[Movie/TV/Comic] Marvel Cinematic Universe: A place to talk all things Marvel

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Also, I haven't lost any interest in Kang as a character, so YMMV. I don't really follow the comics, but hasn't everyone had a turn as a joke villain in the comics? I mean, Thanos had the "Thanos 'copter" in the comics, which is just about as silly as it gets.

Thanos might be on the rarer side of villains played for a joke but ya they have all been comic relief at one point other another like a few years back with squirrel girl or that one comic where he just try's to ruin one kids life for no reason.

[Northern Goblin]

Amused at this "film has lost Disney money" narrative a couple of the usual heads are spouting. It's already hitting double the budget cost, and there's no way that the cinema and marketing costs are as much as the film budget.

The level of bad faith arguments from certain people in here wanting to see films fail because of external reasons, often getting their talking points from angry heads on YouTube, isn't worth the pages they take up on this forum.

People are still watching these movies, even if you're personally no longer the audience for whatever reason you have, others clearly are going. So if you have an opinion, just say it's yours, and not trying to claim you're speaking on behalf of anyone but yourself.

[MrLachyG]

Yes.


No.

Stop asking dumb questions. The only thing really in question is Ant-Man's future as a solo hero series.

I don't think we'll see another solo Ant-Man movie. Primarily because once Kang breaks out of wherever Ant-Man sent him, the first superhero he kills when he finds our universe will be Ant-Man

[Surfd]

But thats the point, if the movie was supposed to be darker, then do it more serious, without the jokes.

And end up with garbage like Snyder's grimdark Man of Steel bullshit? Thank you, but no. Humour is and always has been part of the MCU, if that bugs you, then maybe the franchise just isn't for you.

[Biomega]

Amused at this "film has lost Disney money" narrative a couple of the usual heads are spouting. It's already hitting double the budget cost, and there's no way that the cinema and marketing costs are as much as the film budget.

I believe the rule of thumb for becoming profitable is between x2 to x3 the budget, considering marketing, revenue-sharing agreements, etc.

But it can be hard to tell for certain, because Hollywood Accounting is a nightmare of its own that makes it really hard to figure things out exactly.

[VMSmith]

Normally I much prefer DC over Marvel, though I still love them both, and I finally got around to watching Black Adam and the first episode of She-Hulk.

Black Adam was so awful I clicked it off after the Justice Society fight, but She-Hulk was surprisingly enjoyable. It's the first Marvel show I've watched since MoM, which I hated so desperately and still do, so it was a nice treat to see that it was better than many claimed.

That all said, I'm still kinda over superhero shows/films so I'm not sure if I'll continue finishing She-Hulk or not. I kinda want to watch Quantumania when it hits streaming so I feel like I kinda got to catch up, the one major drawback to the Marvel stuff.

- - - Updated - - -

And end up with garbage like Snyder's grimdark Man of Steel bullshit? Thank you, but no. Humour is and always has been part of the MCU, if that bugs you, then maybe the franchise just isn't for you.

I like the Marvel humor, but Man of Steel is hands-down my favorite Superman movie ... and I saw the first Christopher Reeves Superman film on it's premiere in theaters and adored those first three films (yes, three, I like the Richard Pryor film).

[Northern Goblin]

I believe the rule of thumb for becoming profitable is between x2 to x3 the budget, considering marketing, revenue-sharing agreements, etc.

But it can be hard to tell for certain, because Hollywood Accounting is a nightmare of its own that makes it really hard to figure things out exactly.

A lot of the marketing for this film was split with product placement and advertisement agreements, which cut the costs on promotion and TV spots.

[Endus]

I like the Marvel humor, but Man of Steel is hands-down my favorite Superman movie

Really? The movie where Pa Kent gets upset at Clark for saving a busload of kids because someone might have noticed that he has powers? Where the same guy won't let his own son save him from a tornado because it might make people wonder about Clark?

