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.

Two whole pages of this and not a single person has said the name Kevin Feige.

Why does the MCU work? Because of Kevin Feige. The driving force, the focal point, the navigator, the helmsman - he is the reason the MCU breaks records with almost ever release, and why his third Avengers film will be a bigger cinematic event than the movie that featured three of the five* most well known super heroes in history.

Kevin Feige is a man who has worked his way through the industry, starting as Lauren Shuler Donner's assistant (a name you should recognise from a lot of Marvel films, also Richard Donner aka the director of Superman's wife). Interestingly future DC Big Wig Geoff Johns was Richard Donner's assistant!

He went up and up through the ranks, working as low level producer jobs and eventually executive producer jobs on everything that Marvel had licensed out at the time. He eventually got put in charge, made Iron Man, and the rest is history. He is a comic book fan through and through, has learnt the producing side of Hollywood through tireless work, and now commands one of the biggest movie empires of recent history.

So, again, why does the MCU work? Because of Kevin Feige.

*The other two being Spider-Man and, due to the X-Men films, Wolverine.

 gorgon wrote:
... being a sequel to the Ang Lee film...

It was not a sequel to Ang Lee's Hulk.

That Hulk movie has nothing to do with the MCU. And, as pointed out, Marvel can't make standalone Hulk films without Universal getting involved as they own the distribution rights.

 gorgon wrote:
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.

Why would they play ball with Universal? What does it gain them? They're doing just fine with Hulk as a character, and he's been one of the most popular since his breakout performance in the first Avengers film. What they have works, so why share?

"But Spider-Man!"

Yes, they shared with Sony because:

1. Sony is floundering as a company, so they're happy for the help.
2. Sony's own attempt at a Spiderverse was falling apart, presenting Marvel with an opportunity to gain something big.
3. Spider-Man is the most profitable super-hero on the planet (yes, moreso than Batman and Superman), so why wouldn't Marvel want to put that into their already hugely successful universe?

Hulk may be popular, but he's no Spider-Man, and right now Marvel don't need him to be Spider-Man. He can keep being Hulk and being a massive draw without them ever needing to talk to Universal.

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

Thor 3 was a deeply educational film. It taught me a new word: Bathos.

 Formosa wrote:
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.

I'll always be one of the first to call out "SJW crap", but Disco is not a show like that. The revisionist history hype around it was ridiculous - some people declared it the first Trek with a black main character, ignoring Sisko, others claimed it to be a Trek with the first female lead, ignoring Janeway - but as someone who's never been big into trek (I like most of the movies and DS9's pretty cool), I found it entertaining and different enough to be worthwhile. The only real "SJW-ish" grandstanding they did was with Anthony Rapp's character, who was gay so that the writers go go "Look! A gay! Aren't we ever so progressive!". It was so obviously tokenistic.

 Manchu wrote:
They don't have to be good; they just need to address the lowest common denominator.

That's such nonsense. I mean that goes beyond backhanded compliment to full-on sucker punch there Manchu.

Movies like MCU films do not reach the heights they get to simply by appealing to the lowest common denominator.

The phrase "lowest common denominator" must sound a lot worse than it is. I'm not sure what could be more clear about the MCU films than the fact that they are constructed to appeal to the widest possible audience.

To the point about Star Wars being "over with" after RotJ, I know people who propose Star Wars was "over with" after ANH and ESB was just milking the cash cow. People can (and have and will) draw that line wherever they please.

 sebster wrote:
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.

I *firmly* believe that had they followed up MoS with a normal sequel -- perhaps from a different director -- it would have been warmly received. The first movie in a reboot has to break some eggs...after that, it gets easier. Remember that Batman Begins had good-not-great reviews. The Dark Knight was a masterpiece, but it was still set up for success by BB. While I think that baking certain negative reactions about MoS into BvS as part of the story was an interesting approach, I think it was an overreaction and ultimately just lent those criticisms more energy. And it didn't help that the movie doubled or tripled down on tone (MoS really wasn't a dark film, and certainly wasn't as dark as BvS).

