# Re-watching the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe



## Mercurius (Aug 9, 2015)

So I decided to re-watch the entire run of MCU movies, almost all of which I've seen before - except _Age of Ultron _and the various TV spin-offs. But I'm going to throw in _Agents of Shield _and of course watch _Age of Ultron _when it comes out on blu-ray.

Anyhow, I just finished up Phase One. My first thought is that even though I was more of an X-Men fan growing up, as a group the MCU movies hold together much better than the X-movies. My all-time favorite comic movie remains _X2, _and _Days of Future Past, __X-Men, _and _First Class _are all probably top ten, but I love how they build up to _The Avengers _with Phase One. It really works.

Best of all, there isn't really a dud in the batch...well, not quite. I found _The Incredible Hulk _and _Thor _to be mediocre. The former lacked an origin story, which to me is my favorite part of comic movies. And to be honest I thought Ang Lee's _Hulk _is a bit underrated and a better movie overall, but perhaps not well received because of how dark it was. Back to MCU, _Thor _was just OK, nothing terrible or special about it. But both are quite watchable. 

The two _Iron Man _movies are quite good. Actually, I remember being under-whelmed by _Iron Man 2, _but it was much better on a re-watch. I realized that part of the issue with it is that the pacing is different, slower even. It doesn't have the usual rising and then climaxing story arc, but feels like a sequence of episodes. In a way it is more cerebral than the others. And there's just no getting around the fact that Robert Downey Jr as Tony Stark has to be the best rendition of a comic hero in any movie. He's just _fun. _

I wasn't much of a fan of Captain America growing up, always finding him a bit hokey. But the movie really makes him work and Chris Evans is very good. I would have liked to see more of the present, but that comes in the next film. Overall it is a very satisfying movie.

The jewel of the group is _The Avengers. _I'd say that _Iron Man _and _Captain America _are probably better films, but _The Avengers _is just plain old fun. That said, I found the Chitauri invasion a bit underwhelming - too much spectacle, too contrived. The big whale things were kinda cool, though. Oh yeah, what's not to like about Agent Coulson?

So that ends Phase One. Up next is Phase two, but first I'd like to open up conversation of Phase One. I probably won't watch the one-shots, unless someone really recommends them. I did watch the pilot of _Agents of Shield _when it came out and was underwhelmed, but my brother loves it and says it gets much better by the end of the first season, so will be watching it in the recommended viewing order - starting after _Iron Man 3._


----------



## Crothian (Aug 9, 2015)

I was never an Iron Man fan. So when they started with him I was not as excited. Also, the idea that they would do a movie for each hero and then bring it all together into the Avengers was an interesting idea but I was not expecting it to work. 

When comparing these to the X-men movies MCU does look better I think because they don't have any that are as bad as X3. But the X-men movies have mostly been just as good and doing some as period pieces in the past has been a great idea. I'd love to see MCU do that as well. 

One think the MCU has done better then other Super Hero films from my point of view is bring in the non comic book fan. I know more then a few people that were never into comics and never into comic book movie but now are there opening night of each MCU movie. Even Antman who none of them knew anything about; so whatever magic they are using to pull that off is amazing.

Agents of Shield is okay. Sure it gets better after the events of Winter Soldier but still it can only do so much because they restrict what can be on the show. I much preferred Agent Carter which was great and then of course Daredevil which was amazing. 

Phase one was fun. They really got to the essence of each main character and allowed them to shine. Sadly the only villain of any note is Loki. If the MCU has failed at anything it is in establishing villains.


----------



## trappedslider (Aug 9, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> . And to be honest I thought Ang Lee's _Hulk _is a bit underrated and a better movie overall, but perhaps not well received because of how dark it was




Too much talking not enough smashing basically sums up the issues with Ang Lee's Hulk.  It focused way too much on the daddy issues.


----------



## MechaPilot (Aug 9, 2015)

I am predominantly a DC fan.  Now, that's not to say that I'm a DC fangirl who adores everything they do, but I do generally enjoy DC characters (especially their villains) more than Marvel characters.  That said, I have really enjoyed most of the MCU movies.

The first Iron Man was excellent.  It was fun, funny (but not overwhelmingly so), action-filled, and if you like strong female characters it's hard to find fault with Pepper in that film.

