Welcome to the main discussion thread for the Marvel Cinematic Universe! This pinned post is here to establish some basic guidelines. All of the Media Forum rules
still apply.
- This thread is for talking about the live-action films, TV shows, animated works, and related content that use the Marvel brand, currently owned by Disney.
- While mild digressions are okay, discussion of the comic books should go in this thread
. Extended digressions may be thumped as off-topic.
- Spoilers for new releases should not be discussed without spoiler tagging for at least two weeks. Rather, each title should have a dedicated thread where that sort of conversation is held. We can mention new releases in a general sense, but please be courteous to people who don't want to be spoiled.
If you're posting tagged spoilers, make sure that the film or series is clearly identified outside the spoiler tagging. People need to know what will be spoiled before they choose to read the post.
Edited by Mrph1 on Jul 29th 2024 at 3:09:00 PM
Thor in that case. The first two Iron Man movies had a bunch of behind the scenes problems with the actors for the villains that discouraged some of their friends and others from entering the MCU. Thor showed them that serious characters had a place.
Also TDK is the deconstructor. BB is pretty much a normal superhero movie following the hero's journey.
edited 20th Mar '16 8:26:19 AM by LordofLore
Adam West's Batman was the original cool to be in a superhero thing media
Forever liveblogging the AvengersWhen it come to movies, I think spidermwan was the one who made superheroe movies "cool" by showing how special efect can allow more cool stuff than before, Iron man 1 didnt just adapt a chararter or story for the comic but create their own universe which is a monumental task along the way, with batman trilogy I think it show Super heroe series can be serious and epic in their own way.
And speaking of it, I think many comparation with DC and Marvel come from their narrative perpectives, Marvel its seen as chararter focus and less "serious" who just want their their hero to do awsome stuff while DC is going for the epic strugle and try to create great narrative, this create the seteriotype(specially with fanboys) that Marvel is just a michael bay movie(the plot dosent matter shit but damn it looks awsome!) and DC being like the matrix(dark for not reason, pretentious speeches,bland chararters,etc)
Granted, there is some truth on that but most of the time is just rubish.
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"I think there is a big difference between some reasonably well-known actors agree to star in a Burton or Nolan movie and freaking Robert Redford taking a role in Captain America movie directed by some guys who have previously done TV. If Marvel announces tomorrow that Meryl Streep agreed to play the role of Enchantress, I wouldn't be surprised at all.
![]()
Both Pov's are really nonsensical. For starters, both Marvel and DC have dabbled in more or less everything at one point. So if we want to make out differences, we should stick to the current movies. I agree that so far the Marvel movies have been more character driven, but that certainly doesn't make them less serious. I mean, what is more serious than the examination of the human psyche? A popcorn movie is about explosions. That is not what Marvel movies are about at all (though they do really well with their action scenes), it is about flawed people making decisions which change the world. I also agree that Warner (more than DC) tries to go philosophical in their Superhero movies, resulting in pieces which are less about the characters and more about symbolism. That doesn't make them automatically better or more serious.
edited 20th Mar '16 9:29:15 AM by Swanpride
Jack Nicholson was already a massive star by the time he did Batman, which is why he got such a huge salary for the movie. As was Marlon Brando when he played Jor-El.
![]()
You shouldn't put so much stock in what other people think. Just about everything you post in this thread is you being nervous or worried about what other people think of the MCU, and it shouldn't matter.
edited 20th Mar '16 9:28:25 AM by comicwriter
I'd say Winter Soldier and Iron Man 3 are both the depthy equivalent of anything DC has and that's just off the top of my head
You could make a similar claim for Loki's subplot in Thor 1
It really doesn't matter though. People are always going to be stating inaccurate things about things you like
Forever liveblogging the AvengersIron Man 3's interesting point is kinda diminished by its terrible villain and myriad of issues (as was Loki's subplot in Thor 1). Winter Soldier is legit though.
