Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It appeals to the lowest common denominator (with the exception of Deadpool) while having a competent writing team. The DC Movie Universe has one of those, I'll leave you to guess which one they lack.

None of the MCU movies are what I would call "good". Brainless fluff to relax for an afternoon, but my no means good movies.

Deadpool isn’t part of the MCU though.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Brainless fluff to relax for an afternoon, but my no means good movies.

That sums it up pretty well. The best MCU movie I have seen is Thor Ragnarok. It was worth the ticket price but I will probably never have a conversation about the contents of the film or really ever think about it again.

 Manchu wrote:

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
the slow blade penetrates the shield

>underrated post (exalted)

MCU doesn't work for everyone. But it does work for most of the audience, and therein lies the answer: four-quadrant film making. They don't have to be good; they just need to address the lowest common denominator. And by the way, Warner Bros has largely gotten away with this, too, despite struggling for critical appeal.

I get that you aren't personally a fan of Marvel, but calling them lowest common denominator films is unjustified. They appeal to a very large niche, essentially, and what they do in that niche is done well, with care towards the quality of the finished product. Transformers is LCD filmmaking that aims to maximize profits with minimal effort while going over no one's head.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:
I get why people don't love the new Star Wars films, but I do feel/worry the the fanbase has essentially gotten to the place Star Trek was 25ish years ago where the sense of personal ownership in the brand and need to vet anything new makes it impossible for the franchise to stay relevant and produce anything really worth all the fandom that surrounds it. Star Trek has spent years slowly bleeding to death by timidly going where the fans thoroughly explored before and I can't help but feel that if Ep9 turns into a fan appeasement film, Star Wars will essentially be doomed to the same fate.

The problem is essentially the same: no matter what fans say they want, what they really want is a good product. Star Trek spent decades not delivering on that...and Star Wars is certainly having issues there. Marvel may not give the fans exactly what they ask for, in fact it might dismiss decades of canon from the comics, but it doesn't have the same issue of fan backlash because the Marvel movies are still good, and that makes people happy. So, please stop blaming the fans for the creators' failures. The angry fans didn't make the beloved franchise fail, they're just angry that the creators didn't give a crap enough to do a decent job.

 Gojiratoho wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

It's also an example of Marvel's nimbleness, as they apparently did a course change with the character after that film. Incredible Hulk definitely laid groundwork for future Hulk films (origin of The Leader being one example), but clearly they decided the character works better alongside other heroes. And I think this is probably a wise assessment.

This has little to do with Marvel/Disney's overall plan for the franchise and more to do with studio contracts. Universal owns the distribution rights to the Hulk even though Marvel Studios has the rights to the character. So any stand alone Hulk film would involve another major studio, and Disney doesn't like to share it's profits.

https://screenrant.com/no-hulk-solo-movie-marvel-universal-rights-explained/

If Disney saw a big enough cash cow, they'd be okay with sharing the dough. But they don't...which is both my point and the second half of the article you linked to.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

None of the MCU movies are what I would call "good". Brainless fluff to relax for an afternoon, but my no means good movies.

You reminded me of the classic Siskel and Ebert show where they decided that no horror movies are actually good, therefore studios should stop making them. Just because something isn't your cup of tea, it doesn't make it a bad thing. I am sick of people pooping on pulp collectively as if there isn't any way that some pulp can be good or skillfully accomplished or have any value to society. That attitude is rooted in ignorance and an unwillingness to countenance perspectives other than your own.

Bob, you are finding malice where none (necessarily) exists, both as to myself and BCB. Marvel movies are aimed at the broadest, least discriminating band of tastes. This is most fundamental aspect of the strategy in making them.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Deadpool isn’t part of the MCU though.

Thank the Gods...

 Manchu wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Brainless fluff to relax for an afternoon, but my no means good movies.

That sums it up pretty well. The best MCU movie I have seen is Thor Ragnarok. It was worth the ticket price but I will probably never have a conversation about the contents of the film or really ever think about it again.

I thought the third Thor film was the weakest - great fun, brilliant in places - but again the narrative was much weaker.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Its not tthat TLJ tries soemthing new - it doesn't. - its bad because it has truely terrible plot, characters, pacing and narrative, its lazy and I felt shockingly bad considering how much money was flung at it. IMO of course

If the Director had tried to do something new it might have been good. If he had the talent which base don that film - he doesn;t.

