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
Also, wasn't there a whole thing about the male lead in West Side Story being another case of #MeToo? I would think that mess shot WSS in at least one foot.
And while the musicals thing is open for debate (Cats, Dear Evan Hansen, WSS, no thanks, but I would've dropped hard money for In The Heights), I would be lying if I said I wanted to watch a 2-hour film about medieval rape.
People have limited money, especially in this economy, and especially in this economy and pandemic state. They're going to spend it to see what they want to go see. And a lot of people have voted in as being more excited for the next big superhero blowout than whatever Ridley Scott's doing now.
It's almost like characters and stories matter more than directors.
Nope, can't counter this one. This is one of the best takes I've read.
The dominance of superhero movies (and similar spectacle driven, PG-13 action/adventure fare) at the box office is because the role of movie theaters in society has changed.
Once upon a time, lots of different genres were able to be hits at the box office, because if you wanted to see films in those genres, there wasn't anywhere to see them except at the box office. If you missed their theatrical run, you might never get another chance with them.
Obviously, advances in home video technology and the proliferation of streaming services have completely changed that. Now, if you want to watch a comedy or a drama or a documentary, there are a preponderance of choices just a few mouse clicks away. Especially if, like me, you consider movies and TV to be the same medium, just packaged differently; there are more TV shows in more varieties released each year than anyone can keep up with.
For most people these days, going to the movie theater is something they only do if they feel that they need to see a particular film in the theater, that waiting for it to come out on streaming or DVD just won't cut it. And there are two main reasons they might feel this way:
1) The film has a lot of visual spectacle that will be much more enjoyable when seen on the big screen.
2) People feel like they need to see it right now, not several months from now. There are a few different ways this can happen, but the most reliable is if it's part of a franchise they're already a fan of, so they're hyped up for the movie before it even comes out.
So, no surprise, the movies raking in the big box office cash are the ones that hit both those criteria. For everything else, there's still plenty of it being made, and plenty of people watching it ... just not at theaters.
Edited by RavenWilder on Dec 25th 2021 at 9:50:01 AM
When I watched Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, I had to wait months until I could watch it with good quality somewhere. And the less said about where, the better.
Now I have to wait again for Spider-Man: No Way Home.
Aye, if the film hasn't got the sweeping visuals to justify paying money to see it on a wall to wall screen, I'm not wasting my money on it.
Now it should be noted that things like Arrival fit that criteria perfectly which could not at all be described as in keeping with the superhero format.
But the thing that absolutely clinches going to the cinema for me is "oh no if I don't see this on release I have to avoid my entire online social platform because I'd get spoiled and would waste my opotunity to gossip about the film"
I think social media has changed the cinema experience more than superheroes have.
I mean it's not even just that, it's the overall homogenized style that's come from people trying to ape the MCU. Ten films is still A LOT of films.
I'm no fan of auteur theory but it's undeniable that in many films, the director has a very firm artistic vision that drives the filmmaking process. This, of course, varies a lot and I dislike the idea of pinpointing it SOLELY on the director when they inevitably collaborate with others to make a film (where would Spielberg be without John Williams?). But a lot of directors do have distinct artistic styles.
This actually *does* bleed into superhero films. We can point to Raimi, Nolan, Burton, etc., but within the MCU? Whedon, for better or worse, had that, as do the Russos, Gunn, Branagh, and Waititi (the latter three of which already have a lot of cred even in film snob circles for their non-MCU work). But the rest? I can't really pin a distinctive style. Jon Favreau has done plenty of stuff but I can't pin a distinct style like I can with Whedon...but that's also fine?
I mean hell, back in the "Golden Age" of Hollywood, they were basically churning films out on an assembly line, most directors were just company men working to get the films into theaters on time and on budget. That's *fine*. Sometimes, though, it's nice to have a distinctive voice that separates it from the bland...as long as that voice is GOOD. DC tried their own distinct voice with Zac Snyder and it was shit.
Favreau does actually have a style of his own, mostly it's a hands off direction and encouraging the actors to improvise, but in terms of shot selection/composition he's not as experimental.
I think the "all MCU movies are the same" complaint is a bit overblown myself though not to the point I can't see the argument's validity.
"These 'no-nonsense' solutions of yours just don't hold water in a complex world of jet-powered apes and time travel."I agree. Hell, take all four of the movies released this year. You have:
- Black Widow, which feels like a Jason Bourne movie with the spy stuff and shaky action scenes.
- Shang-Chi, which is a love letter to wuxia movies.
- Eternals, which is an ensemble piece with an arthouse camera shot style.
- Spider-Man: No Way Home, which is the culmination of the previous two Spider-Man MCU movies.
I would say there is an issue with bathos where tension is constantly destroyed to make a joke but that’s a general problem with movies nowadays that granted does get attributed to the MCU.