There's a lot about Man of Steel that's execrable, but the worst part is how it tried to utterly annihilate the "Kansas farm-raised boy scout" internal morality of Clark and replace it with a weird "do what's best for you, personally, Clark, because you don't owe anyone else anything" bit of Objectivist nonsense.

I can't blame Cavill because his performance is top-tier. He's the best Superman we've had. But the writing and the inherent attempt to destroy the core of what makes him Superman is terrible. Even with the massive fight they have using Metropolis as a playground, likely killing tens of thousands of innocent bystanders, is less disturbing than what the writers did to Ma and Pa Kent and the outlook they taught their only son to live by.

The problem with a "grimdark" Superman is that Superman is intended to be a metaphorical beacon in the dark. If you're darkening up Superman to fit your dark and grimy take, you don't "get" Superman. Not unless you're explicitly trying to do an alternate "what if Supes was a dickweasel?" type alternative universe, like Red Son.

[Biomega]

Really? The movie where Pa Kent gets upset at Clark for saving a busload of kids because someone might have noticed that he has powers? Where the same guy won't let his own son save him from a tornado because it might make people wonder about Clark?

Nothing you've said I particularly disagree with, but I also have to say that MoS is my favorite Superman movie. It has massive issues, but the other Superman movies are... worse.

[Endus]

Nothing you've said I particularly disagree with, but I also have to say that MoS is my favorite Superman movie. It has massive issues, but the other Superman movies are... worse.

Fair. They really need to get Superman written by someone who knows even a bit about the character. The visuals were great, Cavill's great, the problem is Snyder's a fucking boring director with super weird takes on Objectivist philosophy he feels obliged to force into everything. It's why his Watchmen was so fuckin' soulless and completely missed the entire point of the original, even as he practically went shot-for-panel and lifted most of the dialogue unchanged. His ending's not even particularly bad; I think it's a better take than Moore's, in concept. It's just that Snyder clearly doesn't understand anything about the story and what it means; in particular, that none of these people were "heroes". You shouldn't be looking up to any of them. If you're making cool action scenes where those characters kick a lot of ass, you don't get it.

[Biomega]

Fair. They really need to get Superman written by someone who knows even a bit about the character. The visuals were great, Cavill's great, the problem is Snyder's a fucking boring director with super weird takes on Objectivist philosophy he feels obliged to force into everything. It's why his Watchmen was so fuckin' soulless and completely missed the entire point of the original, even as he practically went shot-for-panel and lifted most of the dialogue unchanged. His ending's not even particularly bad; I think it's a better take than Moore's, in concept. It's just that Snyder clearly doesn't understand anything about the story and what it means; in particular, that none of these people were "heroes". You shouldn't be looking up to any of them. If you're making cool action scenes where those characters kick a lot of ass, you don't get it.

I've always argued that it's even worse than that - he DOES get it, but he DOESN'T CARE because he thinks those cool action scenes with characters kicking ass are more important than properly rendering the essence of a narrative. It's the same thing with his DC movies: he knows what those characters and stories are about, but he thinks being a slow-motion Objectivist edgelord is more important. He thinks that's what people want more than they want proper narrative depth and complex character development.

Well him or the people signing the checks, but at this point I'm pretty sure he's actively collaborating.

[Endus]

I've always argued that it's even worse than that - he DOES get it, but he DOESN'T CARE because he thinks those cool action scenes with characters kicking ass are more important than properly rendering the essence of a narrative. It's the same thing with his DC movies: he knows what those characters and stories are about, but he thinks being a slow-motion Objectivist edgelord is more important. He thinks that's what people want more than they want proper narrative depth and complex character development.

Well him or the people signing the checks, but at this point I'm pretty sure he's actively collaborating.

I used to have similar bitches about Michael Bay, but Ambulance is fuckin' fantastic and I think he's actually listening to criticism and trying to be better about some of his worst impulses (objectifying women and rah-rah military/police worship).