Opinions and all that. I left TLJ a bit uncertain how I felt about it; it certainly goes out of its way to keep the viewer uncomfortable. As I've rewatched it since the home release its rapidly creeping up my ladder. I'm not sure its fair to compare anything to the original trilogy, but I think its rapidly becoming my favorite film since the originals. If nothing else, it leaves me with the feeling I was looking for in the prequels and has me interested in what they could build from here.

I was tempted to walk out half way through partly through boredom, partly due to how bad the direction, plot and acting had become. I thought it was as bad as the prequals - although in a different way. I wasn;t really uncomfortable - - well no more than for any film that goes on too long but there was nothing that made me think about anything in that way.

How did it make you uncomfortable? Intrigued?

The prequals had the same issue with characters (or lack of them) ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but TLJ did not have Jar Jar, occassionally however the prequalsi had some good fun action to distract from the tedium - TLJ had one short sequence at the start and one at the end - the rest was just poorly written filler IMO.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Its not tthat TLJ tries soemthing new - it doesn't. - its bad because it has truely terrible plot, characters, pacing and narrative, its lazy and I felt shockingly bad considering how much money was flung at it. IMO of course

If the Director had tried to do something new it might have been good. If he had the talent which base don that film - he doesn;t.

Opinions and all that. I left TLJ a bit uncertain how I felt about it; it certainly goes out of its way to keep the viewer uncomfortable. As I've rewatched it since the home release its rapidly creeping up my ladder. I'm not sure its fair to compare anything to the original trilogy, but I think its rapidly becoming my favorite film since the originals. If nothing else, it leaves me with the feeling I was looking for in the prequels and has me interested in what they could build from here.

I liked it in theaters, and have heard others say they like it more after rewatching it. But I don't mind a more disruptive approach. My Twin Peaks Training (TM) really did change my mindset about the entertainment I experience.

I do understand that TLJ leaves the trilogy in an odd place, though. Usually the second part of a trilogy advances and focuses the storyline instead of blowing it wide open. But then I think TFA narrowed possibilities far more than a first installment should have. It will certainly be interesting to see what Abrams does with the next installment. Will it be in the 'Goldilocks' zone that makes fans happy (TFA being too cold and TLJ being too hot in this analogy)? Or will it be something wildly different to either? I'm open to all possibilities.

 Formosa wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
I get why people don't love the new Star Wars films, but I do feel/worry the the fanbase has essentially gotten to the place Star Trek was 25ish years ago where the sense of personal ownership in the brand and need to vet anything new makes it impossible for the franchise to stay relevant and produce anything really worth all the fandom that surrounds it. Star Trek has spent years slowly bleeding to death by timidly going where the fans thoroughly explored before and I can't help but feel that if Ep9 turns into a fan appeasement film, Star Wars will essentially be doomed to the same fate.

TOS: TO boldly go, mid level politcal commentary, bright hope for the future.

Next Gen: To boldly go, low level political commentary, bright hope for the future, different story every week with no real repercussions for the last weeks themes.

DS9: Static cast, mid level political commentary, bleak hope for the future, continuing overarching story with repercussions for characters choices, deep character development.

Voyager: To boldly go, low level political commentary, back to basics, mix of continuing story and normal lack of repercussions.

Enterprise: Tried to be TOS and mix in the best parts of all the previous treks, failed terribly due to bad cast and rinse and repeat trek stories.

Discovery: Tried to mix in modern "SJW" political commentary with a bleaker look at the trek universe, it failed horribly at that, Trek at its heart has always been about diversity, so thankfully it didnt get bogged down with any of that, but showed a more interesting trek universe where the Feds are seen at the bad guys (because they are to the Klingons), all in all its still trek but with a nice twist.... shame the ending of series 1 was so crap.


All of the new films have been universally crap.

So I must disagree with your assessment that its was slowly bled to death, it was going strong until Enterprise and then it was beaten to death with the new films, so badly that even I couldnt watch them (and i love sharknado), its easy to blame the fans, but its not the fans, its the general public that makes and breaks these films, with major influence from the producers, the will totally rape a franchise to make a few bucks with no thought to how and why people liked them, the new trek films and new wars films prove this quite solidly.

While I strongly disagree on STD(tl;dr - I think it's bad, all of it), we won't get into that since the broader sentiment you're stating is absolutely right.