The first Captain America was quite good.  The hokey-ness of that film tickled my nostalgia for the very first superhero film I'd ever seen: the first Christopher Reeves, Richard Donner Superman film.

Thor, although one of the weaker entries in the MCU, was also pretty good.  There's something almost Shakespearean about the relationships between Odin, Thor, and Loki.  I will say that while Thor's buddy relationship with the male scientist (whose name escapes me right now) was good, I think the Jane character could have used a rewrite.

I greatly enjoyed the Avengers.  It did have moments where it felt like it was too slow or where I just didn't care.  I don't like Hawkeye in this movie.  Before Age of Ulton, the only time I ever felt that I liked the Hawkeye character was during his appearance in Thor.  They could have cut nearly every scene he's in out of the Avengers and it would have either been just as good or better than what we got.

I'm giving this a separate line because it relates to both Avengers films.  I'm really sick of films where the evil army can be entirely shut down by destroying a single ship or satellite or robot.  Tony sets off the bomb, and the Chitauri all shut down.  Kill Ultron, and all his drones shut down.  And I know this isn't an MCU film and that Disney didn't own the property at the time, but the same thing happened with the droid army in the Phantom Menace.  I'm sick of the evil army having a self-destruct button the heroes can punch to tie up all the loose ends.



Mercurius said:


> Oh yeah, what's not to like about Agent Coulson?




Isn't Coulson kind of a dick?    (Hear me out first)

He was pretty close with the Avengers (they all felt it when he died), and he was fairly close with Pepper as well (she knew more about his social life than Tony did).  He gets brought back from the dead and there's no indication in any of the films that followed that he contacted any of them.  Now maybe he was ordered not to (I don't watch Agents of Shield, so I don't really know), but for those of us who just watch the films, it seems like he's kind of a dick.

If I recall correctly, I heard something about Sif appearing in an episode of Agents of Shield.  Imagine Thor's reaction if she saw Coulson and told Thor he was alive.

Coulson was cool while he was alive the first time (the short about what happened at the convenience store on his way to Thor's Hammer was great), and he died nobly for a cause that he believed in.  Bringing him back just felt cheap, and it illustrates a problem that Marvel has with their MCU: there is no fear of death because no one ever dies, not really.  If they had left him dead I would have continued to think of him as a cool character instead of a dick who won't (or can't) call his friends and tell them he's back.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 9, 2015)

My thoughts:

The non core stuff: The two Hulk movies were awful.  The first couple of Spidey movies were OK, but the rest have been pretty bad.  Both Fantastic Four movies were awful, and I hear that the latest one doesn't break that trend. X-Men/Wolverine movies have about a 50% hit rate.  Daredevil and Electra were terrible.  So for that set, we're talking a really poor hit rate - maybe 1 in 10 or so.

The core stuff gets better.  

Iron Man 1 was excellent, Iron Man 2 was weak, Iron Man 3 was pretty bad.

Both Thors were weak, though I liked the second a bit more.

Cap 1 I found very dull, but Cap 2 was a veyr good movie.  Best of the bunch so far.

Avengers 1 was excellent fun.

Guardians of the Galaxy probably would have been great for me, but we'd started entering Formula Fatigue, and it kinda bored me.  Especially that repetitive last act in all the MCU flicks.

Avengers 2 was fairly weak.

I haven't seen Ant Man.  I'm looking forward to Civil War.

Overall, still under 50% for me, but far better than the non-core stuff, and Avengers, Iron Man 1, and Cap 2 are all very good movies.  Sadly, they're the only three really good movies in a series of a dozen or so.


----------



## Crothian (Aug 9, 2015)

MechaPilot said:


> Coulson was cool while he was alive the first time (the short about what happened at the convenience store on his way to Thor's Hammer was great), and he died nobly for a cause that he believed in.  Bringing him back just felt cheap, and it illustrates a problem that Marvel has with their MCU: there is no fear of death because no one ever dies, not really.  If they had left him dead I would have continued to think of him as a cool character instead of a dick who won't (or can't) call his friends and tell them he's back.




