NationStates

Liriena wrote:

The first Galactic Republic wrote:Implying Marvel cares about character arcs.

The character arcs established by solo movies generally go out the window for the crisis crossover Avengers movies.

Which, to be fair, is how it works in the comics.

This is true... and we saw a bit of that in Infinity War, but unless the next Thor movie is directed by some hack, I don't see them turning back the clock on Thor or Loki's characters.

I've heard that Hemsworth and Taika Waititi are willing to go for a Thor 4 - or, Thor 3 since Thor: Ragnarok is basically a soft reboot that says "yeah Thor 2 did happen but we're just gonna ignore it, how about that?"

Liriena wrote:

Olthar wrote:X1 and X2 were good for the time, but that was a time when "good superhero movie" was almost an oxymoron. They haven't aged well and are now firmly in the mediocre camp when compared to the MCU.

To be fair, the MCU kinda set an impossible standard for all PG-13 comic book adaptations.

Not really? I mean, they're good movies, but they're no Citizen Kane. It shouldn't be too hard to match or even surpass them.

Olthar wrote:First Class was decent, I though, but Days of Future Past was nothing but a shallow Wolverine ego trip.

To be fair, most of the X-Men franchise has been at least a bit of a Wolverine ego trip. Which suuuuuuuuuuucks. I hope that, if and when they join the MCU, the X-Men will get more variety in their leads.

Part of the reason that I'm more lenient towards Apocalypse than some is the fact that Wolverine just gets a cameo.

Random thought, but after re-watching Infinity War for, like, the tenth time, I'm firmly convinced that it's the Mad Max: Fury Road or Mission: Impossible - Fallout of superhero movies. I mean it in the sense that it's the purest and most competently made work of art within its own genre. It's the quintessential, platonic ideal of a live-action superhero movie.

Nolan's The Dark Knight is probably (most likely) a better film, but it's not a "pure" superhero movie. It's an amazing crime thriller with Batman characters grafted on top. But Infinity War doesn't paper over its comic book roots by adopting a completely different genre's aesthetics, plot structure or characterization to work.

Pasong Tirad wrote:

Liriena wrote:This is true... and we saw a bit of that in Infinity War, but unless the next Thor movie is directed by some hack, I don't see them turning back the clock on Thor or Loki's characters.

I've heard that Hemsworth and Taika Waititi are willing to go for a Thor 4 - or, Thor 3 since Thor: Ragnarok is basically a soft reboot that says "yeah Thor 2 did happen but we're just gonna ignore it, how about that?"

A part of me still feels a bit of longing for what might have been if they hadn't completely changed the Thor series' tone and style... but good gawd, did Taika Waititi do a good job throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Pasong Tirad wrote:

Liriena wrote:This is true... and we saw a bit of that in Infinity War, but unless the next Thor movie is directed by some hack, I don't see them turning back the clock on Thor or Loki's characters.

I've heard that Hemsworth and Taika Waititi are willing to go for a Thor 4 - or, Thor 3 since Thor: Ragnarok is basically a soft reboot that says "yeah Thor 2 did happen but we're just gonna ignore it, how about that?"

I firmly believe that this new Thor can replace Tony as the defacto "main character" of the MCU if they can just make another movie that's as great as Ragnarok.

Olthar wrote:

Liriena wrote:To be fair, the MCU kinda set an impossible standard for all PG-13 comic book adaptations.

Not really? I mean, they're good movies, but they're no Citizen Kane. It shouldn't be too hard to match or even surpass them.

There's a lot of room for improvement, but nobody seems to have figured out how to use the basic template they've created to make good stuff outside of Kevin Feige's sphere of influence. I mean, the best we've got so far is Deadpool, Logan and Wonder Woman, and the first two are R-rated and smaller in scale.

To be fair, most of the X-Men franchise has been at least a bit of a Wolverine ego trip. Which suuuuuuuuuuucks. I hope that, if and when they join the MCU, the X-Men will get more variety in their leads.

Part of the reason that I'm more lenient towards Apocalypse than some is the fact that Wolverine just gets a cameo.