It's worth also noting that among fans probably the three best regarded Star Trek films are Wrath of Khan, Voyage Home, and First Contact, which all make concessions to the medium relative to their TV incarnations(action, comedy environmentalism, action respectively). Fans were capable of understanding that, much as they'd enjoy it, a full-on feature-length TNG(or even TOS) episode would probably not make for a successful enough movie and were willing to accept the necessary alterations so the core characters and themes could transition to the big screen - but the absolutely key point is they maintained the core characters and themes. In much the same way that the MCU is generally well regarded even by most comic book fans despite not being 100% faithful to the comics; they are faithful enough and faithful in the right ways.

Fans are perfectly willing to "compromise" when the film versions are faithful in a broad, general sense(rather than in the sense of a perfect blow-by-blow adaptation of the course material in every detail) and when the resulting film is good.

There's a fine line to walk between keep the "soul" of something intact to please the fans, while also providing something that feels fresh enough to draw in casual fans, and has enough broad-spectrum appeal to draw in your average moviegoing audience, no question, but if the producers aren't willing to try and walk that line they shouldn't be trying to adapt beloved stories & settings with existing fanbases.

 gorgon wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Its not tthat TLJ tries soemthing new - it doesn't. - its bad because it has truely terrible plot, characters, pacing and narrative, its lazy and I felt shockingly bad considering how much money was flung at it. IMO of course

If the Director had tried to do something new it might have been good. If he had the talent which base don that film - he doesn;t.

Opinions and all that. I left TLJ a bit uncertain how I felt about it; it certainly goes out of its way to keep the viewer uncomfortable. As I've rewatched it since the home release its rapidly creeping up my ladder. I'm not sure its fair to compare anything to the original trilogy, but I think its rapidly becoming my favorite film since the originals. If nothing else, it leaves me with the feeling I was looking for in the prequels and has me interested in what they could build from here.

I liked it in theaters, and have heard others say they like it more after rewatching it. But I don't mind a more disruptive approach. My Twin Peaks Training (TM) really did change my mindset about the entertainment I experience.

I do understand that TLJ leaves the trilogy in an odd place, though. Usually the second part of a trilogy advances and focuses the storyline instead of blowing it wide open. But then I think TFA narrowed possibilities far more than a first installment should have. It will certainly be interesting to see what Abrams does with the next installment. Will it be in the 'Goldilocks' zone that makes fans happy (TFA being too cold and TLJ being too hot in this analogy)? Or will it be something wildly different to either? I'm open to all possibilities.

The main problem with TLJ is that it was the middle movie in the main trilogy of Star Wars' big blowout comeback tour, following on from an opening installment that was really(IMO a bit too much) heavy on the nostalgia...and it purposefully tried to subvert as many of the implications of that as possible. That's the kind of thing movie critics(and, apparently, Twin Peaks fans) love, but "average" cinemagoers and fans of things that are being subverted very much do not. For my money, I don't go to see a Saga-line Star Wars movie to be surprised, or intellectually challenged, or have my expectations subverted, any more than I read Hard SF novels riddled with cosmological philosophy or political allegory for comforting popcorn entertainment.

You could have taken everything TLJ was trying to "say" about Star Wars, made it an Anthology film, and I think it would have got a much more positive reaction - in fact, I'm pretty sure of it, considering everything TLJ was trying to "say" about Star Wars has been said before, often to great acclaim from the fandom, in the old EU. It's only because of the fact that it was firmly intended to upset people's expectations that people have been upset by it.

 gorgon wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Its not tthat TLJ tries soemthing new - it doesn't. - its bad because it has truely terrible plot, characters, pacing and narrative, its lazy and I felt shockingly bad considering how much money was flung at it. IMO of course

If the Director had tried to do something new it might have been good. If he had the talent which base don that film - he doesn;t.

Opinions and all that. I left TLJ a bit uncertain how I felt about it; it certainly goes out of its way to keep the viewer uncomfortable. As I've rewatched it since the home release its rapidly creeping up my ladder. I'm not sure its fair to compare anything to the original trilogy, but I think its rapidly becoming my favorite film since the originals. If nothing else, it leaves me with the feeling I was looking for in the prequels and has me interested in what they could build from here.

I liked it in theaters, and have heard others say they like it more after rewatching it. But I don't mind a more disruptive approach. My Twin Peaks Training (TM) really did change my mindset about the entertainment I experience.