Actually, there is a separation between the TV and Movie MCU universes. A little after Avengers 2 there was an article that suggested Whedon was not happy with Coulson coming back in the TV show and was staying dead as far as the movies are concerned. It is one of the problems with Agents of Shield nothing in the TV show will ever be allowed to effect or influence the movies.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 9, 2015)

MechaPilot said:


> Isn't Coulson kind of a dick?    (Hear me out first)
> 
> He was pretty close with the Avengers (they all felt it when he died), and he was fairly close with Pepper as well (she knew more about his social life than Tony did).  He gets brought back from the dead and there's no indication in any of the films that followed that he contacted any of them.  Now maybe he was ordered not to (I don't watch Agents of Shield, so I don't really know), but for those of us who just watch the films, it seems like he's kind of a dick.




It is part order, part common sense.

Think about it for a minute - the death of Coulson is used to motivate the Avengers.  Fury uses that death to *push* them.  What do the Avengers do if they find out they've been manipulated in that way?  Likely not work with Fury any more, which is Bad.  So, they keep Coulson's death quiet, at least for a while.  Maybe, after time has passed, they can hear that he's alive and not blow a gasket over it.  It is a problem with Fury's management style - he uses lies, and lies have to be maintained to work.

If you don't watch Agents of Shield, then you don't know that Coulson is not entirely happy with it being a secret.  He had a girlfriend he could not tell... and it becomes a point in an episode.


----------



## MechaPilot (Aug 9, 2015)

Morrus said:


> My thoughts:
> 
> The non core stuff: The two Hulk movies were awful.  The first couple of Spidey movies were OK, but the rest have been pretty bad.  Both Fantastic Four movies were awful, and I hear that the latest one doesn't break that trend. X-Men/Wolverine movies have about a 50% hit rate.  Daredevil and Electra were terrible.  So for that set, we're talking a really poor hit rate - maybe 1 in 10 or so.




The fantastic four, X-men, and spidey movies were not MCU.  They are Marvel characters, but they are not part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (although spiderman will be in the future because of a deal between Disney & Sony).


----------



## Morrus (Aug 9, 2015)

MechaPilot said:


> The fantastic four, X-men, and spidey movies were not MCU.




Yes, I said that. But I appreciate the repetition.


----------



## MechaPilot (Aug 9, 2015)

Crothian said:


> Actually, there is a separation between the TV and Movie MCU universes. A little after Avengers 2 there was an article that suggested Whedon was not happy with Coulson coming back in the TV show and was staying dead as far as the movies are concerned. It is one of the problems with Agents of Shield nothing in the TV show will ever be allowed to effect or influence the movies.




There is no separation.  Despite Whedon not being happy with it, the company line is that Agents of Shield (AoS) is part of the MCU.  From what I've heard, AoS is altered by events that come from the films.  There is even a newpaper in the Netflix Daredevil that talks about the alien invasion, so that show is part of the MCU is as well.  So far, nothing has gone from AoS to the films, but it is possible that it could happen given that they are part of the same cinematic universe.

Also, I've heard that the guy who plays Daredevil in the Netflix show has as part of his contract an obligation to play Daredevil in a film if called upon to do so.  This means it's possible (though not necessarily likely) that the netflix Daredevil could appear in a marvel film.


----------



## MechaPilot (Aug 9, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Yes, I said that. But I appreciate the repetition.




Did you?  I didn't see that.  I saw you call out non-core films, but you mentioned the Ed Norton Hulk film in there, and that film is part of the current MCU (they just recast the role between that film and Avengers).  Some of the characters from that film are even coming back in Civil War.  Thunderbolt Ross, and potentially Betty as well, are supposed to be in that movie.


----------



## Crothian (Aug 9, 2015)

MechaPilot said:


> There is no separation.  Despite Whedon not being happy with it, the company line is that Agents of Shield (AoS) is part of the MCU.  From what I've heard, AoS is altered by events that come from the films.




You are looking at it the wrong way. Agents of Shield is altered and reacts to the movies. The movies never are altered or react to anything going on in Agents of Shield. The closest is in Avengers 2 when the hover carrier shows up. In AoS it is shown that Coulson helped with that but in the movie it looks like it was all Fury.


----------



## MechaPilot (Aug 9, 2015)

Umbran said:


> It is part order, part common sense.
> 
> Think about it for a minute - the death of Coulson is used to motivate the Avengers.  Fury uses that death to *push* them.  What do the Avengers do if they find out they've been manipulated in that way?  Likely not work with Fury any more, which is Bad.  So, they keep Coulson's death quiet, at least for a while.  Maybe, after time has passed, they can hear that he's alive and not blow a gasket over it.  It is a problem with Fury's management style - he uses lies, and lies have to be maintained to work.




