Marvel Cinematic Universe

[Phantom Roxas]

Winter Soldier's been out for a month or so, and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. has gotten really good after tying into it, so I think we can discuss this series of Marvel films as a whole.

[boyblunder]

No one has posted on this yet?

 

-tt- 

 

The Avengers was quite a feat- and a major risk. It paid off nicely though and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

 

I also enjoyed Agents of Shield, especially now it's built momentum. I cannot wait for the next season.

 

Guardians of the Galaxy will be good, I can tell. But get ready for A2 it'll be awesome.

[Ren✧]

Originally, I wasn't fond of the Avengers, but I think I was blinded by my supposed to be hatred of Marvel. After all, I am very much a DC person, but I've come to realize that doesn't mean I have to hate Marvel. Recently rewatched the Avengers and while I did have some of the same complaints, I enjoyed it well enough. Focusing on the Captain America movies, the first one, I thought, was slightly lack luster. It definitely didn't contend with what I had come to expect from the Iron Man films. I did enjoy the second Captain America though, quite a lot actually. 

 

Agents of SHIELD has gotten really fantastic as well, I always thought it was pretty creative to tie the show into the movies and they did not disappoint with the second Captain America tie in. I cannot wait for more episodes! Looking forward to A2 and Guardians of the Galaxy. 

[TPagSwaqq]

When concerning the Marvel Cinematic Universe, I have a few points to make:

 

1. Too much early focus on Iron Man

I think they took a character who was never really popularized before they undertook the cinematic universe and then managed to give him 3 movies up to this point. Iron Man is cool and all, and the first movie was great, but having so many Iron Man movies really took away from other members of the Avengers.

 

2. Not enough HULK

He had the one movie with Edward Norton which, to me, was kind of a flop. It didn't even include a sequence of him becoming the Hulk. It was an aftershow that included a pretty cool Abomination, but ultimately failed as a member of the new Cinematic Universe. In addition, the casting change between Edward Norton and Mark Ruffalo was disappointing. Norton plays great characters, but Ruffalo is the better choice. Despite all this, Iron Man has had 3 films. Mark Ruffalo as the Incredible Hulk has had 0, excluding the Avengers. Now, is this because they feel the Hulk can't carry another standalone film? Or because they don't know how to carry on his story? If they're short on villains, just remember, Iron Man has had no substantial villainous characters show up in film. The fact that they made Iron Man a substantial hero in the first place is impressive enough. They need more Hulk.

 

3. Thor & Captain America are placeholders

Their movies are purely based on the need to hold fans over until the next Avengers movie. The first two were to establish them as characters. The sequels were to keep fans going until Avengers 2. However, the movies were meh. Captain America 2 was actually decent, but Captain America as a character seems slightly one-dimensional. Maybe it's just me, but the fact that they get films and Mark Ruffalo does not is a bit annoying, especially because Mark Ruffalo is a much more seasoned and experienced actor who could take the emotionally charged "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" to new heights.

 

4. Other characters

Are they planning on bringing in the Guardians of the Galaxy characters for the next Avengers? Is that the purpose of the movie? As of now they have no connection other than being Marvel characters. I understand that Spiderman and the X-Men are owned by separate entities, despite still being Marvel characters...so it's understandable that they won't appear, but Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch get to pop up in the next Avengers, which seems amazingly irrelevant and random.

 

Overall, I used to be a DC person, but despite my above criticisms, they're doing the Marvel universe very well. Man of Steel tanked, with the only redeemable quality being Amy Adams. The Dark Knight trilogy is over, which means no tie-ins. No crossovers. They've even replaced Christian Bale with Ben Affleck. We all know that's going to SUCK. It'll be interesting to see that on screen but how they're going to make a 2 hour movie about Superman and Batman fighting is beyond me...

[Fusion X. Denver]

Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch get to pop up in the next Avengers, which seems amazingly irrelevant and random.

I can respect all the other points you made, but I disagree with this one since those two were some of the first Avengers way back when, and they're not quite characters that would warrant their own movie before joining the Avengers.