I do understand that TLJ leaves the trilogy in an odd place, though. Usually the second part of a trilogy advances and focuses the storyline instead of blowing it wide open. But then I think TFA narrowed possibilities far more than a first installment should have. It will certainly be interesting to see what Abrams does with the next installment. Will it be in the 'Goldilocks' zone that makes fans happy (TFA being too cold and TLJ being too hot in this analogy)? Or will it be something wildly different to either? I'm open to all possibilities.

Part of me wants something like a 20 year time gap between Ep 8 and 9, but I can't see that happening. Kylo being in charge makes for a super interesting sandbox to play in though. The longer they can keep that going the better as far as I'm concerned.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
How do?
How did Marvel get away with it? Why do other studios seem to falter early on? And considering the very much mixed response to The Last Jedi, how come the same studio has, to some, stalled with Star Wars?

1) Marvel knows their characters. A lot of movie companies who license characters don't.
2) The actors
3) Most of the directors.
4) The vision at Marvel HQ to tie it all together.

But they also got lucky with RDJ. Had they gone with someone else for Iron Man, it would have done as well as The Hulk.

But Captain America, Thor, even Doctor Strange, I love them all. Its amazing how awesome just a small cameo can be.

And I am stoked for Infinity War.

And at this point I am thankful for Marvel as I hate what has happened to Star Wars. To me, MCU is the new Star Wars.

Neither TFA nor TLJ is very clear about the galactic political situation. But it sure seems like the FO won, or is in a position to win, despite its material losses. Does Poe rally the non-radicalized Imperial remnant to fight the FO? OT storm stroopers versus Disney troopers?

As for character arcs, nothing much happened in TLJ. The major movement was on character relations, where Rey went from wanting to kill Kylo on sight to having some empathy for him. But that seems moot considering his behavior at the end of TLJ.

 Mr Morden wrote:

How did it make you uncomfortable? Intrigued?

The movie spends a lot of time not giving you what you want. The two obvious early examples are how Poe's heroics get reprimanded instead of celebrated and Luke's extreme rejection of the wise old mentor figure we want him to be. These things go beyond defying expectations; they are actively hostile towards them. A part of me definitely wanted to send back what I didn't order, but I think a lot of what makes it more enjoyable when watching the movie again is that I can no longer say this isn't what I asked for and I have to remove some of what I want from the experience.

MCU topic, not Star Wars.

 Manchu wrote:
Neither TFA nor TLJ is very clear about the galactic political situation.

I think this is more the fault of TFA than TLJ, but its absolutely the biggest weakness of the new films. It's too complicated of a setup to not address in the films for sure.

 Mr Morden wrote:
but TLJ did not have Jar Jar

Yes they did. They just gave him speech therapy, blackface, and named him Finn.

Yeah, I said it. Finn was used as nothing more than comic relief. A character that could have been SO much more... wasted by bad writing.

Pretty much sums up the whole movie, though. That's where MCU and DisneyWars differ. One has good writing, and one has bad, or at the very least inconsistent, writing.

 LunarSol wrote:
A part of me definitely wanted to send back what I didn't order, but I think a lot of what makes it more enjoyable when watching the movie again is that I can no longer say this isn't what I asked for and I have to remove some of what I want from the experience.

So to restate the analogy: You go to a restaurant that serves you bad food. Then you go back to that same restaurant and order the same dish, reasoning you only have yourself to blame if it's still bad. Sounds like "auto gaslighting." I mean, you're right to blame yourself for going back for more. But the food (or in this case, movie) is bad independently of your masochism. Contrast this to the MCU: it's like popcorn. You don't ask for much from your popcorn. You just want it to taste like popcorn. If you drizzle some funky musky imitation truffle oil over it, maybe 5% of people in the concessions line will like it better versus how many who will wonder what the hell is going on. The MCU people, like the McDonald's and the Domino's people, understand that consistency is its own quality.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Neither TFA nor TLJ is very clear about the galactic political situation.

I think this is more the fault of TFA than TLJ, but its absolutely the biggest weakness of the new films. It's too complicated of a setup to not address in the films for sure.

TFA should have explained it or gone with something that required less explanation. But that's not a pass for TLJ. TLJ could have invested time on this but wasted it on pointless new characters and plot circles. Once again, the MCU provides the correct approach: engaging character relationships over simple backdrops.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
but TLJ did not have Jar Jar

Yes they did. They just gave him speech therapy, blackface, and named him Finn.

Yeah, I said it. Finn was used as nothing more than comic relief. A character that could have been SO much more... wasted by bad writing.