I get that.  I did mention that he may have been ordered not to contact anyone.  However, to people who don't follow Agents of Shield but have heard of Coulson's revival the lack of word from/about him in Age of Ultron sort of makes him seem like a dick.  Now that's likely Fury's fault, as you mentioned, and I do wonder if it's going to come back around and rear its head in the films at some point.




Umbran said:


> If you don't watch Agents of Shield, then you don't know that Coulson is not entirely happy with it being a secret.  He had a girlfriend he could not tell... and it becomes a point in an episode.




Yeah, I didn't know that, though it makes sense (I assume the girlfriend is the chellist Pepper mentions in the first Avengers film).


----------



## MechaPilot (Aug 9, 2015)

Crothian said:


> You are looking at it the wrong way. Agents of Shield is altered and reacts to the movies. The movies never are altered or react to anything going on in Agents of Shield. The closest is in Avengers 2 when the hover carrier shows up. In AoS it is shown that Coulson helped with that but in the movie it looks like it was all Fury.




I get their execution so far.  I do.  However, AoS is part of the MCU regardless of what Wedon's feelings about it were or are.  The fact that there hasn't been any influence on the films by events in the show doesn't mean that there can't be.  it probably just means that Disney recognizes the need to give the movie writers greater free reign than the TV writers (likely because movies are a much greater investment of capital).


----------



## Mercurius (Aug 9, 2015)

Crothian said:


> I was never an Iron Man fan. So when they started with him I was not as excited. Also, the idea that they would do a movie for each hero and then bring it all together into the Avengers was an interesting idea but I was not expecting it to work.




I was never an Iron Man fan at all, which is why Downey is so good - he makes the movies so enjoyable, even if you're not an Iron Man fan.



Crothian said:


> When comparing these to the X-men movies MCU does look better I think because they don't have any that are as bad as X3. But the X-men movies have mostly been just as good and doing some as period pieces in the past has been a great idea. I'd love to see MCU do that as well.




Two things. I think MCU works better as a whole because they planned it as a whole - with the phases and such. X-Men was planned more like the comics were written, with lots of retconning and craziness.

I sometimes wonder if The Last Stand was so bad because of folks like myself (and presumably you) that were imprinted by the Dark Phoenix saga, which in my mind is one of the greatest comic story arcs ever. That and the fact that X2 was so damn good. But yeah, X-Men 3 was one of the great nerd disappointments in media history, imo, perhaps only equalled by the horror that was Phantom Menace.



Crothian said:


> Agents of Shield is okay. Sure it gets better after the events of Winter Soldier but still it can only do so much because they restrict what can be on the show. I much preferred Agent Carter which was great and then of course Daredevil which was amazing.




I watched the first few episodes of Daredevil and thought it was OK, but don't love it. I'm leery of Agent Carter because I generally don't like stories set in the past of a main story line...it feels too much like you know how things are going to turn out.



Crothian said:


> Phase one was fun. They really got to the essence of each main character and allowed them to shine. Sadly the only villain of any note is Loki. If the MCU has failed at anything it is in establishing villains.




Yeah, I hear that. 



trappedslider said:


> Too much talking not enough smashing basically sums up the issues with Ang Lee's Hulk.  It focused way too much on the daddy issues.




Which is probably why I liked it - more psychological depth, more origin story stuff, less all-out smashing. Smashing is fun, but gets a bit boring after awhile.



MechaPilot said:


> Thor, although one of the weaker entries in the MCU, was also pretty good.  There's something almost Shakespearean about the relationships between Odin, Thor, and Loki.  I will say that while Thor's buddy relationship with the male scientist (whose name escapes me right now) was good, I think the Jane character could have used a rewrite.




Totally agree - she was just too googly-eyed over Thor the whole time, with little agency of her own.



MechaPilot said:


> I greatly enjoyed the Avengers.  It did have moments where it felt like it was too slow or where I just didn't care.  I don't like Hawkeye in this movie.  Before Age of Ulton, the only time I ever felt that I liked the Hawkeye character was during his appearance in Thor.  They could have cut nearly every scene he's in out of the Avengers and it would have either been just as good or better than what we got.




Yeah, I also agree that Hawkeye was a bit bland or lacking something. Maybe it was the whole possession thing.



