The MCU - Marvel Cinematic Universe

[Disco Stu 15,495]

I understand why they included Stark heavily.  To make it real crystal clear that this new Spider-Man was FULLY in the MCU.  It will be interesting to see if they pull back on that with the second one.  Probably not, since he's so involved with Infinity War.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

On 8/18/2018 at 2:19 PM, Arpy said:

Still, I think they were under used in that piece of glorified shit. I laughed hysterically that this is what constitutes a blockbuster and that so many people take these films seriously.

 

I don't take any of them seriously...they're just good for a bit of fun.  

 

Dunno. And if you're laughing hysterically that a movie like Infinity War is considered a blockbuster, maybe you're the one whose taking it all a bit seriously? Just a thought.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Probably the first time a Spidey flick felt like a comic book. The Tobey ones were so soapish, I forgot they were based on funny books, and I've only seen the first Andrew Garfield one but that was a really weird movie.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

2 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

I understand why they included Stark heavily.  To make it real crystal clear that this new Spider-Man was FULLY in the MCU.  It will be interesting to see if they pull back on that with the second one.  Probably not, since he's so involved with Infinity War.

 

Actually I'd think the second one would be the time to pull back a bit. Probably time to go smaller now? Peter Parker alone kind of thing.

 

But I guess it depends...is the new one going to be set before or after Infinity War?

[Disco Stu 15,495]

I like to think of the MCU as modern day Andy Hardy movies.

[Jay 37,323]

Yea, I don't really have any problems with Homecoming at all

[crocodile 7,990]

2 hours ago, Nick1066 said:

 

Actually I'd think the second one would be the time to pull back a bit. Probably time to go smaller now? Peter Parker alone kind of thing.

 

But I guess it depends...is the new one going to be set before or after Infinity War?

Homecoming was by far the smallest-scale Spider-Man film to date.

 

Karol

[mstrox 6,647]

2 hours ago, Cherry Pie That'll Kill Ya said:

I've only seen the first Andrew Garfield one but that was a really weird movie.

 

Oh buddy, it's time to check out the second!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

14 minutes ago, crocodile said:

Homecoming was by far the smallest-scale Spider-Man film to date.

 

Karol

 

Smaller than The Amazing Spider-man?

[Disco Stu 15,495]

11 minutes ago, mstrox said:

 

Oh buddy, it's time to check out the second!

 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

1 minute ago, Disco Stu said:

 

 

Glory be to the Bomb and to the Holy Fallout...

[crocodile 7,990]

8 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

 

Smaller than The Amazing Spider-man?

Yeah, definitely. There is no "saving the city" scenario here. The villain has no grandiose plans at all.

 

Karol

[Arpy 4,145]

I liked Homecoming, but I thought it felt a bit deflated, like there were key scenes of development missing. The plot is kind of all over the place, but the character, Holland's portrayal and how he handled the script were what stood out to me as an effective reboot. Giacchino's score was good too.

 

@Nick1066 These films ask you to take them seriously by how much effort they go to to try and fit the mould of gritty, realism based on comic-book stories started by Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy. Isn't it the case that up until these last few years, Marvel was chided for becoming a bit stale, a bit too serious? Ragnarok, Guardians, Dr. Strange, Deadpool and Spider-Man rectified this and have been some of the most fun and well made Marvel films that I've seen and enjoyed. Yet, Infinity War, I thought was a return to the sloppy, careless dumb action films characterized by Civil War, the Iron Man films and the first two Thor films.

 

[Chen G. 3,944]

Marvel? “Serious?” Seriously? 

 

I mean, sure there are a few serious-ish Marvel films: The Winter Soldier, Infinity War, Thor 2, (one of their very worst), Age of Ultron, Avengers 2.5 (Civil War) - but the rest of their catalog is predominantly comedic: they’re action-comedies.

 

They’ve dialed up the comedy as time went on with Ragnarok, Guardians of the Galaxy, Ant-Man and Spider-Man, but I’d say even some of their earlier films (especially the Avengers, which I would still say is their masterpiece) are best seen as comedies.

 

Even when they go serious, the humor is still great: I still get a chuckle from just thinking about the exchange between Groot and Captain America. And at any rate, none of their "serious" entries is anywhere near as serious as the Nolan entries, which is to say nothing of Logan. Its just that since their main body of work is so comedic, the occasional Winter Soldier feels so very serious in contrast, even though when compared to other works in the genre - it isn't really.