Pretty much sums up the whole movie, though. That's where MCU and DisneyWars differ. One has good writing, and one has bad, or at the very least inconsistent, writing.

Ha - yeah thats a good point.

MCU does not usually force the comedy - its part of the ride, its clever writing - something I just don't see in the TLJ.

The movie spends a lot of time not giving you what you want. The two obvious early examples are how Poe's heroics get reprimanded instead of celebrated and Luke's extreme rejection of the wise old mentor figure we want him to be. These things go beyond defying expectations; they are actively hostile towards them. A part of me definitely wanted to send back what I didn't order, but I think a lot of what makes it more enjoyable when watching the movie again is that I can no longer say this isn't what I asked for and I have to remove some of what I want from the experience.

Hmm interesting - I thought most of that was really formularic and hence dull - the hot shot gets repremanded - like very other action film ever made, the guru does not act like one - again massive trope - its just a minor rework of the Yoda scenes - but bad.

If they had done something with the Rey and Ren relationship that would have been interesting - if anything about the pointless chase after the Ship of Fools had made sense or the day trip to Casino world had not happened during it.....

 Manchu wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
A part of me definitely wanted to send back what I didn't order, but I think a lot of what makes it more enjoyable when watching the movie again is that I can no longer say this isn't what I asked for and I have to remove some of what I want from the experience.

So to restate the analogy: You go to a restaurant that serves you bad food. Then you go back to that same restaurant and order the same dish, reasoning you only have yourself to blame if it's still bad. Sounds like "auto gaslighting." I mean, you're right to blame yourself for going back for more. But the food (or in this case, movie) is bad independently of your masochism. Contrast this to the MCU: it's like popcorn. You don't ask for much from your popcorn. You just want it to taste like popcorn. If you drizzle some funky musky imitation truffle oil over it, maybe 5% of people in the concessions line will like it better versus how many who will wonder what the hell is going on. The MCU people, like the McDonald's and the Domino's people, understand that consistency is its own quality..

The difference is this. I shouldn't be going to a movie to "order something". The presumption that I can or even should be able to is the fundamental flaw with the analogy. I did not go into Star Wars saying "please give me a movie with space wizards and laser swords that blow up an evil moon"; I went to the movie and those are things it gave me that I liked. The problem I initially had with TLJ is that I asked it to give me a carmel latte and didn't get it. On further viewings I'm liking it more on the basis of what it actually is once I stop pretending the movie should cater to my specific demands.

I understand that what a film is about, or how it is made, is a separate question from what I want a film to be about, or how I would prefer it was made. It's important to look at what a movie is offering independently from one's expectations, sure.

The problem is, everything about the SW IP and, specifically, how Rian Johnson handled it, undermines that principle. TLJ is not an independent story. It is just the latest installment of an ongoing tale. It has an obligation, therefore, to "fit." At a higher level, the studio's objective is to make something that "feels like" Star Wars and on a more specific level the director here absolutely relied on toying with audience expectations - indeed, that's his only trick.

From a yet wider perspective, which is crucially relevant to "why the MCU works," the point here is to reach the widest demographic. And so we come to the flip side of the point of putting aside our own expectations: it is always fair to judge a film according to its own goals. And on this score, TLJ has created more division where there had been more unity.

If the point of film making is to create subtle, meditative art that stimulates reflection then the MCU does not "work." But TLJ still doesn't "work" in that world, either. "What The People Want" is key to the actual success of the MCU and ignoring that is huge part of why TLJ (which should have been a piece of cake) badly stumbled.

 LunarSol wrote:


The difference is this. I shouldn't be going to a movie to "order something". The presumption that I can or even should be able to is the fundamental flaw with the analogy. I did not go into Star Wars saying "please give me a movie with space wizards and laser swords that blow up an evil moon"; I went to the movie and those are things it gave me that I liked. The problem I initially had with TLJ is that I asked it to give me a carmel latte and didn't get it. On further viewings I'm liking it more on the basis of what it actually is once I stop pretending the movie should cater to my specific demands.

And this was part of my takeaway from the Twin Peaks revival. Too often we view our entertainment as something to be consumed. Made to order, gobbled up, and then flushed away. And when that's our mindset, all these demands are a natural result. Things need more seasoning or lightsabers or RDJ quips.

