Which is what the MCU gives us, if you can get over the fact that they don't go for that creatively bankrupt "grounded" approach.
Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread
- Thread starter bbjeg
- Start date
Which is what the MCU gives us, if you can get over the fact that they don't go for that creatively bankrupt "grounded" approach.
Can you just agree to disagree at this point? I'm tired of getting notifications for irrelevant posts that go nowhere and do nothing.
Yawn. Still crying that of the comic-based films of 2019, no one on earth is saying any actor in a MCU role is Oscar worthy.
Again, Kleenex is your friend.
Well, you tried...
Loki described as a "time traveling man on the run" story.
https://mcuexchange.com/loki-disney-time-travel-elements/
https://mcuexchange.com/loki-disney-time-travel-elements/
Searching for the one-eyed man?
If they're doing a "man on the run" format, it'd be a great in-joke if at some point Loki walks past Mark Ruffalo hitchhiking along the road and carrying a duffel bag while "The Lonely Man" plays on a piano....
I do think it's interesting that a lot of Marvel Studios fans very much dislike the cinematic universe approach when another studio tries to do it with another concept, and I think the most common explanation is that with the others they were too rushed in trying to set it up. To me even if they are more rushed, too rushed, that shouldn't be the difference between loving one and strongly disliking another.
I do think a big part of the success of the films is from the casting of RDJ as Iron Man and Evans as Captain America and frankly that a lot of general viewers did have low expectations for those characters and then grew attached to them.
Huh? The point is that rushing it makes it turn out badly. They dislike it because it isn't good; the rushing is just the reason why it isn't good. Marvel took the time to make individual movies that were good on their own, so that they earned an audience that wanted to see more, and then delivered on what the audience wanted. The other studios just assumed their audiences would embrace a shared universe, so they made first movies that were focused more on setting up that shared universe than about being good in their own right. So the movies just weren't that good, and thus they failed to earn the audience's interest in seeing more.
Keep in mind that Marvel has been guilty of this too. The Thor subplot in Age of Ultron is considered the weakest part of the film because it's more focused on setting up future movies than on telling an interesting story in its own right. You have to get people to like what they're watching now if you want them to be interested in what comes next.
What is this complaint even based on? How many shared universes do you see that 'marvel fans hate'?
Because I hate several DCEU films, but I also love several of them. In my experience, the same is true for most marvel fans. I also love the Godzilla shared universe films in general, though that barely even qualifies as a universe yet. And... what other shared universe even exists yet? I guess you could count X-Men kind of sort of once they expanded to Wolverine and Deadpool solos, but again, lots of us Marvel fans still love X1, X2, First Class, DofP, Logan, the Deadpool movies, and sometimes even The Wolverine...
The only other successful one is The Conjuring cinematic universe. That one's got more films on the way too.
I've no idea what that is.
Horror movies. They're not for everyone.
There are a ton of movies all set in the same universe first seen in the 2013 movie The Conjuring. Conjuring sequels, Annabelle movies, The Nun, Curse of La Llorona, and other upcoming spinoffs all share various human protagonists and demonic villains.
Yeah, I've never seen those and likely never will, but it certainly has nothing to do with hating cinematic universes that aren't Marvel.
Except RDJ and Evans and Johansson, etc...of course, they do REAL acting instead of laughing a lot.
Wasn't his side plot just like 5 minutes worth of screentime?
You've gotta be joking... (pun intended)
I assume the reference is to failed starts at cinematic universes e.g. The Amazing Spider-Man 2, the Tom Cruise The Mummy, and Batman v Superman/Suicide Squad/Justice League. The sort of things where they tried to front-load a whole crossover mythology in the first or second film and neglected to make the film itself good enough that the audience wanted more. I think suarezguy is misinterpreting that as a reflexive rejection of non-Marvel CUs, which is certainly not the case. It's just that any cinematic success will spawn a ton of imitators, most of whom do it badly.
Although there are some more successful CUs out there. There's the sprawling Fast and Furious franchise and the Conjuring thing mentioned above. The Legendary MonsterVerse seems to be doing okay. Even Venom seemed to be enough of a box-office success that the "Sony Universe of Marvel Characters" is still going forward, even though it was critically trashed.
Oh, he's not joking. He's boiling mad at the idea that a DC film's lead actor might be nominated, when over 20 Marvel films' leads have never been considered for that.
You really need to work on getting over this whole "The MCU is amazing and everything SUUUUCKS" thing you've got going, it's getting ridiculous.
It is possible for more than one series of comic book movies to be good. I love the MCU, but I'm more than able to enjoy other comic movies, like the X-Men and DC movies. The MCU is not in any danger from the other series, so there's really no need to get so defensive any time somebody dares to say something nice about a non-MCU comic book movie.
I wouldn't even hold that against the Marvel movies. They aren't designed to be Oscar vehicles. If there was a category for best action movie actor, then MCU actors would have a good chance.