I would say Black Widow had the biggest issue with that such as everything with Red Guardian is treated as a joke with no sincerity.
"I am Alpharius. This is a lie."
Thor: Ragnarok was absolutely the worst in that regard. Yeah, I do enjoy that movie and how it reinvented Thor to make him more interesting than his previous two movies, but I agree that joking about the destruction of Asgard isn't exactly a great moment.
I can only hope that things aren't too off-putting in Love and Thunder.
"I'm Mr. Blue, woah-woah-ooh..."Jon Favreau may not have that distinct of a voice as a director, but at the very least he's put out consistently good stuff. I think the only thing of his that's outright bad is the Lion King remake, which feels more like just an obligation project. It feels like Disney told him "make a Lion King remake with your Jungle Book technology and we'll fund this little bounty hunter project of yours" and he didn't feel as into it as his other work, so he just did it as mostly the exact same movie but in photorealistic CG.
Edited by lbssb on Dec 26th 2021 at 12:17:07 PM
Disney100 Marathon | DreamWorks MarathonI should watch his Chef film, that's meant to be outrageously good and very obviously about the process of making studio films (such as the Iron Man films).
Also I feel like he's one of the few marvel directors who had consistently good action scenes. Something I feel like the MCU is rather lacking.
Edited by Whowho on Dec 26th 2021 at 8:20:05 PM
Eh, of the three movies I've seen this year from the MCU (still haven't watched Eternals), there IS some of that saminess, but I actually enjoyed Shang-Chi and No Way Home despite that (good character goes a long way). Black Widow was just really bland and kept deflating the tension with bad comedy (Red Guardian being the big example). People always bring up the third act slugfests with lots of CGI and stuff, and I do admit it's kind of boring seeing it play out the same. Shang-Chi had that issue despite being a good movie overall.
I can definitely tell the Iron Man movies he directed lean on that some, but I assumed that was because the first one literally didn't have a completed script.
Mind, Favreau isn't a bad director. I liked his Jungle Book remake. He's got some indie cred (Chef is basically a reflection of his time directing Iron Man 2), he's gotten a lot of attention for The Mandalorian (I've only seen bits of it but what I've seen has been great). I've seen some people call him a "company man", but he's got more range than that. Not every director needs to have a distinctive tell like Tarantino or something.
I feel like a good microcosm of humor nowadays is in the Star-Panther What If where T’Challa gets rescued by his crew at the start of the episode, the whole he’s surrounded but T’Challa says he’s got back-up where then there’s a whole beat about him repeatedly saying back-up as the signal and his crew taking a while to respond.
You can’t just have him say back-up and the crew comes in at a perfect sync cue, no there has to be a joke that they take a while because they are not in instant synch.
It’s similar to how every time Thor summons Mjolnir there is always a similar delay. He calls the hammer and there is always a humorous beat where Thor gets slightly embarrassed, strains harder to summon it, and everyone including the villain waits a little bit until the hammer arrives on cue. The hammer can never just come when he says it, there always has to be a little gag about the distance.
Edited by slimcoder on Dec 26th 2021 at 12:26:27 PM
"I am Alpharius. This is a lie."Chef is pretty neat, though the Marvel satire is mostly the first half of the film. The second half is just a road trip with almost no plot but it doesn’t really need one by that point because it’s just the characters having fun? It’s also ironic in retrospect how the film ends with Favreau’s character starting his own restaurant when in real life Favreau went back to Disney and worked on some of their biggest releases.
”Master, your hammer’s batteries are low.”
Edited by Tuckerscreator on Dec 26th 2021 at 12:31:57 PM
![]()
![]()
Theres good news and bad news there.
The good news is that there is some personality inhabiting the hammer, from the mother of all space storms that was forged into Mjolnir.
The bad news is that the mother storm rarely bothers to actually talk versus communicate in abstruse ways.
Forever liveblogging the Avengers
Not only that, but the sentience of the hammer is one of those things that comic writers regularly forget about.
Like how one of Wonder Woman's powers is to communicate with animals. Name the last time you ever saw her use that.
You can't? Exactly.
Or the fact that Hulk can see ghosts. No, really, that's an actual power of his that almost never shows up.
Edited by lbssb on Dec 26th 2021 at 1:14:43 AM
Disney100 Marathon | DreamWorks Marathon

Yeah, Iron Man 3 was a neat flick, but it being a Christmas movie feels accidental at best. Hawkeye made it obvious that it was about the holidays.
Kinda the same situation with No Way Home if you think about it. Although I will say that the way Peter's got to spend his Christmas makes me feel genuinely sad for the guy. Like, I wouldn't wish that on anybody.
"I'm Mr. Blue, woah-woah-ooh..."