But that's kind of a terrible way to approach a creative work. I'm well within my rights to like something or not, but it shouldn't be based on the degree to which the artist catered to me. Art should challenge and confound and surprise. I was wrapped up in the consumption of this stuff like so many others, and then David Lynch slapped me across the face and made me remember what I should never have forgotten as a creative professional. It's not all about ME and my egotistical demands...I should be giving artists room and respect when presented with their creative works

Since then I've tried to do a better job of letting my entertainment be what it is, and stop worrying about how it meets my 'taste'. I think Frank Herbert wrote a line something like "we must stand silently and point at the new thing." It's kinda like that.

 gorgon wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:


The difference is this. I shouldn't be going to a movie to "order something". The presumption that I can or even should be able to is the fundamental flaw with the analogy. I did not go into Star Wars saying "please give me a movie with space wizards and laser swords that blow up an evil moon"; I went to the movie and those are things it gave me that I liked. The problem I initially had with TLJ is that I asked it to give me a carmel latte and didn't get it. On further viewings I'm liking it more on the basis of what it actually is once I stop pretending the movie should cater to my specific demands.

And this was part of my takeaway from the Twin Peaks revival. Too often we view our entertainment as something to be consumed. Made to order, gobbled up, and then flushed away. And when that's our mindset, all these demands are a natural result. Things need more seasoning or lightsabers or RDJ quips.

But that's kind of a terrible way to approach a creative work. I'm well within my rights to like something or not, but it shouldn't be based on the degree to which the artist catered to me. Art should challenge and confound and surprise. I was wrapped up in the consumption of this stuff like so many others, and then David Lynch slapped me across the face and made me remember what I should never have forgotten as a creative professional. It's not all about ME and my egotistical demands...I should be giving artists room and respect when presented with their creative works

Since then I've tried to do a better job of letting my entertainment be what it is, and stop worrying about how it meets my 'taste'. I think Frank Herbert wrote a line something like "we must stand silently and point at the new thing." It's kinda like that.

I don't think it's that simple.

If someone walks in to an avant garde indie film, or something from a well-known auteur director, or even just something from an entirely new IP, I think you're right to a degree, the audience has to put aside any expectations they might have.

But I don't think your characterisation of "egotistical demands" and other assorted manbunnery is even remotely fair when it comes to established settings, and it certainly doesn't apply when those settings are part of a long-established mass-market property. The fact is, with that kind of situation, the artist is the one under an obligation, not the audience, and if the artist doesn't want to work within the established themes and tone then they shouldn't be working on an established IP.

If you want to cook haute cuisine, don't take a job in MacDonalds and then act like a snob when people come in expecting you to make them a Big Mac.

So, if I buy a ticket for Pacific Rim 3 and get Mother! 2!, it's my fault if I'm not happy?

 Lance845 wrote:
The mcu works because they have a plan and someone in xharge making sure all the pieces fall into place. Infinity war has been on its way since iron man 1. They took their time to build the characters and make everyrhing work.

Dc on the other has no fething idea whT they are doing.

This.

The MCU works because of the right combination of talent, knowing your market, and very careful and patient planning. Conveniently all things conspicuously lacking from DC's films, and arguably I think the recent Star Wars films are severely lacking in the planning department in so far as the development of the films seems to need a bit more control to ensure cohesion of the effort.

The biggest thing going for Marvel is success. It's allowed them to make decisions from a position of strength, not a position of weakness. So when the Marvel formula has started to feel a little stale, they've taken positive risks, experimented with new directors and new talent. It's also meant Marvel have been able to recover from small stumbles along the way without feeling pressure to doubt their overall plan or approach.

In contrast DC started with an interesting idea. But average returns and hostile audience reactions has created doubt in the plan they were following. This led to a lot of decisions driven by fear and caution, abandoning bits of their original vision piece by piece. Not a good way to produce consistent quality.

Iron Man was objectively good, the first wave that followed was a much more mixed bag. Thor was entirely forgettable, Captain America was okay, and Incredible Hulk was a complete misstep - the film was mediocre but more than that Edward Norton's casting didn't work at all. But in part through the strength of Iron Man and in part through the novelty of the expanded universe the films performed well and buzz grew, Marvel stuck with the plan and made The Avengers, which was a huge commercial hit and widely loved. This success allowed Marvel to ignore some subsequent misteps, like the mediocre Avengers sequel or another bad Thor movie), and instead experiment with interesting variations on their formula (Ant-Man as a heist movie, or an actually good Thor movie by changing the formula to comedy adventure).