There are individual sequences in BvS that I think are amazing. And although I think the film certainly has other problems (the director's cut is definitely superior, but still has problems of it own), personally I still respect that the director had a clear vision. But I also fully understand that audiences didn't want to see their heroes rolling around on floors of filthy bathrooms of abandoned buildings, smashing sinks over each other's heads in an ugly brawl. When the financial stakes were as *massive* as they were for BvS, they would have been smart to take a page from Marvel's book and make a more conservative, crowdpleasing movie.

Regarding JL, which went through TWO overhauls -- would it have been better for audiences to see Snyder's original vision if it involved Steppenwolf killing Cyborg by tearing him to pieces, as was rumored? How about evil Superman, controlled by Darkseid through the Anti-Life Equation? That certainly would have felt like a continuation of BvS. I probably wouldn't have liked it, but I would have accepted that it was that filmmaker's vision. It probably would have killed the DCEU for general audiences, though.

Again, I think that WB's decisions with the creation of the DCEU forced them into situations where there was no good solution. They weren't wrong that the reaction to BvS demanded immediate changes to SS and JL to protect their business. But they were in that place because they were so committed to one story, one vision, and massive budgets. Marvel played it safer and built in more flexibility.

KTG17 wrote:
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 not 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.

Agree that Jareds Jokker and Margots Harley were great - I thought HL Joker was ok but yeah he simply was not not nuts enough compared to jareds or Nicholsons - both much better,

Sups, Batman and especially Wonder Woman were all good in Bats vs Sups - the beyond stupid plot and every single horrble moment Lex was on screen killed that film for me.

Lowest Common Denominator is often understood to mean something like this:

A particular type of obnoxious person one encounters in extremely large groups, or where everybody is universally included. Because there are so many people, there is a significantly higher probability of idiotic people

It doesn't make sense to interpret the phrase like that in this context. How could appealing to "a particular kind of obnoxious person" explain the MCU's success?

MCU works, to me, because of the following;

-Controlled direction (Kevin Feige)
-Flexbility due to initial success (Kevin Feige)
-RDJ (This can't be stressed enough).
-Grabbing several people outside of RDJ and locking them into solid contracts. The key though is that they grabbed, on purpose or accident, some truly talented actors that were either beginning their break or looking to break their current casting niche (Hemsworth the former and Evans and Johansen as the latter). Be real, RDJ is the foundation but the two big guys turned into the initial supports. This gave them the baseline where people likely would come to them to be super heroes instead of them having to find them.
-The actors enjoy the movies. Even with what they put Evans and Hemsworth thru physically (and they did seem to dial that back after their initial movies) they enjoy making these movies and working with the studio. And it shows.
-They pay some service to the comics but aren't afraid to shift things around to make it more palatable to the general public.
-They don't take themselves seriously in the sense that they don't beat you over the head with the theme and message.
-They're just fun. Some might not be amazing and set the bar but I've never walked out of one like I did Man of Steel thinking "Wow, that was 30 minutes to long because of a pointless fight scene".

Just my thoughts.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
... being a sequel to the Ang Lee film...

It was not a sequel to Ang Lee's Hulk.

That Hulk movie has nothing to do with the MCU. And, as pointed out, Marvel can't make standalone Hulk films without Universal getting involved as they own the distribution rights.

Nice selective editing of my post? I explained what I meant and even used the word 'requel' to explain that it was part-sequel, part-reboot. And it was definitely made with the idea that we've already gotten the origin story, have been introduced to Betty and General Ross, etc. in the Lee film, even as the MCU film pursued a new path. Superman Returns was the same thing. Whenever (if ever?) WB gets around to making another Green Lantern film, that'll be the same thing too...wait and see.

 gorgon wrote:
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.

Why would they play ball with Universal? What does it gain them? They're doing just fine with Hulk as a character, and he's been one of the most popular since his breakout performance in the first Avengers film. What they have works, so why share?

"But Spider-Man!"

Yes, they shared with Sony because:

1. Sony is floundering as a company, so they're happy for the help.
2. Sony's own attempt at a Spiderverse was falling apart, presenting Marvel with an opportunity to gain something big.
3. Spider-Man is the most profitable super-hero on the planet (yes, moreso than Batman and Superman), so why wouldn't Marvel want to put that into their already hugely successful universe?