Someday we're finally gonna get an X-Men movie led by Kitty Pryde and I can't wait.

Liriena wrote:Random thought, but after re-watching Infinity War for, like, the tenth time, I'm firmly convinced that it's the Mad Max: Fury Road or Mission: Impossible - Fallout of superhero movies. I mean it in the sense that it's the purest and most competently made work of art within its own genre. It's the quintessential, platonic ideal of a live-action superhero movie.

Nolan's The Dark Knight is probably (most likely) a better film, but it's not a "pure" superhero movie. It's an amazing crime thriller with Batman characters grafted on top. But Infinity War doesn't paper over its comic book roots by adopting a completely different genre's aesthetics, plot structure or characterization to work.

I agree with the point, but I have to disagree on the statement that Dark knight was a better movie. It was good, but not great. I loved it when it came out, but not so much anymore. Rises was so bad that it actually did taint the first two. It shined a light on various flaws that have been there since the beginning but used to be hidden. Now, though, I know they're there and can't ignore them. If Rose's had never been made, then I might agree with you here, but as it stands, I'd say most of the MCU is far better.

Olthar wrote:

Pasong Tirad wrote:I've heard that Hemsworth and Taika Waititi are willing to go for a Thor 4 - or, Thor 3 since Thor: Ragnarok is basically a soft reboot that says "yeah Thor 2 did happen but we're just gonna ignore it, how about that?"

I firmly believe that this new Thor can replace Tony as the defacto "main character" of the MCU if they can just make another movie that's as great as Ragnarok.

BREAKING NEWS: Zack Snyder and David Ayer replace Taika Waititi as directors for Thor 4, announce that Thor is now Jesus and also a blood psychopath who never smiles. Jesse Eisenberg will play Doctor Doom.

Olthar wrote:

Liriena wrote:Random thought, but after re-watching Infinity War for, like, the tenth time, I'm firmly convinced that it's the Mad Max: Fury Road or Mission: Impossible - Fallout of superhero movies. I mean it in the sense that it's the purest and most competently made work of art within its own genre. It's the quintessential, platonic ideal of a live-action superhero movie.

Nolan's The Dark Knight is probably (most likely) a better film, but it's not a "pure" superhero movie. It's an amazing crime thriller with Batman characters grafted on top. But Infinity War doesn't paper over its comic book roots by adopting a completely different genre's aesthetics, plot structure or characterization to work.

I agree with the point, but I have to disagree on the statement that Dark knight was a better movie. It was good, but not great. I loved it when it came out, but not so much anymore. Rises was so bad that it actually did taint the first two. It shined a light on various flaws that have been there since the beginning but used to be hidden. Now, though, I know they're there and can't ignore them. If Rose's had never been made, then I might agree with you here, but as it stands, I'd say most of the MCU is far better.

Well now I'm intrigued. What flaws did Rises make you notice?

Olthar wrote:

Pasong Tirad wrote:I've heard that Hemsworth and Taika Waititi are willing to go for a Thor 4 - or, Thor 3 since Thor: Ragnarok is basically a soft reboot that says "yeah Thor 2 did happen but we're just gonna ignore it, how about that?"

I firmly believe that this new Thor can replace Tony as the defacto "main character" of the MCU if they can just make another movie that's as great as Ragnarok.

I think it's very likely that Captain Marvel and Thor are gonna be the new "main characters" of the MCU, with Thor as a sort of transitional leader.

Also, I want Hulkling and Wiccan in the MCU before the end of Phase 29, please.

Liriena wrote:

Olthar wrote:I agree with the point, but I have to disagree on the statement that Dark knight was a better movie. It was good, but not great. I loved it when it came out, but not so much anymore. Rises was so bad that it actually did taint the first two. It shined a light on various flaws that have been there since the beginning but used to be hidden. Now, though, I know they're there and can't ignore them. If Rose's had never been made, then I might agree with you here, but as it stands, I'd say most of the MCU is far better.

Well now I'm intrigued. What flaws did Rises make you notice?