 

I suppose I like my Marvel in a comedic mode, but not so-over-the-top as Ragnarok was; and I need them to have Robert Downey Jr. in some way, shape or form. 

 

On 8/23/2018 at 5:20 PM, Disco Stu said:

I understand why they included Stark heavily.  To make it real crystal clear that this new Spider-Man was FULLY in the MCU.

 

Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark is certainly the center pillar of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. So much so that I’d rather seen him in charge of The Avengers from the outset: I know Captain America is supposed to be at the forefront of Marvel, but the reality of the films is that he isn’t, and that should have been acknowledged in The Avengers.

[Arpy 4,145]

Yes, seriously. Did I say there wasn't any light-heartedness, or that it was devoid of humour? No. 

All this of course, is forgetting to mention the serious people, who are seriously serious when they bemoan the fact that none of the MCU films were nominated for any of the serious Oscars awards.

 

 

[John 2,032]

'Guardians of the Galaxy 3' Production on Hold After James Gunn Firing

 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

No surprise.

 

 

[A24 4,327]

At least they have the script. Hopefully it's not a joke overkill.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

They have a script, but it's written by the guy they just fired. Which might be an issue for them.

It would not surprise me if they end up never making this.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Just change a few words around and put someone else's name on it.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I bet if or when a third film gets made it will be from a completely new script which will contain nothing from what Gunn has written.

 

Put Thor in it, I'd say. He was great with the GOTG in Infinity War.

[A24 4,327]

If they scratch half of Gunn's jokes, it might be a decent movie. The second Guardians movie simply tried too hard. The Guardians were much more effective in Infinity War because there the jokes and the drama were more in balance. Joke after joke after joke doesn't work. You need some kind of counterbalance.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Agreed, it's why I ultimatly didnt like the second film.

[crocodile 7,990]

I concur as well.

 

Karol

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I didnt mind the jokes as much, more the way the film too often stopped everything so it could deliver them. It's very Apatow, i guess. But it didnt work for me.

[Chen G. 3,944]

Really, I didn’t find the original Guardians of the Galaxy all that funny or endearing. I think it’s all too easy to refer to that film, by sheer virtue of the fact of how goddamn “out there” it is, aesthetically, as Marvel’s most artistic film.

 

To my mind, The Avengers remains their absolute masterpiece. I love that movie.

[A24 4,327]

A masterpiece? I gave them both a 7/10.

[Nick1Ø66 4,689]

I'd guess (hope) that Chen G. is using "masterpiece" relatively...i.e., Avengers is a masterpiece among other Marvel films (or superhero films in general), but he wouldn't call it a masterpiece in the same way he'd call, say Lawrence of Arabia or Braveheart (or, er, The Hobbit) a masterpiece.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Citizen Kane > Psycho > 2001: ASO > Blade Runner > The Avengers.

 

Seems to fit!

[John 2,032]

The first Avengers is pedestrian at best. Visually bland, predictable, and boring. I’d rank it in the lower half of the MCU’s output. They’ve done better. 

[JoeinAR 1,949]

1 hour ago, Stefancos said:

Citizen Kane > Psycho > 2001: ASO > Blade Runner > The Avengers.

 

Seems to fit!

All but Psycho are overrated. 3 are boring as hell. Psycho has the best cinematography imho. Some of the most beautiful b&w ever. And the framing. It is as you could use it to teach filmmakers.

[TheUlyssesian 2,473]

3 hours ago, Alexcremers said:

A masterpiece? I gave them both a 7/10.

 

"their" masterpiece, not "a" masterpiece.

 

I agree with his assessment. It remains the best film they have made and one of the best superhero films of all time.

[A24 4,327]

5 minutes ago, TheUlyssesian said:

 

"their" masterpiece, not "a" masterpiece.

 

I agree with his assessment. It remains the best film they have made and one of the best superhero films of all time.

 

If it's not a masterpiece, then don't call it that way.

 

2 hours ago, John said:

The first Avengers is pedestrian at best. Visually bland, predictable, and boring. I’d rank it in the lower half of the MCU’s output. They’ve done better. 