Hulk may be popular, but he's no Spider-Man, and right now Marvel don't need him to be Spider-Man. He can keep being Hulk and being a massive draw without them ever needing to talk to Universal.

 Manchu wrote:
It doesn't make sense to interpret the phrase like that in this context. How could appealing to "a particular kind of obnoxious person" explain the MCU's success?

Lowest common denominator is generally seen as the stupidest person. Think about all the times that phrase is used and how many of them have a positive air about them? You could say the same thing you mean to say with "appeal to the masses"
and it wouldn't seem nearly so dickish

See i think the best mcu films are winter soldier and civil war. They get a lot of characters in there but everyone feels like a whole person instead of some kind of support for the lead. Great action. Good stories. Small comedic beats that dont disrupt the narritive.

Iron man 3 is the worst, but a servicable buddy cop film. Followed by avengers 1 and 2 because joss wheddon is a hack who does the exact opposite of winter soldier and civil war by piling in a bunch of characters and making them all feel like cardboard cut outs instead of real people.

I don't disagree Lance. For actual quality those two are my favorite and most rewatchable films. Fun wise though I do enjoy the first Avengers and I LOVE Guardians 1 and Thor Ragnarok. I haven't seen black panther yet and I'm stupid excited for Infinity War.

 Hulksmash wrote:
Lowest common denominator is generally seen as the stupidest person.

That's certainly part of it, if by "stupid" you actually mean ignorant. The MCU movies assume no knowledge about anything, including their own source material. Even the famous interlinking references embedded across these movies are just an optional "extra" layer of enjoyment rather than being necessary for enjoyment.

 Manchu wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
Lowest common denominator is generally seen as the stupidest person.

That's certainly part of it, if by "stupid" you actually mean ignorant. The MCU movies assume no knowledge about anything, including their own source material. Even the famous interlinking references embedded across these movies are just an optional "extra" layer of enjoyment rather than being necessary for enjoyment.

Except Spiderman. He is pretty much just dropped into Civil War without much explanation, and he doesn't really need it, because Spiderman. As mentioned above, he is the most recognisable superhero of all.

 Manchu wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
Lowest common denominator is generally seen as the stupidest person.

That's certainly part of it, if by "stupid" you actually mean ignorant. The MCU movies assume no knowledge about anything, including their own source material. Even the famous interlinking references embedded across these movies are just an optional "extra" layer of enjoyment rather than being necessary for enjoyment.

No, I mean stupid. Because the phrase "Lowest common denominator" doesn't generally imply ignorant. It generally implies stupid. But either way when you say they make the movies to appeal to the "lowest common denominator" you saying even in your words the ignorant and in most people's view the stupidest. You wondered why people were annoyed with your phrasing and I was pointing out how it came off as dickish. You could have actually gotten your point across far more easily if you'd just said (like many others) that part of their success is that you can be ignorant of the source material and enjoy the movies.

DC's problems definitely stem from the success of the Dark Knight and its influence on Man of Steel. Zack Snyder is a good pick for that direction, but the direction itself has serious problems that basically repeat the problems that crashed comics in the first place.

Snyder has a love for a specific style of fatalist storytelling that has regularly produced seminal but unsustainable works. Both Watchmen and DKR are dead end universes. Largely that's the point. After their success, DC tried to use them to inform their own universe and created one of the shortest spikes of cultural relevance in comic history.

Snyder is basically repeating this problem but in some ways, he's creating a worse version of it. Those comics seem to be his introduction to the medium, leaving them as an example of what comics should be rather than the deconstruction of the medium as intended. I also don't think Snyder is particularly interested in building an ongoing universe with this stuff and the end result is a bunch of movies that don't really know what they want to be other than whatever appeared to make a bunch of money during their time in production hell.

 Hulksmash wrote:
It generally implies stupid.

Whatever it supposedly implies, what it actually means is that aiming wide means aiming low. MCU films are specifically and intentionally not intellectually demanding. That's not a cheap shot at people who enjoy them - unless of course you're implying that I'm trying to insult myself. No one (except you) is talking about people of being stupid. To the contrary, general audience members certainly understand what Marvel is offering and respond very favorably. Most folks want a reasonably good chance of enjoying the film they are paying to see at least while they are watching it. And with Marvel, they get a very high chance of being satisfied. By contrast, who knows what the next SW film will be like. Is it going to me more pretentious garbage about "subverting expectations" or can we just have a fun adventure?

