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
So, lets go over the criticisms one at a time: snarky white guy... fair enough, though Tony Stark, Stephen Strange, Scott Lang, Peter Parker, and Peter Quill are all different flavors and amounts of snark. Tony's cynical, Stephen's arrogant (and he doesn't snark nearly as much as the rest), Scott doesn't snark as much as Tony either, Parker has the classic playful Spider-Man quips, and Quill is goofy and rauchy. Either way, Steve, Bruce, and Thor are pretty light on the snark, as is T'Chala.
Hero overcomes a personal issue: literally every movie ever. If your protagonist doesn't overcome some kind of personal issue in your movie, you've made either a shitty or very risky and experimental movie.
The hero will never be proven wrong: not really? They are still the main character. They grow as a person out of the particular character flaw focused on in the film, but that doesn't mean they stop being themselves or lose other parts of their personality. The personal issue they overcome is always something holding them back from being even more awesome, so it makes sense that they'd win by being awesome after overcoming whatever was holding them back.
Weak and shallow villains... again, fair enough. They have been getting better recently, though.
No Wham moment: not every movie needs a plot twist. Some movies are made worse by adding an unnecessary plot twist in just to catch the audience off-guard. A lack of a plot twist, in and of itself, isn't much of a criticism. It's not like the MCU hasn't done great plot twists before, either. As an example: in Spider-Man: Homecoming Vulture actually being the father of Liz and learning Peter's secret identity was a fantastic plot twist that completely changed the dynamic of the film.
Modern social issues not being addressed: I agree partially, but there's a case to be made that it's not necessary. Movies can serve a purpose of escapism, and Superhero movies traditionally are the most escapist of all fiction, so it makes sense that the MCU would try and stay away from social issues. My partial disagreement comes from that they have addressed social issues in some of their films. From security vs freedom in Winter Soldier, to conscription vs vigilantism in Civil War, to blue-collar issues in Homecoming, they've dabbled in social issues here and there.
Not really. It isn't the case in either Wonder Woman or The Dark Knight. The issues they overcome are not personal, they are facing adversity, but not a significant personal flaw. Batman is not responsible for the Joker, and Wonder Woman isn't responsible for World War I - her lack of savviness about the real world is not the main obstacle during her journey.
I will quote Film Crit Hulk who will always say it better than I do.
Seriously, that's the dramatic track of these movies now. There's Tony Stark in Avengers 2 (Trust me this time! Even though literally nothing is different about what I'm doing!) There's Dr. Strange, the egomaniac who blows through life, gets hurt, then proceeds to behave the same reckless way in the spiritual world. There's Tony and Cap not learning any actual lessons from each other, nor learning anything in Civil-War. I, uh, pretty much have no idea what Thor: The Dark World is trying to say on any level. And Scott Lang already begins Ant-Man as the reformed criminal everyone tells him he has to grow out of being (while simultaneously asking him to be a criminal again). And now it's Peter Parker's "journey" to adulthood in Homecoming.
He adds that the emotional weight of Homecoming is in large part lost due to the erasure of Uncle Ben's character.
I agree about TWS. CW's weight is lost in large part because, in the grand narrative, Tony's hubris is ultimately the source of all problems, so the movie needs to give Cap & his allies a string of bad luck (the failed first mission that oh so happens to be pinned on the former Sokovian terrorist, and the most respectable member of Tony's team being grievously injured during their fight) on top of Zemo's plans to ensure that there is something akin to balance on the issue (they could have made Zemo a much more grey villain, but they decided that he had to be evil to being with, even before losing his family - that really softens the punches). As for Homecoming, like with Zemo, Vulture gets a few sympathy points for being lower-class, but ultimately behaves like every other villain, to the point that the hero himself isn't ever faced with the actual social consequences of fighting him (it only becomes personal because he is his GF's father, which while unexpected was also unnecessary if you wanted to do a social commentary).
edited 26th Nov '17 6:08:01 PM by Julep
What? Are you telling every comic book that asks why Batman hasn't killed the Joker is wrong?
Madness.
One Strip! One Strip!Come on, man.