And I'd say you're kinda right about Captain America and Thor being placeholders for the next Avengers, but I do honestly believe they've come into their own right and are capable of drawing genuine interest for their own franchises, not just as something to see while we wait for the Avengers.

 

As for me, the Marvel Cinematic Universe is one of the most exemplary marketing strategies we've seen in decades.

Superhero movies have cemented themselves into blockbuster status and are guaranteed moneymakers with strong opening weekends, overall gross, and best of all, the movies themselves are actually decent. Arguably, the only not-so-good movies (compared to the others) were Iron Man 2, Incredible Hulk and Captain America, and even those were all at least watchable.

 

However, I'm worried about the implications brought to the cinematic landscape for superheroes.

Sony, Fox and Warner Bros are all currently scrambling their asses in plans to craft and expand their own respective universes. I actually really like The Amazing Spider-Man series, but other people are not as receptive and they say the 2nd one was way too clogged.

But the really big worrier is the upcoming Batman/Superman movie. They're cramming Wonder Woman, Cyborg and Aquaman (Aquaman might just be in JL, can't recall atm) in there too, plus there's a rumor going around that 4 more villains BESIDES Lex Luthor are joining the movie.

Even discarding those rumors, this movie is so blatantly focused on setting up for the inevitable Justice League movie that the pacing/plot/everything could become screwed over (I could definitely be overreacting here, but I'm not the only one I know to have expressed these sentiments). The reason Avengers was executed well was because all of their characters had previous development in other movies. They didn't need to waste time introducing them, showing what made them tick, and yada yada.

 

On top of all that, DC has 7 movies coming out within the next 4 years.

Marvel's current plan has 2 movies being released every year.

Sony will be releasing spin-off movies for Sinister Six and Venom within that time, and ASM3.

Fox will make their move with X-Men Apocalypse and Fantastic Four.

Bottomline: We are getting a shitload of superhero movies coming. 

 

I'm afraid they're going to oversaturate the market. That all this hype and the era of superhero movies are going to come crashing down.

And the scarier thought is that one or two flops could induce this major crippling.

Superhero movies are starting to enter sequel territory, where pretty much every movie is a sequel to something. And what pretty much every sequel has in common is that they have bigger budgets than their predecessors. So the budgets for these movies are going to get bigger and bigger.

What happens when one of these very expensive movies doesn't do too well in the box office?

That studio will become incredibly cautious, probably writing off that franchise, or at the very least revamping their approach to it into something more conservative.

 

And as an aside, that's part of why I'm really curious as to how Guardians of the Galaxy will turn out. That was an obscure franchise even for comic book readers before Marvel decided to make a movie for it. I almost want to say Marvel is doing a test here. If they could make this obscure as fudge movie into a successful blockbuster, then they can do anything.

And I do believe they've done well bringing it into public awareness before the movie in August. People are talking about it and are generally excited for the movie.

But assuming the worst happens and it flopped, I think Marvel would reconsider their superhero movie plan up until 2027.

 

If I had to make a guess, I think Avengers 3 will be the last hurrah of the superhero era in movies before it dies out for a while. DC will try to get in on it, but with very mixed results and will be seen as having acted too late. ASM3 and the spin-off movies will happen, 4 will probably be cancelled. 

X-Men could probably trudge along actually.

 

But I will say this, I hope I'm wrong. Because even though I've expressed all this concern, I love superhero movies. I would love it if I could take my kid to go see Iron Man 15 or whatever as Marvel sits upon an empire of wonderful movies rivaling Disney's movies or Dreamworks', etc.

[Lonk]

They killed off the Spiderman Trilogy so that they can make another set of Spiderman movies for this fecal matter?!

[Phantom Roxas]

No, they didn't. The original Spider-Man trilogy had already ended. The Amazing movies were made to keep the rights and give Sony something that could compete with the MCU, but I enjoy them.

Also, "fecal matter"? Yeah, none of that disgusting hyperbole, please.

[TPagSwaqq]

I actually enjoy the new Spiderman movies more than the original. I feel like they've been a bit more creative with it and a bit more true to the story than the original. Mary Jane was not supposed to be so prominent so soon, and Kirsten Dunst was just poor casting in my opinion.