 LunarSol wrote:
DC's problems definitely stem from the success of the Dark Knight and its influence on Man of Steel. Zack Snyder is a good pick for that direction, but the direction itself has serious problems that basically repeat the problems that crashed comics in the first place.

Snyder has a love for a specific style of fatalist storytelling that has regularly produced seminal but unsustainable works. Both Watchmen and DKR are dead end universes. Largely that's the point. After their success, DC tried to use them to inform their own universe and created one of the shortest spikes of cultural relevance in comic history.

Snyder is basically repeating this problem but in some ways, he's creating a worse version of it. Those comics seem to be his introduction to the medium, leaving them as an example of what comics should be rather than the deconstruction of the medium as intended. I also don't think Snyder is particularly interested in building an ongoing universe with this stuff and the end result is a bunch of movies that don't really know what they want to be other than whatever appeared to make a bunch of money during their time in production hell.

Yeah. I think Snyder is an underrated filmmaker. There are few directors that can match his talents for visuals, and he simply knows how to stage action sequences. I also think some of his films are more thoughtful than people give them credit for. HOWEVER...yes, he was a very poor choice to create and godfather the DCEU.

MoS was *chockful* of Superman and DC easter eggs that a lot of self-described Superman fans didn't notice or understand. There was plenty of universe-building in that movie, especially considering it was originally meant to work as a standalone and not necessarily the introduction to a universe. Remember that film was the idea of the Nolans and Goyer, and Christopher Nolan is famously against shared universes.

But (weirdly) starting with BvS, the DCEU architect seemed to be eager to take wrecking balls to things that the universe might later want or need. What was with making Jimmy Olson a CIA agent and then capping him? Why would he think that having Cyborg horribly killed in JL (purportedly the original plan) would serve the universe well? Why have Dick Grayson dead at the hands of the Joker? (He recently hinted the dead Robin in BvS isn't Jason, but Dick.) In retrospect, killing Zod in MoS was also a major mistake, although again they weren't fully planning for a shared universe at that time.

We'll never know what the conversations were between Snyder and WB, but it's like he was either told to be an auteur filmmaker and do whatever he wants (studio's fault), or he didn't understand the role he was in and the billions that WB had riding on him (Snyder's fault). The studio's real mistake was not laying down the law at the beginning, or stepping in with BvS if that's what it came to.

 LunarSol wrote:
leaving them as an example of what comics should be rather than the deconstruction of the medium as intended

Excellent point. And also sheds insight into why the MCU succeeds. The key takeaway from comic books was not the specific characters and scenarios; it's the endless sweep of its dimensions - comic book narratives are only very loosely rooted in specific places and times, they intersect with each other at some points and not at others, they go on forever, are inherently rebootable, etc, etc.

 Manchu wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
It generally implies stupid.

Whatever it supposedly implies, what it actually means is that aiming wide means aiming low. MCU films are specifically and intentionally not intellectually demanding. That's not a cheap shot at people who enjoy them - unless of course you're implying that I'm trying to insult myself. No one (except you) is talking about people of being stupid. To the contrary, general audience members certainly understand what Marvel is offering and respond very favorably. Most folks want a reasonably good chance of enjoying the film they are paying to see at least while they are watching it. And with Marvel, they get a very high chance of being satisfied. By contrast, who knows what the next SW film will be like. Is it going to me more pretentious garbage about "subverting expectations" or can we just have a fun adventure?

I agree, and then they sneak an interesting message or theme in from time to time.

Reminds me of Fury Road (and all Mad Max films) in that way. Sure, you can count on them for fun adventure stuff, but there is a bit of something more lurking right there int he subtext if you just reach for it and embrace it. However, you don;t have to if you do not want to.

I was actually watching Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 when I first saw this thread. I remember when it came out most people thought it wasn't as good as the first, but after seeing both over 20 times now, I have to say that the character arcs and development, and even humor for me, is superior in vol 2. Vol 1 is a great, great movie, but it was kind of typical. The first time I watched Vol 2 I had no idea where it was going. And I think the first 15 minutes of vol 2 are my favorite scenes in both movies combined (from the first fight to the arrival of Ego).

