gets plenty of positive press. So far, the evidence suggests that they want it both - they want every dollar from the kids as well as the adults, but their storytelling currently does not hit any sweetspot on either front. I appreciate that these are money making machines, but with the MASSIVE pools of cash that are being thrown at these series up upfront, with half finished scripts, poorly judged characterisations, misshapen tones and morals, it screams of a production company throwing everything it has at the wall hoping it will not only stick, but somehow turn into art as it runs down the wall.

I still have hopes for WW. There's a script by Geoff Johns, a strong female TV director, a great cast and a great character that they have (thus far in her limited exposure) found a good balance on. More than anything, I hope Patty Jenkins can bring a complete singular tone to her piece (perhaps a feminist counterpoint to Ayers work), and the studio releases a preferred directors edit of the film rather than wrestle control after shooting.

Marvel has had its fair share of "troubled" directors/visions each of those films are problematic (IM2, Thor 2, Ultron, Ant Man) and each is a lesser film of the franchise, but Kevin Feige's Iron clad grasp over the MCU has given at least structure to its film making and a cohesive tone and a pantheon of pretty damned good comic-book characters that have actually become the cultural icons that Superman and Batman used to be.

Hugo - awaits the onslaught
 
What, you're upset that they didn't resolve the Accords thing in a neat little package? That's not how continuing Universes work.

And yes, Bucky tied into their different beliefs. Tony thinks they need oversight and to be held in check, which is why he goes along with the "Don't question the Government, they say to kill Bucky so we can't interfere." while Steve doesn't think this is a good idea due to conflicting agendas of the people they'll report to.

No I don't want it resolved easily - they barely get into the accords to begin with, that's the problem. Too risky for Marvel to actually have a movie about the civil war. Marvel's cookie cutter tone doesn't really allow for that. So instead the whole movie is a lighthearted chase/fight over Bucky - a case of mistaken identity and frame job. Iron man has a change of heart immediately after seeing the prison - if anyone even remembered the accords thing that far into the movie, since it's brought up so little - and then they fight over his parents.

Bucky is barely connected at all since the elaborate framing plot is what they're really fighting over. In the big battle of the movie, none of them want to hurt each other and only a few of them have even said anything about the oversight debate. They spend more time getting Spiderman's cameo set up or Ant man's gag than getting into it about the accords.

I'm not holding my breath for them to explore it much in the next movie either.. this was their shot and it's a dud.
 
Marvel has had its fair share of "troubled" directors/visions each of those films are problematic (IM2, Thor 2, Ultron, Ant Man) and each is a lesser film of the franchise, but Kevin Feige's Iron clad grasp over the MCU has given at least structure to its film making and a cohesive tone and a pantheon of pretty damned good comic-book characters that have actually become the cultural icons that Superman and Batman used to be.


Of the movies that you had listed, the only one I agree with is "ULTRON". I had no problems with "IRON MAN 2" (which I regard as the best of the bunch), "THOR: THE DARK WORLD" (which I thought had a more complex tale) and "ANT-MAN" (which I believe was one of the most unique Marvel and comic book movies I have ever seen). "ULTRON", on the other hand, I had problems with - along with "IRON MAN 3", "CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR", and "THE INCREDIBLE HULK".

As for the new DC Comics films - "MAN OF STEEL", "BATMAN V. SUPERMAN" and "SUICIDE SQUAD" - I have really enjoyed them. All three of them. I only hope that DC Comics doesn't try to extend its movie universe as long as Marvel as done. Which I think was a mistake.
 
It might be risky, if they actually did that. Unfortunately they are fighting over bucky the whole time, and if you blink you miss the philosophical divide because they barely go into it.

I think they made a point to go quite a bit into it. Not just during the fight, they show you exactly why both sides have valid points. They show them, not just fighting, but discussing it and their motivations for choosing opposite sites. What movie were you watching?

A dull airport fight where no one wants to hurt eachother, and a climactic fight which has absolutely zero to do with anything. A complete let down which I don't know how people can excuse when considering the potential of the story.

You mean a fight that brought together heavy hitters from all across the MCU, debuted scene-stealing Spider-man into the world he belongs in, crippled Rhodey and tore apart the Avengers let you down? Whew, I don't know how they could've pleased you.


Batman and Superman bringing up their parents makes sense. The climactic fight in the Civil War being about Tony's parents is just stupid...

You mean one of the single most juvenile, asinine and classically laughable movie moments in the history of cinema, already the butt of thousands of jokes....the moment when Batman and Superman decided to stop fighting because their mothers were both named Martha? You can't be serious.

I agree, Tony's father being involved in the story was dumb. Not nearly as dumb as "Why'd you say Martha?"
 