MechaPilot said:


> I'm giving this a separate line because it relates to both Avengers films.  I'm really sick of films where the evil army can be entirely shut down by destroying a single ship or satellite or robot.  Tony sets off the bomb, and the Chitauri all shut down.  Kill Ultron, and all his drones shut down.  And I know this isn't an MCU film and that Disney didn't own the property at the time, but the same thing happened with the droid army in the Phantom Menace.  I'm sick of the evil army having a self-destruct button the heroes can punch to tie up all the loose ends.




I agree - it is a variation, or thinly-veiled version of Deux Ex Machina. I mean, even the Chitauri army wasn't quite as all-powerful as it could have been and just too easily defeated. Iron Man just pushes a nuke into that ship? Too easy.



MechaPilot said:


> Isn't Coulson kind of a dick?    (Hear me out first)




Haha, well I'd have to watch Agents of Shield to form a judgment on that. But we can assume that he went and got nachos with Captain America off screen, no?



Morrus said:


> My thoughts:




Tough crowd, Morrus! You use some strong words, like "awful" and such. I'm wondering if you are holding too high of a standard to these movies, or is it that you just aren't crazy about comic book movies, or comparing them to your own idea of the characters? Etc.

That said, I agree with a lot of what you said, just with a milder feeling about them. Oh yeah, I think Guardians of the Galaxy was overrated. It was pretty good, but I don't get the complete love people have for it.


----------



## Crothian (Aug 9, 2015)

MechaPilot said:


> The fact that there hasn't been any influence on the films by events in the show doesn't mean that there can't be.




Absolutely it is _possible_. It is also _possible_ that we'll get a Squirrel Girl movie but I'm not going to hold my breath.


----------



## MechaPilot (Aug 9, 2015)

Crothian said:


> Absolutely it is _possible_. It is also _possible_ that we'll get a Squirrel Girl movie but I'm not going to hold my breath.




I don't know who Squirrel Girl is.  Did she have a fling with Rocket Raccoon?


Seriously though, Marvel says AoS is part of the cinematic universe.  I'm glad they've given their movie writers and directors enough room to do their job (unlike Fox who completely screwed up Trank's Fantastic Four) and not demanded that things from the show influence the direction of the films.  If you're going to have movies and a TV show be part of the same universe, that's probably the smartest way to handle it (though not having them part of the same universe seems easier and less complicated to me).


----------



## Morrus (Aug 9, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> Tough crowd, Morrus! You use some strong words, like "awful" and such. I'm wondering if you are holding too high of a standard to these movies, or is it that you just aren't crazy about comic book movies, or comparing them to your own idea of the characters? Etc.




No.  I like comic book movies just fine, as I do many genres of movie.  The ones I called awful were awful.

If you want to gauge my tastes over the years, although this is very tangential to the thread: other awful comic book movies include _Superman 3, 4, 5; Catwoman;_ the Schumacher_ Batman_ flicks;_ Ghost Rider_;_ Green Lantern; The Punisher _(entire series),_ Supergirl._

Great comic book movies include (as listed above) _Iron Man 1, The Avengers, Captain America: The Winter Soldier_; plus_ Superman 1 _and_ 2_; _Spidey 1_; the Nolan _Batman_ trilogy, and Tim Burton's two Batflicks; _X-Men First Class_. I also felt _Watchmen_ was good_. Hellboy_ was pretty good (though the sequel was not).


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Aug 9, 2015)

Ang Lee's Hulk was absolutely terrible.  I got to see it for free in the theater and I still wanted my money back.

Hulk poodles!  Visually dark and confusing-as-hell climax.  Nick Nolte.  And a CGI Hulk that looked like an overinflated teletubby.  Ugh.


----------



## MechaPilot (Aug 9, 2015)

Morrus said:


> No.  I like comic book movies just fine, as I do many genres of movie.  The ones I called awful were awful.
> 
> If you want to gauge my tastes over the years, although this is very tangential to the thread: other awful comic book movies include _Superman 3, 4, 5; Catwoman;_ the Schumacher_ Batman_ flicks;_ Ghost Rider_;_ Green Lantern; The Punisher _(entire series),_ Supergirl._




I actually liked the Punnisher with Thomas Jayne, but otherwise I agree with your list of awful comic book films.




