What Marvel films are worth seeing?

[Tallguy]

I'd say that the overarching thread of the MCU is consequences for Tony. He goes from Iron Man 2 where the Iron Man is his and he does not need or want oversight to Civil War where he (and if it's "he" then it has to be "they") need to be under control. He course corrects on that over the run of Civil War. (You never do get to see Tony react to the whole dissolution of SHIELD.)

In CW Ross shows the team New York (started because SHIELD was working on the Tesseract), Arlington (not SHIELD or the Avenger's doing), and Sokovia (caused ultimately by Tony and Bruce). So they don't have much pushback in the "We were stopping the bad guys!" realm.

The whole plot of CW is that not everyone will follow Tony.

I'd say Tony's motivations are the most clear in the MCU. Everyone else has somewhat larger motivations. More of the "With Great Power yada yada" variety. After Tony would be Steve. Being Captain America started out as more clear cut. Then it's become more and more complex.

 

[suarezguy]

I'd say that the overarching thread of the MCU is consequences for Tony. He goes from Iron Man 2 where the Iron Man is his and he does not need or want oversight to Civil War where he (and if it's "he" then it has to be "they") need to be under control. He course corrects on that over the run of Civil War. (You never do get to see Tony react to the whole dissolution of SHIELD.)

Yes the other main or more present thread/arc was that Captain America became disillusioned with SHIELD and its ideas and its real controllers' ideas of increasing surveillance, firepower and social control. For Tony to just not react to that his friend learned and was revolted that that SHIELD was controlled by Hydra and they had wanted to increase surveillance to have social control (and had nearly succeeded) and instead Tony want to have his own surveillance-response system in AoU and believe that that it could be misused was not worthy of discussion ...

Also War Machine defends accepting submission to the UN in part because it's not SHIELD, the World Security Counsel or Hydra and Captain America doesn't respond that they DID trust the first two and because they DID *seem* trustworthy (and partly *were* good but ultimately weren't), just that authorities can be unfair and biased and superheroes themselves are the best deciders, it's better to just never submit to authority then to submit to it until it tells you to do something unjust and then resign. I think it's a pretty weak yet extreme position and motivation for it rather than what could justify his distrust and resistance.

In CW Ross shows the team New York (started because SHIELD was working on the Tesseract), Arlington (not SHIELD or the Avenger's doing), and Sokovia (caused ultimately by Tony and Bruce). So they don't have much pushback in the "We were stopping the bad guys!" realm.

With the first battle it's an interesting idea but still seems a stretch that the Avengers should be considered responsible for what SHIELD did before or independent from them (I guess Black Widow always being an agent and Cap or the whole team joining and working with it does give them some linkage and responsibility). With the third Tony doesn't have that but the rest of the group aside from Scarlet Witch does although I guess it's somewhat interesting if the group really thinking of itself as a team without specific blame & responsibility then ultimately leads to them becoming really divided and estranged.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

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.

Agreed; each DCEU film has its own narrative identity, although sharing the same universe. None repeat the same structure or basic plot in the way the MCU does with regularity (e.g., Black Panther is in too many key points, a remake of the first Thor film and Dr. Strange used the first Iron Man as its template) which is why there's not much distinctive in this franchise.

Endlessly repeating the same nonsense doesnt make it true.

It does when one acts as an unpaid, eternal cheerleader for a movie franchise.

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

True, but that's ignored in favor of off-in-never-never-land attacks on anything that's not the Marvel Some Days / Saturday-Morning-Cartoon-Other Days Cinematic Universe.

 

[Tallguy]

 

[Kane_Steel]

Agreed; each DCEU film has its own narrative identity, although sharing the same universe. None repeat the same structure or basic plot in the way the MCU does with regularity (e.g., Black Panther is in too many key points, a remake of the first Thor film and Dr. Strange used the first Iron Man as its template) which is why there's not much distinctive in this franchise.

The truth is that has more to do with all the background problems behind the scenes at WB/DC and the constant changing of hands after most films fail to meet expectations. They are reactionary.

MCU has the opposite approach. Producer-driven, under a single vision. Organized. Coherent.

It's your opinion which has worked better, but the numbers and results speak for themselves; box office, critically, and fan and general audience-wise.

 

[suarezguy]

To me, in terms of the content, the Avengers splitting up in their third movie and Superman dying in his second movie actually seem like pretty similar approaches, both bad, odd that they have been regarded and reacted to pretty differently.

 

[Skipper]

Nobody goes to a movie titled GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY or ANT-MAN expecting MY DINNER WITH ANDRE or THE SEVENTH SEAL.

I googled it, and now I have to watch it!

 

[Kane_Steel]

To me, in terms of the content, the Avengers splitting up in their third movie and Superman dying in his second movie actually seem like pretty similar approaches, both bad, odd that they have been regarded and reacted to pretty differently.

Nobody cared about Superman dying in BVS, because general audiences didn't care for the Snyder/Cavill Superman to begin with.

You can't force audiences to care if they haven't connected with the character.

The MCU characters have connected, so the deaths have been impactful. Heck, even this:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Was more effective and emotionally impactful than the Superman 'death' in BVS.

 

[Anwar]

Agreed; each DCEU film has its own narrative identity

Demonstrate. There's only been 5 of them compared to the MCU's 20.

 

[Greg Cox]

I googled it, and now I have to watch it!

It's actually a very absorbing movie if you're in the right frame of mind. And there's even a Trek connection since it stars Wallace Shawn, aka the Grand Nagus, long before DS9 was a thing.

 

[DigificWriter]

Nobody cared about Superman dying in BVS, because general audiences didn't care for the Snyder/Cavill Superman to begin with.