I don't think it's that accurate to make sweeping comparisons between the two considering the second film in the DCEU is only just now coming out. Maybe when both it and Suicide Squad are out we can make a more definitive comparison.
edited 20th Mar '16 9:30:33 AM by wehrmacht
![]()
Iron Man 3 is for me the Man of Steel of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I know and understand what the movie was going for, and I really applaud to some of the ideas which it was trying to put across (especially regarding the Mandarin twist), but the execution is very questionable. It only works because it is connected to a string of good movies.
I took the Dark Knight trilogy into consideration. Even Green Lantern had shades of the "we need a deeper meaning" approach.
edited 20th Mar '16 9:32:40 AM by Swanpride
I haven't seen 2 in years but I just remember it being underwhelming. Tony has this whole self-destruction issue going on, and meanwhile there's this completely superfluous and irrelevant bad guy out there doing stuff because it's a superhero movie so of course there is one. I'd have to watch it again to pinpoint my issues with it more accurately, but while it's a fun enough popcorn movie it is not exactly a standout film in the MCU.
Iron Man 3 we've gone over several times from multiple angles.
edited 20th Mar '16 9:58:44 AM by wehrmacht
" what is more serious than the examination of the human psyche? "
Is less that and more "how x thing afect the chararter" which is good but sometimes can annoy people because everyone else become a prop to the chararter, or is that permise dosent work the whole movie fall out, Iron man 2 is a good example: Tony was dying and acting reckless, whisplash was somewhere and made aliance with Hammer and so own....the result? Tony instead act like rock star for most of the film and get away with one of the awfull asspull ever managing to get away with his crap, Whisplash is just reduce to another generic villian who is killed in barely 5 minutes while Hammer is reduce to a joke
The same can be said by Thor and Thor 2, where him learing about not being a jerkass sound shallow compared with Loki drama about who he is.
Or Antman where the moral conflict is pretty much about Hank using someone else to fit his mistake because he dosent trust her competent daughter.....yeah.
Or Ultron where everyone sort of forget Scarlet witch role of brainwashed the avengers and relase Hulk in not-describe-african-coast, because she feel bad about it...
![]()
![]()
Actually, I feel green lantern try to not be so serious and after that faliure it convince DC to go for the Batman rute instead
edited 20th Mar '16 9:53:21 AM by unknowing
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"I felt underwhelmed by the fact that Green Lantern was so comedic. It wasn't really what I wanted the movie to be, so that's part of my dislike for it and i'll fully admit that might be unfair, but on its own I just didn't find most of it funny. It felt like the comedy was undercutting the movie instead of contributing positively to it.
Also, having a character-driven movie is perfectly fine, but you do need a really strong main character for it to really shine. That sounds obvious and it is but it's something I feel Marvel has been a bit inconsistent with. Tony and Steve are the standout successes, but Thor and Hulk weren't really compelling enough to carry their movies. If it wasn't for Loki, Thor would basically have no redeeming features. Scott Lang and the Got G are in a middle ground where they work but aren't necessarily exceptional.
edited 20th Mar '16 9:57:43 AM by wehrmacht
Yeah the general issue people have with IM 2 and IM 3 is that they both lack what made the first movie so great: the dramatic focus. They hit it big with comedy, action and spectacle, but they fizzle out when it comes to the actuall dramatic arc of the main character.
IM 3 we've discussed to death, but IM 2 for instance has the problem of Justin Hammer being a laughably absurd villain that doesn't really mesh with Tony's main arc of self-destructive tendencies and he just ends up like a overly long gag with no punchline. The other villain, Ivan Vanko is a fascinating character on paper, but the movie gives him far too little screentime (instead delegating it to Justin Hammer for some godforsaken reason) and while he does get some cool moments ("there will be blood in the water and the sharks will come") he never gets to fulfill his potential.
So basically IM 2's core dramatic conflict (Tony being self destructive) and the main villain (Ivan Vanko, Tony's Evil Counterpart trying to avenge his father) are interesting elements undercut by the movie's lack of focus on them.