DC came in second so there was no hype for novelty for their plan and they were building based off Man of Steel, which was not a particularly popular movie. When BvS performed okay but suffered strong negative reaction, well DC could have responded like Marvel did after Thor and continue with the tone and themes they had planned for their film series. But it was much harder for DC to do that because it didn't have that base of success or the goodwill of being the first in. Instead they panicked a little with Suicide Squad and ordered reshoots to give it a lighter tone. Whether this helped Suicide Squad or made it worse is up for debate, but either way the film they put out was pretty bad. So the pressure only grew, and the dysfunctional decision making got worse- even more radical changes were made to Justice League, it was cut down to a shorter length. DC reacted to the criticism of BvS and SS slow pacing, but missed that length is needed in some movies to bring in more complexity, more of the real world surrounding the heroes. The result was a Justice League film that entirely ignored the themes and world setting that BvS had worked to create, in its place we got a string of snappy one liners and big action set pieces, with no theme or sense of place to give it any meaning.

tldr - Marvel had an interesting idea, and early success gave them freedom to double down on their strengths and experiment. DC started with an interesting idea, but they were second in and failed to execute their first few attempts, which led to self-doubt and drift away from their interesting idea.

 Manchu wrote:
The problem is, everything about the SW IP and, specifically, how Rian Johnson handled it, undermines that principle. TLJ is not an independent story. It is just the latest installment of an ongoing tale. It has an obligation, therefore, to "fit." At a higher level, the studio's objective is to make something that "feels like" Star Wars and on a more specific level the director here absolutely relied on toying with audience expectations - indeed, that's his only trick.

This right here is describing why Star Wars fails: because it isn't an ongoing tale. The Star Wars story had a path, and it ended. After ROTJ there was nothing left to tell, as demonstrated by the endless mediocre-to-awful milking of the cash cow with the EU. TLJ does not exist because it's the next chapter in an ongoing story, it exists because Disney paid the GDP of a small country to get the Star Wars IP and they're going to cash in on that investment. The only way to make any sense out of the new movies is to treat them as independent stories vaguely related to the Star Wars theme. TFA milks the nostalgia cash cow and rehashes the existing material, TLJ toys with expectations and goes against them. Who knows what the next movie is going to do, but it's still going to be a new interpretation of how to milk the cash cow.

The MCU, on the other hand, was established from the beginning as an open-ended setting rather than a story and that gives it a lot more resilience than other IPs. The movies share characters and there's an overall plot if you care enough to pay attention to it, but the movies largely stand on their own. If you don't like one movie or character there's another one coming soon that might be more to your taste. And there's room to keep introducing new characters and making "origin story" movies, which have a sales advantage in being new material but still get to cash in on the MCU name. Obviously this only works if the overall quality of the IP doesn't fall too low, but as long as the MCU brand as a whole has a good reputation it can survive a failure or two.

Third Star Wars movie will probably be about the Resistance getting help from an unexpected indigenous species and a surprisingly exploitable weakness take out the First Order, meanwhile Marvel will knock things out of the park with movies like Black Panther and Infinity War.

 sebster wrote:
The biggest thing going for Marvel is success. It's allowed them to make decisions from a position of strength, not a position of weakness. So when the Marvel formula has started to feel a little stale, they've taken positive risks, experimented with new directors and new talent. It's also meant Marvel have been able to recover from small stumbles along the way without feeling pressure to doubt their overall plan or approach.

In contrast DC started with an interesting idea. But average returns and hostile audience reactions has created doubt in the plan they were following. This led to a lot of decisions driven by fear and caution, abandoning bits of their original vision piece by piece. Not a good way to produce consistent quality.

Iron Man was objectively good, the first wave that followed was a much more mixed bag. Thor was entirely forgettable, Captain America was okay, and Incredible Hulk was a complete misstep - the film was mediocre but more than that Edward Norton's casting didn't work at all. But in part through the strength of Iron Man and in part through the novelty of the expanded universe the films performed well and buzz grew, Marvel stuck with the plan and made The Avengers, which was a huge commercial hit and widely loved. This success allowed Marvel to ignore some subsequent misteps, like the mediocre Avengers sequel or another bad Thor movie), and instead experiment with interesting variations on their formula (Ant-Man as a heist movie, or an actually good Thor movie by changing the formula to comedy adventure).