And that's the great thing about Marvel, The universe is fun. Its not really fun in DC or Star Wars. And I do love dark movies. As a matter of fact, I love The Watchmen - Extended Edition. I have watched that many many times. I think its near perfect. But I wouldn't want a dozen Watchmen movies. Marvel has me craving for more. And each time I think I am not going to care (Dr Strange, Black Panther, Thor 3), I am surprised how much fun I had. As a matter of fact, the movie I thought was the greatest letdown yet had one of the best bad guys was Spiderman: Homecoming (which was still better than most of Sony's films). But the fact you could throw Iron Man in it for a few minutes and make it part of everything else that is going on is just amazing.

And I just don't see anyone else pulling this off.

And Marvel is just getting started. Like I said, they have hundreds of characters and places to introduce.

Iron Man: We owe RDJ for the MCU, and this is a solid movie.

Incredible Hulk: I am an Edward Norton fan, but not as Bruce Banner. I am glad he was replaced. I am not even sure I have watched the entire movie.

Thor: Kind of a weak movie, but Thor is one of my fav Marvel characters so I don't care. I'll watch it when its on.

Captain America: I don't know why this movie doesn't get more credit. From beginning to end, its an amazing looking movie. Maybe a little slow, but it tells a better origin story than any other in the MCU as far as I am concerned.

Avengers: Aside from Captain America's ridiculous looking uniform, the movie knocks it out of the park. The alien dragon-snake looking things are one of the coolest monsters I've seen in film. I still crack up over "I'm seeing it, still working on believing it."

Iron Man 2: My least favorite Iron Man I think. Whiplash is just lame, and with all the alcoholism going on, I think putting the real Mandarin in this movie would have been cooler. But I don't hate the movie. But Whiplash makes all these powerful drones yet gives himself no long range weapons himself? Ugghh. And the attack on the racetrack is silly.

Thor 2: I seem to be one of the few who thinks this is the closest to a perfect Thor movie, if you could just take out Natalie Portman and her band of idiots. But Asgard, Odin, Warriors Three, Sif, they all look perfect and how I imagine they would right out of the comic.

Captain America 2: Awesome. From beginning to end, one of the best sequels in the MCU. Elevator fight scene is one of my favorite fight scenes in the whole MCU.

Avengers 2: While I love Ultron, in the comic cartoons, and in this film, this was a weak ass movie. Jet setting around the world, ridiculous diving fight moves, makes me roll my eyes. I rate it okay. Ultron steals the show tho.

Iron Man 3: Doesn't feel like Iron Man, but I do think it was a Tony Stark movie that needed to be told. Its nice to see characters struggling with demons and everything not about saving the planet. For awhile I thought the kid was annoying, but he's grown on me. Huge, huge disappointment was what they did with Mandarin.

Guardians of the Galaxy - Having knowing nothing of these guys, I read up on them before the movie came out. I thought they were ridiculous. Then I saw the trailer, and was pumped. Then I saw the movie, and half way through I realized I was grinning the whole time. Loved it. It is, what we hope all movie experiences are like. I hope they make 30 of these movies.

Ant Man - Love it. I hope we get a dozen Ant Man and the Wasp films.

Captain America 3: Awesome in the scope. Its amazing to see so many characters on screen. I am a Nemo fan from old comic book days (what a ridiculous costume), and I like Daniel Brühl, but this was a disappointment. Seeing everyone fighting each other was a trip, although as time goes by I feel like the airport fight was a little ridiculous. But the final fight between Cap, Bucky, and Tony, is legendary.

Spiderman: Homecoming - As I said, a let down for me. I didn't like the talking suit. But Vulture stole the film and I guess that has to be expected when Michael Keaton shows up. But it had its moments and I hope to see more, since I think Holland is a perfect choice to play Parker.