Do not presume that your opinions are universally shared.

Just because you don't care about Cavill's Superman doesn't mean that there aren't those out there who do.

 

[Anwar]

Do not presume that your opinions are universally shared.

Just because you don't care about Cavill's Superman doesn't mean that there aren't those out there who do.

I can presume people didn't care because the ending of the movie itself showed he was still alive.

 

[DigificWriter]

I can presume people didn't care because the ending of the movie itself showed he was still alive.

No; it showed that he could potentially be resurrected, just like the Christ figure he's portrayed as.

Time and observance have convinced me that those who criticize the DCEU - particularly MoS, BvS, and to a lesser degree JL - have willingly chosen to ignore the actual contents of those films and just complain about what they aren't (the MCU's brightly-colored, cookie-cutter, formulaic fluff) instead of celebrating them for what they are (thought-provoking and entertaining adaptations of the "modern myths" from which they draw their inspiration that are insanely "deep" and rewarchable).

 

[Tallguy]

Easily the biggest argument "against" the DCEU, certainly against it's execution, was that they rushed it. I mean even looking at the entirety of the MCU's phase 1, it was 4 hero movies and a sequel. THEN the Avengers.

DC said "WE WANT IT NOW!" I liked Man of Steel. And it was a good opening. They should have done another one before trying to introduce two major heroes two more villains AND kill Superman.

IMHO.

To me, in terms of the content, the Avengers splitting up in their third movie and Superman dying in his second movie actually seem like pretty similar approaches, both bad, odd that they have been regarded and reacted to pretty differently.

It was the third Avengers movie but it was the NINETEENTH MCU movie. Unless you're talking about Civil War in which case that would be, um... 16th?

 

[Kane_Steel]

Do not presume that your opinions are universally shared.

Just because you don't care about Cavill's Superman doesn't mean that there aren't those out there who do.

My opinions are shared by the majority. Not enough care about Cavill's Superman. He is divisive.

If enough cared, his big return in JL would have drawn better audience numbers. Instead, JL flopped and had really weak WOM.

Rebooting Superman in the next decade is probably their best bet. Even narratively, you can't really continue his story. Snyder has made some really poor decisions.

 

[DigificWriter]

Easily the biggest argument "against" the DCEU, certainly against it's execution, was that they rushed it. I mean even looking at the entirety of the MCU's phase 1, it was 4 hero movies and a sequel. THEN the Avengers.

DC said "WE WANT IT NOW!" I liked Man of Steel. And it was a good opening. They should have done another one before trying to introduce two major heroes two more villains AND kill Superman.

IMHO.

This line of thinking presumes that Marvel's approach is the right way and the only way to build a "shared universe", which just isn't true.

My opinions are shared by the majority. Not enough care about Cavill's Superman. He is divisive.

If enough cared, his big return in JL would have drawn better audience numbers. Instead, JL flopped and had really weak WOM.

Rebooting Superman in the next decade is probably their best bet. Even narratively, you can't really continue his story. Snyder has made some really poor decisions.

I disagree, and do not believe that the facts support your conclusion.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

This line of thinking presumes that Marvel's approach is the right way and the only way to build a "shared universe", which just isn't true.



I disagree, and do not believe that the facts support your conclusion.

You're right that there are more possible ways to make a shared universe than just what Marvel has done.

But it doesn't change the fact that DC's approach HAS been rushed, overly reactive and borderline incoherent. In the hands of better filmmakers (or maybe just with less studio interference), their approach could conceivably have worked. As things are, though, it just didn't.

And for the record, I honestly do like Cavill's Superman, but BvS didn't do him any favors and JL literally threw him under a bus. And in my personal experience, Kane is certainly correct in his assertion that most people never really warmed up to him.

 

[DigificWriter]

But it doesn't change the fact that DC's approach HAS been rushed, overly reactive and borderline incoherent.

The only thing factual about this statement is that DC has been overly reactive, but what they've been overly reactive TO is the negativity that's been leveled against their approach, particularly by critics, which is a mistake and has contributed to the perception that there are more things "wrong" with the DCEU than there actually are.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

The only thing factual about this statement is that DC has been overly reactive, but what they've been overly reactive TO is the negativity that's been leveled against their approach, particularly by critics, which is a mistake and has contributed to the perception that there are more things "wrong" with the DCEU than there actually are.

I disagree. They have been overly reactive to negative criticism, and as a result of that they have massively rushed Superman's character development by skipping MOS 2 (which could've actually dealt with the MANY important hanging threads left over from that movie) and going straight to BvS so that they could do his grand, world shattering death long before they had ever laid any groundwork to give it actual gravitas.

They have also rushed Wonder Woman into the movies before they really knew what they wanted her backstory to be, leading to dissonance between her treatment in her own movie and the team up movies.

They have forced the Suicide Squad into a narrative role that really doesn't make any sense for them because they were afraid of being too dark again (and simultaneously chose for no apparent reason to make all the established heroes look completely MIA during arguably the second or third most dangerous event the planet had ever seen at that point).

And they have 'course corrected' Justice League into a horrific frankenstein of a movie that doesn't work as an action, a drama or a comedy, turns Batman into a completely different person, and totally
botches the capstone of Superman's 'development' into a more mature hero by trying to both erase his BvS personality yet also still devoting an entire scene to showing it off with no transition to speak of between the two. Not to mention literally rushing the movie into theaters just to meet a release date even though the cgi that underpins the entire movie is complete and utter trash.

 

[DigificWriter]

^ They didn't "skip" Man of Steel 2 because Batman vs Superman is Man of Steel 2.