It's been, like, six years now. I'd have to rewatch it to remember the specifics, and I don't feel like doing that. Sorry.

Olthar wrote:

Liriena wrote:Well now I'm intrigued. What flaws did Rises make you notice?

It's been, like, six years now. I'd have to rewatch it to remember the specifics, and I don't feel like doing that. Sorry.

That's alright Just felt a bit curious.

Weirdly, the opposite happened to me with some MCU movies. Like, I really disliked Iron Man 3 the first time I saw it, but it's grown on me a lot since Infinity War... even if I still think that Aldrich Killian is lame.

Liriena wrote:

Olthar wrote:I firmly believe that this new Thor can replace Tony as the defacto "main character" of the MCU if they can just make another movie that's as great as Ragnarok.

I think it's very likely that Captain Marvel and Thor are gonna be the new "main characters" of the MCU, with Thor as a sort of transitional leader.

Also, I want Hulkling and Wiccan in the MCU before the end of Phase 29, please.

I really hope Captain Marvel is awesome so that the industry as a whole starts to realize that female leads can carry action movies. Or, should I say, remember. They seemed to understand that in the 80s.

I don't know who either of those characters are, but it would be cool for She Hulk to show up. I also would enjoy a Squirrel Girl movie.

Liriena wrote:

Olthar wrote:It's been, like, six years now. I'd have to rewatch it to remember the specifics, and I don't feel like doing that. Sorry.

That's alright Just felt a bit curious.

Weirdly, the opposite happened to me with some MCU movies. Like, I really disliked Iron Man 3 the first time I saw it, but it's grown on me a lot since Infinity War... even if I still think that Aldrich Killian is lame.

That one I always thought was on the upper end of mediocre. The villain sucked, but it had some good scenes.

Liriena wrote:Random thought, but after re-watching Infinity War for, like, the tenth time, I'm firmly convinced that it's the Mad Max: Fury Road or Mission: Impossible - Fallout of superhero movies. I mean it in the sense that it's the purest and most competently made work of art within its own genre. It's the quintessential, platonic ideal of a live-action superhero movie.

Nolan's The Dark Knight is probably (most likely) a better film, but it's not a "pure" superhero movie. It's an amazing crime thriller with Batman characters grafted on top. But Infinity War doesn't paper over its comic book roots by adopting a completely different genre's aesthetics, plot structure or characterization to work.

It's kind of weird to talk about what is or isn't a "pure" superhero movie, though, since a lot of films within the MCU don't necessarily fall under this category. Captain America: Winter Soldier is a political action thriller - with superheroes. Ant-Man is a heist comedy - with superheroes. Spider-Man: Homecoming is an 80s-style coming-of-age movie - with superheroes. Part of what makes the MCU great is how it feels like they're mixing things up and just agreeing "yep, genre is dead, let's make a comedic space roadtrip film with superheroes."

Olthar wrote:

Liriena wrote:I think it's very likely that Captain Marvel and Thor are gonna be the new "main characters" of the MCU, with Thor as a sort of transitional leader.

Also, I want Hulkling and Wiccan in the MCU before the end of Phase 29, please.

I really hope Captain Marvel is awesome so that the industry as a whole starts to realize that female leads can carry action movies. Or, should I say, remember. They seemed to understand that in the 80s.

I don't know who either of those characters are, but it would be cool for She Hulk to show up. I also would enjoy a Squirrel Girl movie.

Agreed. And I have increasingly high hopes for Captain Marvel, tbh. It looks like the filmmakers are trying to make something cool and new (or at least, as new as another MCU origin story can be).

Hulkling, IIRC, is a sort of half-Skrull dude or something. Wiccan is the Scarlett Witch's reincarnated son or something? Anyway, I mostly want them because they're the gay couple of the comics.

She Hulk tho... hell yeah.

Pasong Tirad wrote:

Liriena wrote:Random thought, but after re-watching Infinity War for, like, the tenth time, I'm firmly convinced that it's the Mad Max: Fury Road or Mission: Impossible - Fallout of superhero movies. I mean it in the sense that it's the purest and most competently made work of art within its own genre. It's the quintessential, platonic ideal of a live-action superhero movie.