Dr Strange - While familiar with the comic, I never read it. I thought this would be okay, but at the end I was really impressed. Benedict Cumberbatch knocked it out of the park. Yeah some people get pissy about the racial make up of some of the actors but that just makes me roll my eyes. He is a great addition to the MCU, and I have enjoyed him in the cameos and imagine he will be awesome in Infinity War.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 - Awesome. The level of CGI detail is awesome. And there are a lot of details I think are missed the few times you first see the film. Gamora crossing her eyes while Quill is hitting on the queen, or all of Chris Pratt's facial expressions. I really think this is a great crew of actors, and will really miss Yondu. I would say these are my favorite films in the MCU.

Thor 3 - I wanted to avoid this at first, as I prefer a more traditional Thor, but having now seen this, I acknowledge it was a really fun movie. Talking Hulk was awesome and him and Thor arguing was classic. I wasnt crazy about Ragnorak, and being a fan of the old comics, I though Surtur should have been the star, not Hela. I thought a lot was rushed, but a lot of it was great too. Liked Skurge. I guess I liked the events on the game world more than I did on Asgard. I liked Asgard and its characters too. I hate to see it gone from the MCU.

Black Panther - Gutsy movie. I thought Killmonger was awesome. Hate to see Klaw die (I am sick of them killing the all the bad guys), but the movie brings such a different dynamic, and makes you realize how different all these MCU movies are, as opposed to Star Wars, which all feel the same.

So I really don't have a movie I dislike. I think they are all worth watching repeatedly.

Thor 2 and Iron Man 2 are the duds for me. They both suffer from extremely weak villains. I think Thor 2 has bits that are too inspired to ignore (vortex grenades!) but I see these two movies both suffering from problems that plague every other studio's shared universe. Iron Man 2 cares more about world building than its own story and Thor 2 ramps up the comedy in the wake of Avenger's success culminating in an ending best set to the Benny Hill theme.

I think the first Cap mostly suffers from a weak end to Red Skull's story. The movie as a whole is fantastic, but the end definitely feels like it knew where the pieces all had to end up but didn't have a good plan to get them there.

I quite like Ultron. There's nothing I really hate other than Thor's random exposition dump in the middle. I assume that sequence was the template for BvS's security footage scene.

I think Ant Man and Dr. Strange both suffer a bit from too much of a good thing. They are just the bar now in a world that has seen it raised considerably in the last decade.

 Manchu wrote:
To the point about Star Wars being "over with" after RotJ, I know people who propose Star Wars was "over with" after ANH and ESB was just milking the cash cow. People can (and have and will) draw that line wherever they please.

People can draw the line, but that doesn't make the line reasonable. ANH was always intended to be the first chapter in a story, and on top of the unresolved story elements you can see where Lucas deliberately set it up to have sequels. But after ROTJ what is left? Luke has become a jedi and redeemed his father, Leia's rebellion has brought down the evil empire, Han has become a hero and won the girl. From a narrative point of view everything that was set out in ANH has been resolved. The prequels add a different framing of Star Wars being the story of the rise, fall, and redemption of Anakin Skywalker, but that story is also over at the end of ROTJ. And I don't think it's any coincidence that for ~30 years Lucas was happy to let the story end at ROTJ and leave the post-ROTJ events to the EU, and the idea of making more movies after ROTJ didn't come up until Disney paid the GDP of a small country for the IP and promptly started working on more movies to recover their investment.

I don't think ANH was ever conceived of as the first chapter. Even before it was retroactively labeled Episode IV, the point of the scenario is that a bunch of stuff is already going on and these events are situated in an already-ongoing plot.

As for money as motivation, this has always been present. That's the point of my friend's argument about ESB. From his POV, ANH told a complete story and ESB is a desperate appeal to soap opera tropes and self help/new age hokum to justify what Mel Brooks called The Quest For More Money.

 Manchu wrote:
I don't think ANH was ever conceived of as the first chapter.

You think wrong. We know from things like the original story notes/concept art/etc that Star Wars was a much longer story that was cut down to make ANH, with the cut elements evolving into the rest of the trilogy. We know that early drafts of the script contained "Episode X" in their titles. We know that work on ESB started ~6 months after ANH was released, strongly suggesting that the idea was in place already. And we see things like Vader's ship being knocked into space instead of destroyed, in an obvious "I'll be back" foreshadowing moment. It's a film that can stand on its own and be enjoyable, because funding for sequels was not guaranteed, but from the beginning it was meant to be one chapter in a larger story.

