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
I heard a lot of people complained about jokes and the same-iness of the jokes taking away any sense of drama, as well as undeveloped villains except Loki.
The Protomen enhanced my life.I remember a time when people said the DCEU was better because it offered its directors more individual creative freedom than the MCU. While I agree that the MCU is overly safe in cutting out any characterization or plot elements that might be remotely controversial, as it turns out sometime a little more self-restraint is sometimes necessary. And besides that first claim isn't even true considering all the Executive Meddling that's been revealed to go on with most DCEU films outside of Wonder Woman.
The MCU is definitely a conservative franchise, insofar as it modifies the franchise in response to criticisms at a gradual but sure pace.
edited 25th Nov '17 2:07:38 PM by AlleyOop
The similarities with Iron Main hail from the fact it's a story involving a one-of-a-kind science, a genius scientist trying to atone for his past mistakes and a ruthless CEO who ends up battling the hero with an evil knockoff of his superpowered costume.
That's about it.
"All you Fascists bound to lose."Even where the characters and plot points aren't one for one, I'd say it's a similarity in tone that people object to. It's the *kind* of humour that the movies use, and the way dramatic and action beats play out. It's effective, but it's also pretty safe in a way, like a well-made TV show. They feel like producer's movies, the way a TV series belongs as much or more to the showrunner than the individual writers and directors. Part of what works about the family/Asgard scenes in the first Thor as directed by Branagh, the underlying hopefulness or both Winter Soldier and Civil War, or the bright, punkish energy of GOTG is that they feel personal. Usually to the actors as well as the director.
And yeah, Ant-Man isn't the Iron Man analogue in Ant-Man, Hank Pym is. If you want to get technical, Hope Pym is the Iron Man analogue in Ant-Man. But it's another movie about a sarcastic dude in a special suit fighting an evil executive who wants to sell his technology to the bad guys. You can see how people would complain, yeah?
edited 25th Nov '17 2:46:03 PM by Unsung
Like I said earlier, the story structure Adric and I mentioned is noticeable but it's just one thing among many. The core issue is rather that a lot of the Marvel movies feel the same, almost as if they were designed by committee. They operate on a similar emotional wavelength, have a similar style of humor and plot beats, have a lot of the same problems from film to film (or used to), and any authorial voice seems to get lost.
I mean, from a business sense it does make sense to create a reliable brand where people know what they're getting, but artistically it gets a bit dull, especially if you're not a big fan of what the brand is offering you. I feel like if you have a franchise that big it's ok to have movies some people will like more as opposed to others.
Part of the reason I gravitated towards the Netflix shows and why I'm more invested in them is because I feel they're trying to tell more ambitious and risky stories and I just prefer the more cynical, psychological noir setting and style most of them have.
I agree about the Russos - although it's pretty obvious that with Civil War their freedom was restricted by the number of elements and characters they were told to add to the movie.
But Waititi got handed the third opus of a franchise, which isn't the best when it comes to creative freedom. Even though he deconstructs the Thor mythos and pokes fun at some elements introduced beforehand...he does that because, we can assume, the direction the franchise was taking didn't sit well with him. He also incorporated the successful elements of the first two movies (Thor/Loki). So his liberty was limited to begin with.
And while GOTG is as entertaining as one can be and makes great use of Pop-Cultural Osmosis, it was not fundamentally different in tone or themes that your average earthly MCU movie.
Yet another reason why Black Panther matters. It has a new director, almost entirely new characters (CW & AOU did not introduce enough elements to be a hindrance on the creative process, and I assume the "final situation" they have to be in at the end of the movie to prepare for Thanos is limited to "Black Panther and Lupita's character are alive to appear in the megacrossover"), a different setting, and the possibility to explore different themes.
Honestly, the gravitas + neocolonialism seriously discussed combo would almost be enough for the movie to feel very different from what came before. And gravitas does not mean failure - ''The Dark Knight is a reference, and it has some very (darkly) funny moments, but it has it.
edited 25th Nov '17 2:41:23 PM by Julep
Of the MCU, the most derivative and "brand-dominated" movies in my opinion would be the Iron Man sequelsnote , Thor The Dark Worldnote , Doctor Strangenote , and Ant-Mannote . I haven't seen Homecoming yet to say for sure, although I've heard it's also got some of the same problems.
In GOTG's case I think Star-Lord's similarities to Tony are more of a coincidence and James Gunn's sensibilities made him a natural match for the MCU, rather than being crowbarred into the general MCU style or that there's a desire for future movies like Ragnarok to "ape" its style. So I can't help but cringe a little when I hear people say that Ragnarok is just like GOTG because I got a very different emotional response from both. In Ragnarok's case I think it actually has a fair amount of identity, also if people are upset by the comedy it's how Waititi rolls. Also The Avengers and AOU are "MCU" movies insofar as Whedon's personal comedy style is already compatible with the atmosphere the MCU films are trying to go for.