DC came in second so there was no hype for novelty for their plan and they were building based off Man of Steel, which was not a particularly popular movie. When BvS performed okay but suffered strong negative reaction, well DC could have responded like Marvel did after Thor and continue with the tone and themes they had planned for their film series. But it was much harder for DC to do that because it didn't have that base of success or the goodwill of being the first in. Instead they panicked a little with Suicide Squad and ordered reshoots to give it a lighter tone. Whether this helped Suicide Squad or made it worse is up for debate, but either way the film they put out was pretty bad. So the pressure only grew, and the dysfunctional decision making got worse- even more radical changes were made to Justice League, it was cut down to a shorter length. DC reacted to the criticism of BvS and SS slow pacing, but missed that length is needed in some movies to bring in more complexity, more of the real world surrounding the heroes. The result was a Justice League film that entirely ignored the themes and world setting that BvS had worked to create, in its place we got a string of snappy one liners and big action set pieces, with no theme or sense of place to give it any meaning.

tldr - Marvel had an interesting idea, and early success gave them freedom to double down on their strengths and experiment. DC started with an interesting idea, but they were second in and failed to execute their first few attempts, which led to self-doubt and drift away from their interesting idea.

I don't think that DCU was ever very cohesive - instead they kept trying to replicate their success with the Nolan Batman films - which themselves had built massively on the first Burton Batman film (and IMO far suprerior). Their other source of success was the older Superman films with more recent ones being adequate at best. They became obessesed with Dark and Gloomy at the expense of charcteristation and plot and Bats vs Sups was the result - a mess on its own but fately weakened by the truely awful portrayla of Lex Luthor which constantly tried to destroy the film.

Suicide Squad had a great start but hit a wall about half way through - it tried to be a marvel film and did not quite manage it.

Wonder Woman and Justice League are just far superior films - they are well crafted with stories themed around the characters and their emotions, relationships etc - not just "lets make it dark and pretend that that means something"

BVS made no attempt at word building - same as the Last Jedi destroyed what very little had been done before - becuase the directors do not seem to care about the universe they should be creating

Marvel continue to make the same sort of films - about people NOT pretending they are about high concepts that allow critcis to sneer at anyone else.

Length of fims has no relation to quaity - many films are over long because of lazy or weak editing or lack of confidence that the audiance can understand whats going on.

I thought Wonder Woman was ridiculous. I love Gal Gadot, she is smoking hot, and I'll watch her do anything, but that movie was lame.

I do like Man Of Steel, until we get to all the destruction at the end. That kind of wholesale slaughter should appear towards the end of a combined story, not start right out the gate with it. However I loved the Kryptonians, and especially Zod. Thought his motivations were legit.

But I have a problem with Superman just being too powerful. His skin can stop bullets yet he falls back from punches? He needs to be updated and not so powerful. Then there would be more of a struggle.

I am also a huge fan of Ben Affleck as an older Bruce Wayne. His size, shape of his face, and demeanor is perfect. I wasn't a fan of Bale, and I think we saw too much of his face and not enough Batman. The Trilogy should have been called: Bruce Wayne Begins, The Dark Bruce Wayne, and Bruce Wayne Rises.

I actually think Suicide Squad is awesome, and I can't stand Will Smith. I will watch Suicide Squad re-runs more than I will watch any other DC movie. I wish they would bang half a dozen of those movies out.

BvS was cool. I thought the opening with Bruce running through Metropolis was brilliant. I loved the Dark Knight Returns since childhood, so it was cool to see the match up. But to throw in the lame Doomsday and have Superman killed and then brought back the way they did, they have just crossed too many paths in that universe and I just don't think I can buy into whatever will be at stake anymore.

I might be one of the few who seem to love Jared Leto's Joker. I think he was perfect. While we all love Heath Ledger's Joker, I didn't find him flying rodent gak crazy enough. He just wasn't psycho enough for me, and I have to admit, I love the Harley Quinn dynamic.

AND WHO DOESN'T LOVE MARGOT ROBBIE??????????????

But in the end, there is no real plan for the DC universe, just a bunch of different movies loosely tied together. And at this point what are they going to do? Another reboot? Another round of origin stories? People are tired of them. And I am not sure they have locked these actors enough for more movies to even plan out a whole bunch. Marvel has hundreds of characters that fans can be excited about, while DC just does not. DC is limited to a dozen or so. That's just the blunt truth. And there isn't a lot of more story to tell of them, and that limits there universe. Everything is bent on defending the Earth from some massive threat, where Marvel is ok with smaller threats and some of those are the most interesting.

Which is a shame, as they have done a good job with casting.