You quoted my post, declared it wrong, then explained why it is right.

Lucas's notes from the 70s are an unwieldy mess that bears little to no relation to any of the movies. The surviving idea from that period was that audience was hearing a story from the Journal of the Whills as if it had been opened up in the middle of the tome rather than from the first page.

Even so, there is nothing to be resolved at the end of ANH. The evil fascists' bid for absolute tyranny hinged on their super weapon, as they carefully explained in the script. Likewise, there is nothing that needs to be resolved prior to ANH - not why Anakin turned bad and not why there is a surface exhaust port leading to the main reactor of the Death Star.

It has never not been about money.

Lucas' notes are a mess and his revisionist history is absurd at times, but the point is that Star Wars was always intended to have sequels. That was a constant, through all of the evolution the story went through from 1975 to 1983. Unless the first chapter failed financially Lucas was going to continue the story. And once he had the financing to continue he turned the rough ideas into its final form, an ending he was satisfied with for 30+ years and multiple statements of "the story ends after ROTJ, the EU is not my story". He was content to let the company handle the cash cow milking through licensing deals, but as far as he was concerned the story ended at the end of ROTJ. Even once he decided to get back into the movie business with the prequels he said what he felt needed to be said and then he stopped, leaving the story to end at the end of ROTJ.

Contrast this with the new movies, where there is no such intent to continue the story until Disney buys the IP and needs to start making movies to recover their investment. For 30 years Lucas says "my story ends with ROTJ", and then a third party decides to add on more movies with no involvement from the original creator. That's a decision driven 100% by capitalism, not by art. If Disney doesn't buy the IP we likely never see another Star Wars movie.

What is this talk of art. SW has always been a commercial proposition. One of George's biggest struggles in 1976 was finding a company willing to pay for the Star Wars toy license. His major legacy in film making is creating the era Disney has come to dominate through its MCU. The guy is a producer-turned-CEO who wanted to be a director. His fully realized artistic vision is the Phantom Menace, a film designed to sell merchandise.

The problem is that Marvel has had a well-executed plan from the get go, while in all seriousness, if the new Star Wars movies (not Rogue one, which was great )would have been books 10 years ago, they would have been considered by most to be at the bottom end of the EU for quality, and on top of that they suffer from the same scizophrenic directing that holds the DC universe back.

In the final analysis, the proof that Star Wars was NOT intended to end there was Vader's survival. The shot that killed the portside escort could just have easily hit Vader's ship instead, and there was no time for either of the others to line up the shot on Luke. This leaves the main villain of the piece dead and all the loose ends tied off.

But Vader survived, in a clear 'this isn't over yet!' moment.

I can see how one might overlook it. But it's a clear "Checkov's Gun" moment if you're at all familiar with moviemaking, or even just storytelling.

But no one has argued that SW was intended to end with ANH. Rather, the point is that ANH tells a complete story - unlike, for example, ESB. ESB was made because ANH was a megahit and it was clear there was a lot more money on the table. If for some bizarre reason it had flopped, and there was never another SW movie, it wouldn't have stopped on a cliffhanger.

 Mr Morden wrote:
I don't think that DCU was ever very cohesive

MoS moving to BvS was cohesive, BvS expands on the themes and mood of MoS. In turn SS started with the same elements as a starting point, it actually expands the notion of a government floundering to regain some level of power in a world where superhumanly powerful beings suddenly appeared. But due to the extremely strong audience reaction against BvS they changed gear. They added the superfriends elements and a bunch more one-liners. Then they continued that with JL, stripping out any exploration of how the greater world reacts to the presence of super powered beings, and instead just tells a very small story of five heroes punching a villain.

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

Wonder Woman was excellent, far and away the best of DC's recent efforts.

But claiming that BvS made no attempt at world building is plainly wrong. It may not have been world building that you liked or were interested in, but that doesn't mean it wasn't there. Luthor's corruption of government looking for any answer to the thread of meta-humans, the exploration of Superman treated both in fear and adulation, the multiple scenes and sub-plots showing collateral damage from the Kryptonian fight, that was all stuff that explored how the greater world reacted to the arrival of super powered beings.