Nolan's The Dark Knight is probably (most likely) a better film, but it's not a "pure" superhero movie. It's an amazing crime thriller with Batman characters grafted on top. But Infinity War doesn't paper over its comic book roots by adopting a completely different genre's aesthetics, plot structure or characterization to work.

It's kind of weird to talk about what is or isn't a "pure" superhero movie, though, since a lot of films within the MCU don't necessarily fall under this category. Captain America: Winter Soldier is a political action thriller - with superheroes. Ant-Man is a heist comedy - with superheroes. Spider-Man: Homecoming is an 80s-style coming-of-age movie - with superheroes. Part of what makes the MCU great is how it feels like they're mixing things up and just agreeing "yep, genre is dead, let's make a comedic space roadtrip film with superheroes."

When I say "pure", I don't mean it as a sort of mark of quality. As you said, Winter Soldier is a political action thriller, and it's one of the best movies in the MCU. Breaking the genre mold has done wonders for the MCU and I hope they keep doing that going forward.

Liriena wrote:

Pasong Tirad wrote:It's kind of weird to talk about what is or isn't a "pure" superhero movie, though, since a lot of films within the MCU don't necessarily fall under this category. Captain America: Winter Soldier is a political action thriller - with superheroes. Ant-Man is a heist comedy - with superheroes. Spider-Man: Homecoming is an 80s-style coming-of-age movie - with superheroes. Part of what makes the MCU great is how it feels like they're mixing things up and just agreeing "yep, genre is dead, let's make a comedic space roadtrip film with superheroes."

When I say "pure", I don't mean it as a sort of mark of quality. As you said, Winter Soldier is a political action thriller, and it's one of the best movies in the MCU. Breaking the genre mold has done wonders for the MCU and I hope they keep doing that going forward.

Oh yes of course. What I'm simply saying is it's pretty difficult now to categorize what is or isn't "purely" a superhero film. Arguably, of course, there's the three Avengers flicks. But also arguably, none of them since a "pure" superhero genre film doesn't exist.

The double posts hurt me in my soul

Also I'm not sure Deadpool & 2 really count as superhero movies...

Edit: My lame attempt to connect it to other stuff in the thread

Lord Dominator wrote:The double posts hurt me in my soul

Also I'm not sure Deadpool & 2 really count as superhero movies...

Edit: My lame attempt to connect it to other stuff in the thread

Yeah, I think they both count, but specially Deadpool 2.

Pasong Tirad wrote:

Liriena wrote:When I say "pure", I don't mean it as a sort of mark of quality. As you said, Winter Soldier is a political action thriller, and it's one of the best movies in the MCU. Breaking the genre mold has done wonders for the MCU and I hope they keep doing that going forward.

Oh yes of course. What I'm simply saying is it's pretty difficult now to categorize what is or isn't "purely" a superhero film. Arguably, of course, there's the three Avengers flicks. But also arguably, none of them since a "pure" superhero genre film doesn't exist.

It's a good point.

Lord Dominator wrote:The double posts hurt me in my soul

Also I'm not sure Deadpool & 2 really count as superhero movies...

Edit: My lame attempt to connect it to other stuff in the thread

It's all so confusing, that even the presence of actual comic book superheroes makes people question "But is it really a superhero film?"

I was more saying that in the sense that DP isn't exactly what one usually calls a superhero (though the argument is better for DP2)

Lord Dominator wrote:I was more saying that in the sense that DP isn't exactly what one usually calls a superhero (though the argument is better for DP2)

Precisely my point as well. Simply putting on spandex is no longer enough to constitute "superhero."

Pasong Tirad wrote:

Lord Dominator wrote:I was more saying that in the sense that DP isn't exactly what one usually calls a superhero (though the argument is better for DP2)

Precisely my point as well. Simply putting on spandex is no longer enough to constitute "superhero."

I can think of a number of supervillians who run around in spandex (probably)