You mean one of the single most juvenile, asinine and classically laughable movie moments in the history of cinema, already the butt of thousands of jokes....

You're confusing a circlejerk for general opinion.
Common mistake.
 
You mean one of the single most juvenile, asinine and classically laughable movie moments in the history of cinema, already the butt of thousands of jokes....the moment when Batman and Superman decided to stop fighting because their mothers were both named Martha? You can't be serious.


Well then . . . I guess we can say that between Superman and Batman having mothers with the name "Martha" and Tony never bothering to examine the exposed HYDRA files two years earlier, in which he could have learned what really happened to his parents . . . both Marvel and DC Comics screwed up this year.
 
I love this woman:
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
I think they made a point to go quite a bit into it. Not just during the fight, they show you exactly why both sides have valid points. They show them, not just fighting, but discussing it and their motivations for choosing opposite sites. What movie were you watching?

Yeah what movie was I watching? There's one or two conversations. There is no discussing motivations for each side like you say here. Mostly they talk about Bucky's situation. Spiderman doesn't even express an opinion on the matter - most of them don't.

Now Tony and Captain America do talk about it a little. But by the end of the movie they aren't even fighting over it. There was more tension in the first Avengers movie between them than there was here.

You mean a fight that brought together heavy hitters from all across the MCU, debuted scene-stealing Spider-man into the world he belongs in, crippled Rhodey and tore apart the Avengers let you down? Whew, I don't know how they could've pleased you.

I mean, a fight that actually seems like a fight for one. If it felt like it had any stakes whatsoever or if any of them had compelling motivations besides protect Bucky or not.

And yeah, just because people make a meme out of the Martha scene doesn't make it bad. It's as good of a reason as any for them to stop fighting. Batman's parents are a huge part of his character. Tony Stark's relationship with his parents... not so much. Not when they could have made a movie where they actually have a "civil war.".
 
Last edited:
http://collider.com/suicide-squad-deleted-scenes-jared-leto-david-ayer/
https://twitter.com/DavidAyerMovies/status/760563205068431360

Between Ayer's own words and an anonymous source, I trust Ayer more when he says this is his vision.
That's how the business works. Look at Josh Trank, he went on Twitter to attack the studio for editing his movie and he hasn't directed anything since. He even lost the Star Wars film he was working on. You grin and bear it, then maybe you get a Director's Cut release in a few months. I wouldn't be surprised if we got Ayer's original cut at some point in the near future.

I will say that I don't think David Ayer is very good. I'm not sure where his positive reputation comes from--dude seems to have built a career out of movies that celebrate toxic masculinity and excessive violence, and his direction is adequate at best, not great.
I don't like any of his movies, but he does have a style and actual vision when it comes to direction. There's a difference between someone like Ayer and some one like whoever directs those God's Not Dead movies. If you're going to hire Ayer to direct a movie, you should expect a David Ayer movie. Otherwise just hire some hack who will do whatever you want.

Marvel Studios at least seems to trust their directors for the most part. They hired James Gunn, a man most famous for an early career at Troma and films like Slither and Super. He's really the last person I'd expect to get a big budget film from a studio owned by Disney. But he got it and it feels like one of his movies. He even has all of his regulars even Lloyd Kaufman, who I never would expect to even appear anywhere near a Disney film.

And yeah, just because people make a meme out of the Martha scene doesn't make it bad. It's as good of a reason as any for them to stop fighting. Batman's parents are a huge part of his character. Tony Stark's relationship with his parents... not so much. Not when they could have made a movie where they actually have a "civil war.".
Tony's relationship with his father has been a plot thread since at least Iron Man 2. It even ties into his relationship with Steve because Steve was friends with Howard Stark during the war and Tony grew up hearing about it his whole life.
 
I wouldn't be surprised if we got Ayer's original cut at some point in the near future.

This is Ayer's original cut.
Did you even read the article I linked?
That interview was prior to the negative reviews, prior to to the meddling rumour, where he talks about his editing process and how the movie came about. Why would he lie about it then? Why would he lie about it after, for that matter?
 
I always figured that the reason 'The Spirit ' ended up such a clusterfuck was that Frank Miller kept subconsciously mixing it up with 'The Shadow'. Two properties that don't mesh well at all.

Or Miller's a bit one-note and can now only do name-changed variations on his Sin City comics. You decide!