[Kyphael]

Really? The movie where Pa Kent gets upset at Clark for saving a busload of kids because someone might have noticed that he has powers? Where the same guy won't let his own son save him from a tornado because it might make people wonder about Clark?

There's a lot about Man of Steel that's execrable, but the worst part is how it tried to utterly annihilate the "Kansas farm-raised boy scout" internal morality of Clark and replace it with a weird "do what's best for you, personally, Clark, because you don't owe anyone else anything" bit of Objectivist nonsense.

I can't blame Cavill because his performance is top-tier. He's the best Superman we've had. But the writing and the inherent attempt to destroy the core of what makes him Superman is terrible. Even with the massive fight they have using Metropolis as a playground, likely killing tens of thousands of innocent bystanders, is less disturbing than what the writers did to Ma and Pa Kent and the outlook they taught their only son to live by.

The problem with a "grimdark" Superman is that Superman is intended to be a metaphorical beacon in the dark. If you're darkening up Superman to fit your dark and grimy take, you don't "get" Superman. Not unless you're explicitly trying to do an alternate "what if Supes was a dickweasel?" type alternative universe, like Red Son.

A well-read analysis, but Henry Cavill is far from being the best Superman. That would be Christopher Reeve. He embodied Superman and defined the best version of the character for the big screen. A bar anyone has failed to match since, TV or big screen. Cavill was decent in a heavily flawed movie(s), but he didn't exactly stand out. The fact is he isn't really a major leading man in other movies (I know, Witcher, what else you got?) shows the limits of his talent. Good supporting act, could have been a decent Superman in an universe that didn't have Superman as the focal point, but he's not the definitive version by any stretch of the imagination unless your only parameters are having the physique.

Also, bear in mind that while Zack Snyder doesn't understand Superman and deliberately wrote him as a dark, angry man on the cusp of losing his shit and leveling an entire city while fighting the bad guy, Snyder's intention was more or less adapting a version of Injustice's Superman. A Superman that does lose his shit and becomes an authoritative figure. See the Knightmare scene. While it's misguided to make that Superman the Superman of your universe, I can see what he was trying to do and do something different since Superman Returns failed. Injustice was a very successful game, and for someone like Snyder who only skims DC from the surface and cherry picks what jives with his taste and expectations, I understand what he was trying to do, especially after the last time there was a Superman movie, everyone's big complaint was "how can you have a Superman movie where he doesn't throw a single punch?" Singer's unhealthy obsession with the Donner movies notwithstanding. They're classics but should never be replicated.

I often say Christopher Reeve and Lynda Carter were born in the wrong decade, where their characters couldn't be brought to life with the technology that supports their talent, but then again, without them being born where they were, they wouldn't have been the standard bearers.

Also, Superman does have a darkness to him. In Man of Tomorrow in the 90's, there was a major event where he actually tried to become an authoritative figure.



Mind you, I know comics work differently than movies, and for the general audience, you normally present the character with its most basic core values. Comics have way more freedom with story-telling because they're not racing against time to crank out Superman movies before the actor gets too old, but there is source material of Superman having gone rogue aplenty. It only makes it more powerful after having presented Superman as an incorruptible beacon of hope for so long, but you can also only do that for so long before sales dip.

[Syegfryed]

And end up with garbage like Snyder's grimdark Man of Steel bullshit? Thank you, but no. Humour is and always has been part of the MCU, if that bugs you, then maybe the franchise just isn't for you.

snyder movies were better than this one lol

[Surfd]

snyder movies were better than this one lol

Considering that Ant-man is a B tier marvel property releasing Quantumania in mid February and it's already almost tied for opening numbers vs Man of Steel, which featured one of DCs two biggest tentpole names releasing a movie in June, I am going to objectively suggest that you are basically talking out your ass here.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Nothing you've said I particularly disagree with, but I also have to say that MoS is my favorite Superman movie. It has massive issues, but the other Superman movies are... worse.