 

Indeed! Winter Soldier!

[TheUlyssesian 2,473]

8 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

 

If it's not a masterpiece, then don't call it that way.

 

It is, but theirs. Context is King. God is in the detail.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

15 minutes ago, TheUlyssesian said:

 

"their" masterpiece, not "a" masterpiece.

 

I agree with his assessment. It remains the best film they have made and one of the best superhero films of all time.

 

One of the better ones, yes. 

[A24 4,327]

3 minutes ago, TheUlyssesian said:

 

It is, but theirs. Context is King. God is in the detail.

 

This means that everything in some way or another is a masterpiece. I can't go along with that.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

1 minute ago, Alexcremers said:

 

This means that everything in some way or another is a masterpiece. I can't go along with that.

 

The Koray Savas Defence. 

 

"Everything is art!"

[TheUlyssesian 2,473]

45 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

 

This means that everything in some way or another is a masterpiece. I can't go along with that.

 

Not that everything is a masterpiece. But that every claim of something being a masterpiece has context.

[Kasey Kockroach 2,344]

On 8/25/2018 at 7:15 AM, Cherry Pie That'll Kill Ya said:

Just change a few words around and put someone else's name on it.

Perhaps try to make the non-Groot and non-Rocket characters interesting.

[Chen G. 3,944]

11 hours ago, Nick1066 said:

I'd guess (hope) that Chen G. is using "masterpiece" relatively...i.e., Avengers is a masterpiece among other Marvel films (or superhero films in general)

 

I think it is a masterpiece when viewed (aptly, I would say) as an action-comedy. If you try to view it in any way as a dramatic narrative (although of course comedies also have dramatic elements) it really isn’t something to look twice at: high-key cinematography, larger-than-life characters that for some reason act like nine year olds, an empathetic but wholly unmenacing villain, etc...

 

But as a comedy? Bloody marvelous.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

I miss Tobey and Kirsten. 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I don't get it at the end of Avengers: Age of Ultron when Thanos says "Fine... I'll do it myself". Was Ultron looking for the Infinity Stones for him? I wasn't clear on that.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

It doesn't really make sense.

 

If Thanos is collecting the stones, why did he give one to Loki in the first Avengers movie?

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Bloody Thanos fumbling his plan. Not very manly...

[Arpy 4,145]

Thanos' plan in the first film wasn't really clear. I think it was just to send Loki to earth so he could open a portal to the Chitauri world so they could invade New York for some reason - probably so they could have a fight.

[Giftheck 916]

I would wager Thanos' deal was that he would help the Chitauri take Earth if they helped him find the Infinity Stones.

[crocodile 7,990]

8 minutes ago, Arpy said:

Thanos' plan in the first film wasn't really clear. I think it was just to send Loki to earth so he could open a portal to the Chitauri world so they could invade New York for some reason.

Is it even ever stated that it was Thanos' intention to invade? Or was it Loki's?

 

Giving Loki the stone doesn't make much sense. But then, Loki doesn't know what it is so I suppose it is only to ensure both stones are delivered back to Thanos.

 

As for the end of Ultron, I suppose it means he obtained the Infinity Gauntlet at this specific moment? But, of course, that doesn't explain why he would wait another few years to put the plan in motion. Maybe it's the destruction of Asgard that triggers it?

 

But the truth is they were winging it. Joss Whedon had no idea what to do with Thanos.

 

Karol

[Arpy 4,145]

1 minute ago, crocodile said:

Is it even ever stated that it was Thanos' intention to invade? Or was it Loki's?

 

Karol

That's a brilliant question. He seemed pissed that Loki's plan failed. 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

7 minutes ago, crocodile said:

But the truth is they were winging it. Joss Whedon had no idea what to do with Thanos.

 

Wouldn't Kevin Feige have known?

[Arpy 4,145]

Foresight aside, Thanos's character wasn't properly established before his major role in Infinity War. There were a few scenes which had to quickly 'humanize' his character in Infinity War, but I would've been much more invested as a viewer in his character and motivations had those scenes been interwoven throughout the preceding films. I never understood how people were excited for Thanos (who hadn't read the comics) from just those little post-credit scenes. I guess they had to be vague enough with his character because it was all so early in the game, they wouldn't have known how Infinity War was going to come together...