"The Spirit" is one of the most horrible pieces of equine excrement that I have ever had the misfortune of being subjected to. The characterization, visual style and nihilistic brutality are so far from Eisner's comic that it doesn't even remotely have any business bearing the same name. I hate this atrocity of a movie with a vengeance. I HATE IT! :mad:

Kor
 
This is Ayer's original cut.
Did you even read the article I linked?
That interview was prior to the negative reviews, prior to to the meddling rumour, where he talks about his editing process and how the movie came about. Why would he lie about it then? Why would he lie about it after, for that matter?
If that's his final cut my opinion of him has sunk even lower. That movie is an absolute mess. There are flashbacks to things we already saw and they add nothing to the movie.
 
Tony's relationship with his father has been a plot thread since at least Iron Man 2. It even ties into his relationship with Steve because Steve was friends with Howard Stark during the war and Tony grew up hearing about it his whole life.

All true but unlike the BvS scene, this fight has little relevance to the overall plot, which had already been resolved by the point as he gave up on the oversight idea after seeing the facility. Marvel couldn't pull off a movie where these characters fight eachother over beliefs so it became about unrelated stuff.
 
All true but unlike the BvS scene, this fight has little relevance to the overall plot, which had already been resolved by the point as he gave up on the oversight idea after seeing the facility. Marvel couldn't pull off a movie where these characters fight eachother over beliefs so it became about unrelated stuff.

No, they just realized that the Oversight plot wouldn't be enough to turn them on each other on their own, because they'd be able to work it out. Zemo's outside interference escalated the existing situation.

And if the Oversight thing wasn't still an issue at the end, Steve wouldn't have gone into hiding.

Your problem is that you think it's just about the Oversight issue, that was just one plotline in the film.
 
No, they just realized that the Oversight plot wouldn't be enough to turn them on each other on their own, because they'd be able to work it out. Zemo's outside interference escalated the existing situation.

It was in the comics. They can't just work it out and that's why it's interesting, that's why it's a civil war. But here they took that good idea and mushed it with the bucky mistaken identity thing driving the plot so nothing is really explored here with these characters. The plot they molded it into with the bad guy manipulating everybody is not really that great.. in light of how good the story could have been.

He went into hiding but Iron Man already gave up on the idea so the main conflict is pretty much over.
 
Last edited:
It was in the comics.

The comic book story was widely acknowledged to be crap, including by those who wrote it.

They can't just work it out and that's why it's interesting, that's why it's a civil war.

They can't work it out if they were incompetents, instead of mature people who didn't start fighting at the blink of an eye. This isn't DC.

The plot they molded it into with the bad guy manipulating everybody is not really that great.. in light of how good the story could have been.

If you were expecting them to just start killing each other because of "reasons", maybe.

He went into hiding but Iron Man already gave up on the idea so the main conflict is pretty much over.

He didn't give up on the idea, otherwise he'd have tried to get the others released himself or he'd be speaking out against the Accords later. He's still with the idea.
 
It was in the comics. They can't just work it out and that's why it's interesting, that's why it's a civil war.

The movie made changes for the better and avoided many of the mistakes of the comic, like how in the book Tony became an almost irredeemable villain (that they had to eventually wipe his mind to fix him), a place I'm glad the movies took care to avoid and kept both sides very sympathetic.

Saying something was a certain way in the comics often makes for an awful argument, especially when talking of most of Marvels crossover storylines.
 
If the comic was so bad why make a movie called Civil War? I have no allegiance to comics over movies, but the story there was much much better. That's why my expectation was a movie somewhere on that level. Doesn't matter to me whether the comics writers dislike their own work, what they did there is better. I'll take a villainous Tony Stark over two sides with no real conflict and a giant airport brawl with no stakes.

Still, they could have made changes but still focus on the philosophical difference that caused the civil war, but that's not there either. A movie about nothing, and not in the fun Seinfeld way.

They can't work it out if they were incompetents, instead of mature people who didn't start fighting at the blink of an eye. This isn't DC.

So you expect them to be able to work out a huge philosophical difference, but are ok with getting into a giant brawl based on a little manipulation & mistaken identity? I don't see how fighting over the actual important issue is less mature..
 
Last edited:
The book wasn't better, Marvel's events are mostly misses (and have been for longer than not), thankfully they just used the same title with a few shared plot points. There's a reason almost everything done in the comics were reverted back to status quo quicker than most other stories, or at least a better one status quo (Spider-Man's unmasking, everything dealing with Tony, etc).

And there's no way Marvel wants to turn their golden goose of Tony Stark into a villain. No way at all, for one to think that would happen is kinda silly.
 
This is Ayer's original cut.
Did you even read the article I linked?
That interview was prior to the negative reviews, prior to to the meddling rumour, where he talks about his editing process and how the movie came about. Why would he lie about it then? Why would he lie about it after, for that matter?
The impression I got was DC did get fairly hands on with the editing, but worked with Ayer rather than completely pushing him aside and doing it all themselves.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top