What could ever be better then this master piece.


- - - Updated - - -

Also, bear in mind that while Zack Snyder doesn't understand Superman and deliberately wrote him as a dark, angry man on the cusp of losing his shit and leveling an entire city while fighting the bad guy, Snyder's intention was more or less adapting a version of Injustice's Superman..

If he was trying to do Injustice's superman that's still a pretty big failure as that superman starts out as just as much of a boy scout as any other which is why him going evil works so well with him pretty much having a joker esc one bad day that then progresses further and further until he's totally lost.

Well of course you could start injustice with him already being alot darker willing to kill ect, that really undermines alot of the story telling of that universe and why his character works so well.

[RobertoCarlos]

What could ever be better then this master piece.


If he was trying to do Injustice's superman that's still a pretty big failure as that superman starts out as just as much of a boy scout as any other which is why him going evil works so well with him pretty much having a joker esc one bad day that then progresses further and further until he's totally lost.

Well of course you could start injustice with him already being alot darker willing to kill ect, that really undermines alot of the story telling of that universe and why his character works so well.

Are you trying to imply lex luthor's ultimate dream isnt to the be the ruler of Australia? Learn the source material. Just kidding.

I dont agree Christoper Reeve's is the definitive Superman, Nor is Henry Cavill. Just because hes likeable and a gamer people seem to think his superman is amazing but so far all the movies hes been in have been rather shit.

I dont agree with the take that Synder was trying to make an Injustice type Superman either but rather it was a YOUNG superman so he didnt think better to fight outside major cities, and bascially lacked fighting experience vs a more experienced battle weary Zod who knew what weaknesses Superman had with human attachment.

If Synders daughter hadnt of died and Warner brothers actually had a sequel to man of steel it could have gone a lot of ways but it wouldnt have been an injustice superman way.

[Biomega]

I dont agree Christoper Reeve's is the definitive Superman, Nor is Henry Cavill. Just because hes likeable and a gamer people seem to think his superman is amazing but so far all the movies hes been in have been rather shit.

But HE wasn't shit. He was great. Not his fault that the movies were written by a team of blind monkeys on PCP.

From what we've had so far, he's been the best. Reeve is just too old-school cheesy to be taken seriously, and let's not even talk about any of the others. That doesn't mean there couldn't be anyone better, but we can't see into the future - from the one's we've had, Cavill has been the best.

[RobertoCarlos]

But HE wasn't shit. He was great. Not his fault that the movies were written by a team of blind monkeys on PCP.

From what we've had so far, he's been the best. Reeve is just too old-school cheesy to be taken seriously, and let's not even talk about any of the others. That doesn't mean there couldn't be anyone better, but we can't see into the future - from the one's we've had, Cavill has been the best.

Cavill looks the part but his acting chops just isnt there in my opinion. His superman is a bit like his witcher acting in that he does more than a serviceable job, but the material isnt asking much of him either. He didnt sell the the Ciri/father relationship to me which is a core aspect of the witcher story and needs a talented actor to pull off and superman is a hard character to act because you have to make a boy scout compelling.

[Ophenia]

Either way, they were only there to show how strong Wanda is. Doesn't matter which version they are in this movie, they served one main purpose (the other purposes being to introduce some characters, of course). I don't understand why this concept is so difficult.

Well that's obvious. But it can only work if you show that they're powerful beforehand.
As you said, not many people are aware of what they could do at their prime. And in MoM, we're being formally introduced to them (in the MCU), and they die in the first seconds of action we see from them. The only backstory we get to have is that they needed a Cheat Code to defeat Thanos in their universe.

This entire scene would have worked 10x better if they had shown an excerpt of the fight on Titan, to really show their abilities and how powerful they might be.

That's as if in the next Hawkeye appearance, Dr Doom is introduced and dies from an arrow in the head after 10 seconds. Would we be supposed to be impressed ?