In comparison, in Justice League there was literally one scene that involved people outside our main characters, the fight at the memorial. In response to this lengthy fight in the middle of a city, we have one police car turn up and kind of mill about in the background.

Whether you prefer a film that looks at the greater world around the heroes, or a film that focuses in on the relationships between our group of heroes is not the point. Whether you prefer a darker, heavier tone, or a quicker, pacy film is also besides the point. What I explained was that DC started with one outlook, but after poor to middling returns they rapidly started making changes. Marvel has also made changes, but there is a big difference between trying new things from a position of success, and making changes from a position of failure.

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.

High concept means the opposite of what you think. Its a common mistake, but it has nothing to do with high brow or serious films, quite the opposite. High concept means films that can be quickly explained. Jurassic Park would be a good example - what if dinosaurs were brought back to life and started eating people is a perfect high concept.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gorgon wrote:
I *firmly* believe that had they followed up MoS with a normal sequel -- perhaps from a different director -- it would have been warmly received. The first movie in a reboot has to break some eggs...after that, it gets easier. Remember that Batman Begins had good-not-great reviews. The Dark Knight was a masterpiece, but it was still set up for success by BB. While I think that baking certain negative reactions about MoS into BvS as part of the story was an interesting approach, I think it was an overreaction and ultimately just lent those criticisms more energy. And it didn't help that the movie doubled or tripled down on tone (MoS really wasn't a dark film, and certainly wasn't as dark as BvS).

It's an interesting point, and I agree for the most part. I think MoS was about as dark, but that might just come from how sociopathic I consider Jonothan Kent's advice to be. That bizarre advice is actually the cause of the BvS problem, I think. Because MoS had set up Superman as the 'do it alone' machismo hero, there was no real conflict with Batman, who is inherently a 'do it alone' machismo hero. They either had to start with a Superfriends version of Batman (bleh) or make another Superman movie establishing him as the guy who wants/needs other superhumans to come in to the fold.

But by just launching straight in to BvS with Superman established as he was, the central conflict ended up being nothing more than machismo and some vague stuff about Luthor's manipulations.

There are individual sequences in BvS that I think are amazing. And although I think the film certainly has other problems (the director's cut is definitely superior, but still has problems of it own), personally I still respect that the director had a clear vision. But I also fully understand that audiences didn't want to see their heroes rolling around on floors of filthy bathrooms of abandoned buildings, smashing sinks over each other's heads in an ugly brawl. When the financial stakes were as *massive* as they were for BvS, they would have been smart to take a page from Marvel's book and make a more conservative, crowdpleasing movie.

Possibly, but remember we weren't far from the Batman trilogy making lots of money, after those movies took a very dark, grounded vision of superheroes. WB probably decided it was smarter to go with a distinct style that was already established with MoS which had given them great returns in the past, than to copy Marvel too closely and end up being the little brother product.

And yeah, there's a lot of individual parts of BvS that are excellent. It's a real shame that it didn't come together as a whole. I think that lack of meaningful conflict between Batman and Superman is the primary factor.

Regarding JL, which went through TWO overhauls -- would it have been better for audiences to see Snyder's original vision if it involved Steppenwolf killing Cyborg by tearing him to pieces, as was rumored? How about evil Superman, controlled by Darkseid through the Anti-Life Equation? That certainly would have felt like a continuation of BvS. I probably wouldn't have liked it, but I would have accepted that it was that filmmaker's vision. It probably would have killed the DCEU for general audiences, though.

Yeah, I would have hated that. Not just because Cyborg is pretty interesting, but introducing someone and then killing them off in the same movie always feels a bit cheap.

To me, the problem wasn't the tone, or the heroes winning the day without suffering. It's that we shifted from two films that were heavily about how superhumans lived in a world with humans who both loved and feared them, and also how the world adapted. Then in JL that was entirely dropped, instead our heroes just went from set piece to set piece fighting entirely isolated battles, with no real involvement from the whole rest of the planet.

To bring that point back to the original question - I think the change to drop those elements was done because DC was addressing the failures of their early films by taking negative choices, basically changing their product in to a crappier version of a Marvel movie.