"All you Fascists bound to lose."![]()
If I remenber well, the actor who play whisplash complain about how Marvel dosent want deep or menicing villians at all, aparenly it was his idea of him speaking russian or vanko having a bird and other stuff in order to give them more dept...and it was all cut
Another thing is both Tony in iron man 2 and Thor in both movie is their personal arc feel shallow: Tony dosent feel self destructive, is just him being a party boy and refusing to explain why until a deus ex machina save him without having to learn anything, Thor in other hand look like some reversed teenager movie: the jerkjock have to learn to not being much of Jerk while the Nerd(Loki) become more and more stress and extremist, in the end one is suck into the space while the other sort of learn something while gaining a girlfriend....
Antman is not bad but is the quintesencial marvel movie in that respect: we focus in Scoot and Hank, short ingored the fact her daughter is better than him and the villian is REALLY generic. is a fun movie but it feel like phase 1 movie who got to late.
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"The stupid bird is for me a symbol of what didn't work in Iron Man 2 (which I like better than most, but I am not obvious to it's flaws). There are too many storylines in it, and none of them is fully realized. And that is not because of the presence of Nick Fury or Black Widow. They mostly mesh well into the existing construct. It is the fact that Whiplash revenge fantasy doesn't mesh at all with the theme of Tony being about to die and coming to grips with his daddy issues and both of those plots don't mesh with the subplot of the government wanting Tony's suit and Rhodey actually kind of giving it to them. Each one of those could have filled a whole movie.
But, to be fair, that was early on. Marvel was still trying to figure this stuff with the continuity out. They had a way better understanding for it by the time The Winter Soldier was made.
I also don't think that the strength of the character is the question here, but how well is the character realized and how well does the actual arc correspond to that. We are ready to forgive some shoddy writing for Tony, because the first movie was so good. It is more difficult with Thor, because the movie was flawed. With Ant-man, the problem is more that this movie is a little bit unfocussed due to the production story. I can't proof it, but I suspect that Wright wanted a Mentor/Mentee story, which was later changed into the (way better btw) father/Daughter theme.
![]()
![]()
![]()
I don't really get your distaste for Thor's character arc. I don't find the jerk jock and nedy comparison to function, because well, that's not what the story is about at all. These aren't random students with bullying in a high school. These are the heirs of a ancient and proud nation that is in crisis.
It's about learning what it means to rule, leading a people, mingling with your subjects and acquiring their trust. Brows Held High once explained that Thor, as a concept, is about monarchy. And I agree.
Thor's arc is that of the arrogant and prideful prince who doesn't understand his people. He only cares about his pride, and focuses primarily on his rights rather than his responsabilities as a ruler. So his arc is that he gets all his rights torn from him, thrown to mingle with the commoners (in this case to mingle with Midgard, but the purpose is the same) and through forming a bond with the commoners, he acquires a kinship with them, he falls in love with them, he drinks with them, he fights for them. The end to Thor's journey is learning the ultimate adage of a (ideal) King: That the lives of his people and his nation matter infinitely more than his own, and so he sacrifices himself for them and through this act he becomes the righteful ruler.
Loki's arc meanwhile is built to counter this, he wishes to rule but instead of bonding with his people and acquiring kinship with them as Thor does to understand their lives and their plight and subsequently better rule them, he does this by subtefurge, by treachery, by obscuring and altering the facts and leading people astray, and finally by outright usurping the throne from its righteful ruler and putting himself on a pedestal. Deep down he doesn't really give much of a shit about his people or rulling them correctly. It's All About Me for Loki, even if indirectly (i.e "it's all about how my father perceives me, or how I want my father to perceive me").
So in other words, it's about rulling.
edited 20th Mar '16 11:38:01 AM by Gaon
"All you Fascists bound to lose."

I'd say Batman Begins made it "cool" to be in superhero movies.