So I think part of that feeling of sameyness may comes less from the studio actively reshaping movies to be in line with the Marvel formula, outside of several instances where intervention was necessary, and more from Feige deliberately looking for directors who he thinks will make films of that nature on their own. Therefore one remedy to diversifying the feel of these films is to choose from a broader selection of screenwriters and directors when it comes to their previous works. So far I think Coogler is a step in the right direction in that regard, since he's mostly known for serious action movies and thinkpieces. I'll wait to see what kind of tone Black Panther goes for to see if my hypothesis is correct.
edited 25th Nov '17 2:59:27 PM by AlleyOop
![]()
IM 3 is proof that even if they get someone with a strong voice it won't necessarily mean the studio won't muck with it or impose restrictions that drown it out.
I had no idea Shane Black was a well-regarded screenwriter and director prior to IM 3 (he even directed a film with RDJ in it before he got cast as Iron Man, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang), and honestly if you asked me to judge him based on just that film I wouldn't be impressed.
Not to mention Scott Derrickson, people were hoping that him being a horror film director would have a big impact but in the end the film is considered one of the most formulaic in the franchise.
It's fine in small doses, but the best films tend to be the ones that don't follow it.
edited 25th Nov '17 3:10:16 PM by Draghinazzo
I enjoy the tone but I don't think it fits every character. Stephen Strange, for example— I didn't really want him to be a snark machine. Gotta be some other ways of presenting as an arrogant genius.
Shane Black's the Lethal Weapon guy, as in he got semi-famous for a while for penning the screenplay.
edited 25th Nov '17 3:10:09 PM by Unsung
In particular he's well known for incorporating jokes and comments about the audience, producers, and directors directly into the screenplay itself, which to my understanding was a way of keeping the reader awake and making it stand out from the other hundreds of screenplays that get passed around in Hollywood all day.
He also directed The Nice Guys, which is a really great film and one of my personal favorites. When watching it I can kind of see some aspects of his style that were in Iron Man 3, but in the latter they're watered down and made for a more general audience.
Though to be honest I don't fully understand why people say Guardians of the Galaxy has the same tone as Marvel's other movies. It feels in places like it's going for a "Yeah this is PG-13 but we're gonna sneak in as much adult shit as possible" type vibe with the constant sex jokes in both films. It's a hell of a lot raunchier. Not that the other MCU films don't have some raunch to them occasionally (Iron Man has a short and mostly obscured sex scene, The First Avenger had that joke about "fondue", Age of Ultron had that damned "Prima Nocta" joke, etc) but Gunn seems to put a lot more emphasis on it then the other films.
Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?I think it's just that it's a fairly comedic movie and people have come to associate a certain amount of that with the MCU. I'd agree that the kind of comedy is actually pretty different, and I think the way the movie handles its emphasis on family, found and otherwise, is uniquely James Gunn and the Guardians' own (with a nod back to Farscape).
Nice Guys was a great movie. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is also good, and I really feel like the middle act of IM 3 is as much a sequel to that as it is to the first two Iron Man movies.
edited 25th Nov '17 3:27:55 PM by Unsung
The core problem is that the concept of a shared franchise universe and that of a creator-driven series are two ideas that are somewhat at odds with one another, because at the end of the day brand integrity will always be the utmost priority. The producer-driven approach to the MCU means we often end up with a lot of formulaic and derivative movies like Ant-Man and Doctor Strange, but it also minimizes potential catastrophes. For example, we're now seeing the DCEU brought to its knees because the producers didn't reign in Zack Snyder sooner, and as a result audiences who didn't like Batman v. Superman stayed away from Justice League in droves.
But I'd say it's still a thing with Marvel's to an extent. Ragnarok definitely feels like a Taika Waitit film and Iron Man 3 absolutely feels like a Shane Black film.
edited 25th Nov '17 5:36:32 PM by comicwriter
They're generally well-served by their instincts, but it's just a shame they weren't just a little more willing to stretch (not making a Mr Fantastic reference) with a character like, for example, Doctor Strange, who really deserved to have a little bit of risk taken on him.
Ragnarok and Black Panther have had amazing ad campaigns, though. I feel like they've really stepped up their game there, considering we were mocking the photoshopped posters they were putting out for BP just a few months ago.

Yeah whenever people say that Ant-Man is an Iron Man-style story I scratch my head. They're similar in some ways but not many.
This song needs more love.