You're referring to his work with the Sokovian black ops squad? Because that's mostly used as a way to explain how he acquired the skills he utilizes - it's not really used to paint him as evil.
Oh God! Natural light!I know it's kind of a tautology that villainous characters are going to do bad things, but besides the special ops background explaining Zemo's skills, it strikes me that a normal person's response to Avengers-related collateral damage was that of Alfre Woodard's character and no one would enact a plan like Zemo's who wasn't at least a bit morally iffy to start. But at the same time, the movie does frame him as sympathetic. Besides the Hydra scene, there's the fact he feels terrible about killing an innocent person as part of his plans and always intends to be killed at the end of things(and I think believes that this is a just outcome).
On the other hand, I'm not sure how deliberate, but there's seemingly a parallel with the first season of Agent Carter and how that version of Dr. Faustus carries out a similar somewhat justifiable revenge plan, and he was similarly a shady person to start with. Way worse than Zemo though I would think, even without seeing any of Zemo's past.
While I agree that Spider-man: Homecoming makes a mistake by not mentioning Uncle Ben at all (not that I wanted a complete flashback, I would have been happy with a line that Peter feels guilty about his death, which would have perfectly fit into his talk with Aunt May), I also think that the movie adds a lot of weight which the whole franchise previously lacked when Peter is trapped under the concrete and breaks out in tears. It's my favourite moment in the whole movie, because it is a great reminder that, Superpowers or not, Peter is still just a kid and going up against scrupulous adults he can be over his head pretty fast.
Also, some would say that Diana kind of circling back in Wonder Woman to her original beliefs instead of growing as a character is one of the biggest weakness of the movie. Though I agree that WB in general favours a theme driven approach to their movies which is frankly a good thing when they pull it off (nothing is as unbearable as a movie which thinks it is smart but is just pretentious), because it fits their characters better. But Marvel movies aren't about gods, they are about humans who are constantly confronted with problems way above their pay grade, and they are way more interested in exploring the human nature than going all philosophical on the audience. And that is not a bad thing either. Exploring human nature is a huge chunk what storytelling is about.
Anyway, my point is that it is kind of odd to complain about this. Those are very basic plot points which are present in the majority of movies out there. When I hear a complain like "they are all the same" I am thinking more along the line of the original Spider-man trilogy, in which every single movie was about Peter pining over Mary Jane, doubting if he should be Spiderman, defeating a crazy villain who is the victim of a science experiment gone wrong and rescuing Mary Jane at the end of the movie. Comic book movies have come a long way since then. The love interest is no longer obligatory, the villains come in all shape and sizes, and instead of constantly moping the heroes actually enjoy being heroes once in a while.
God, Peter being pinned under concrete, crying and screaming desperately for help, was such a good scene. It was that scene that cemented Tom Holland as the best live-action Spider-Man performance for me. Homecoming did so much right. Most of all, it actually made Uncle Ben's message of "With great power comes great responsibility" feel omnipresent throughout the film more than any other Spider-Man film has without even mentioning it once just by making that into the central theme of the film.
The whole third act of Spider-man: Home-coming is what makes this so great. Up until this point it was just nice fluff, kind of fun and really gutsy, but it felt a little bit inconsequential - and then they go all out on it. I didn't even mind that they tied the villain into Peter Parkers personal live AGAIN, because everything about it was just so good, down to Peter doing the right thing in the end, no matter what this might cost him down the line. Which gets bonus points for subverting what usually happens when a villain figures out a secret identity.
Those are some weird groupings. I mean they basically put Cap's side-kick (plus a random characters) to Tony and Tony's main side-kicks (plus a random character) to Cap. Only Hawkeye is correctly paired up with Cap. And then they go and stick Spider-man and Pepper to doctor Strange and Star Lord, and do one cover on which the characters don't really know each other at all, at least not on a friendship level.
Whoever did those doesn't know much about those movies, right?
![]()
The article is explicitly about the anniversary of the studio.
Actually according to the trailer Spider-Man is fighting Thanos on an alien world alongside Doctor Strange and Star-Lord. But either way I think you're putting a bit too much thought into this.
edited 27th Nov '17 6:17:21 AM by comicwriter

O___O'!
(Vomits)
WHY?!