 

The new ones are actually pretty decent. I didn't like the first one as much, and feel free to disagree, but the second one actually blew me away with the improvement.

[Ｍｒ．Ｒｏｂｏｔ]

The spiderman movies aren't even a part of the Marvel Cinematic universe. Plus, it's not THAT bad and Garfield's Parker is far better than MaGuire's puppy face Parker. 

 

Talking bout the Marvel Cinematic Universe, is anyone still interested on Antman now that's Wright's gone? I'm more a fan of the director than the character despite it being Scott Lang, so I'm less psych bout it. Curious to know.

[Fusion X. Denver]

In regards to the two Spider-Mans, I thought Nostalgia Critic made a good video explaining their pros/cons (though it is a half hour) that I more or less agree with.

 

I don't actually know that much about Ant-Man, though he had a good Season One story. 

I'm interested in what kind of mythos they're creating for Hank Pym (since he was in the movie too last time I checked) now that he's not creating Ultron.

[Shradow]

I can't wait until the Doctor Strange movie. When they dropped his name in The Winter Soldier, the word "hype" came to mind.

[Phantom Roxas]

Here's hoping they get either Oded Fehr or Pedro Pascal to play Doctor Strange.

[Agro]

Talk to me when they make a Great Lake Avengers movie.

[-Dom-]

Pedro Pascal as Doctor Strange? Please make it so. Also, first (official) info of Avengers: Age of Ultron is now out, and Ultron is now designed by Tony Stark not Hank Pym, and his armour is the Iron Legion from Iron Man 3. Thoughts?

[JadenxAtemYAOI]

Not enough focus on the canon really. Ex. Days of Future Past. Wolverine had his adamantium skeleton in 1972 which shuts down the entire Striker portion of the movie as well as just about every mutant on the island prison in Origins but then again Origins was trash by sowing Deadpool's mouth closed and making Xavier walk. Speaking of Xavier. Nice job forgetting he got crippled in his fight with Shadow King.

[Phantom Roxas]

The movies are allowed to have things happen differently than they did in the comics, which is why Xavier is paralyzed in First Class.

Was Origins set in 1972? The movies seem to love ignoring that one, especially given Xavier's appearance near the end of that, and Emma Frost being younger in that movie even though it's supposed to be take place after First Class.

[-Dom-]

The movies are allowed to have things happen differently than they did in the comics, which is why Xavier is paralyzed in First Class.

Was Origins set in 1972? The movies seem to love ignoring that one, especially given Xavier's appearance near the end of that, and Emma Frost being younger in that movie even though it's supposed to be take place after First Class.

To avoid at least that one continuity flaw (never mind the many others) between Origins and First Class, the diamond girl that Wolverine rescues on the Island is only referred to as 'Emma', not fully Emma Frost, so they could technically be separate people.

 

To add to continuity errors though, Wolverine's claws are (spoiler!) chopped off at the end of The Wolverine, yet he has adamantium claws again in the future scenes in DoFP. Wha?!

[JadenxAtemYAOI]

The movie takes place in 1973. Days of Future Past was confirmed to be made solely due to the errors they made in the previous movies. I'm sure they care on a certain degree.

[Fusion X. Denver]

I'm just going to ignore anything besides First Class and Days of Future Past regarding the X-Men movie canon, seems easier than mentally accounting for all the inconsistencies.

 

Though uh, I don't think X-Men really counts as part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Just its own X-Men Movie Universe (soon to be with Fantastic Four, I'm guessing).

[Phantom Roxas]

Yeah, I'm thinking that I should expand this topic to cover all Marvel movies, if that's okay.

That said, over the past week, Marvel Studios has announced six release dates for movies. This article has a good rundown: http://www.mtv.com/news/1877136/marvel-studios-2018/

[Ｍｒ．Ｒｏｂｏｔ]

Well, Guardians Of The Galaxy 2 is confirm for a 2017 date. Now expect more Guardian members appearing here and there in the comics plus an animated show.

 

Still hype to see the movie though.