Morrus said:


> Great comic book movies include (as listed above) _Iron Man 1, The Avengers, Captain America: The Winter Soldier_; plus_ Superman 1 _and_ 2_; _Spidey 1_; the Nolan _Batman_ trilogy, and Tim Burton's two Batflicks; _X-Men First Class_. I also felt _Watchmen_ was good_. Hellboy_ was pretty good (though the sequel was not).




I like all of those, though I will say that there are parts of Superman II where the Richard Donner's work was corrupted by the other director.  one fine example of this is the Superman's S becoming a giant plastic wrap net to trap the other Kryptonians.


----------



## Staffan (Aug 9, 2015)

MechaPilot said:


> If I recall correctly, I heard something about Sif appearing in an episode of Agents of Shield.  Imagine Thor's reaction if she saw Coulson and told Thor he was alive.



He actually asks her not to tell Thor that he's still alive, because he wants to tell Thor himself at some later point.


----------



## Tonguez (Aug 10, 2015)

I actually didn't mind Ang Lees Hulk, sure the hulk poodles were absolutely stupid, the cgi was cartoonish and the Absorbing man villain was badly realised,  but as an origin story and a plot of Monster vs Military it did have great potential. I do prefer it to the Hulk vs Abomination or the Thor vs Destroyer movies. Thor 2 was better but still second tier as compared to IM or Cap movies.

Ironman 1 was awesome and 3 was great, and I agree RDJr's portrayal of Stark is epic.  IM 2 was a bit second rate but still comic book enough to be fun. 
I was actually a bit iffy about Captain America 1 but was pleasantly surprised, both by the presentation of the propaganda montage and the development of WW2 espionage movie (I'd love to see a Howling Commandos pic comparable to Inglorious Basterds), Cap 2 continued the espionage theme and imho was probably the best of all of the movies. 
Note too than on the TV side agent Carter is also pretty awesome.
I got bored with Agents of Sheild during season 1 and didn't catch up again until after Daisy received her gift. I'd like to see how that affects the Movieverse.

Avengers was awesome ensemble peice even if Hawkeye got shortshift, at least he got better treatment in Ultron.


----------



## Mercurius (Aug 10, 2015)

Morrus said:


> No.  I like comic book movies just fine, as I do many genres of movie.  The ones I called awful were awful.
> 
> If you want to gauge my tastes over the years, although this is very tangential to the thread: other awful comic book movies include _Superman 3, 4, 5; Catwoman;_ the Schumacher_ Batman_ flicks;_ Ghost Rider_;_ Green Lantern; The Punisher _(entire series),_ Supergirl._
> 
> Great comic book movies include (as listed above) _Iron Man 1, The Avengers, Captain America: The Winter Soldier_; plus_ Superman 1 _and_ 2_; _Spidey 1_; the Nolan _Batman_ trilogy, and Tim Burton's two Batflicks; _X-Men First Class_. I also felt _Watchmen_ was good_. Hellboy_ was pretty good (though the sequel was not).




I pretty much agree with both lists, although would add X-Men 1 and 2 and Days of Future Past to the latter list. I also think Nolan's films are overrated, or at least too overly grimdark for my tastes - no humor, no fun, just endless horrible things. I also agree with MechaPilot that the Thomas Jane Punisher was decent.

There was a Superman 5? Or do you mean Superman Returns? I thought it was decent enough, although not great.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 10, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> I also think Nolan's films are overrated, or at least too overly grimdark for my tastes - no humor, no fun, just endless horrible things.




I like tons of non-comedic movies and TV shows. A variety in styles is a positive to me. I'm also a big fan of gangster flicks and serious dramas. My enjoyment of movies largely comes from their variety. I enjoy both _Doctor Who_ and _The Sopranos_. I enjoyed _Interstellar_ and _2001_ and _Jurassic Park_. I love _Alien_ and _Star Wars_. There's room for everything!


----------



## Mercurius (Aug 10, 2015)

Morrus said:


> I like tons of non-comedic movies and TV shows. A variety in styles is a positive to me. I'm also a big fan of gangster flicks and serious dramas. My enjoyment of movies largely comes from their variety. I enjoy both _Doctor Who_ and _The Sopranos_. I enjoyed _Interstellar_ and _2001_ and _Jurassic Park_. I love _Alien_ and _Star Wars_. There's room for everything!




I hear and agree with you. I just prefer movies that I don't feel like my soul has been sucked out of me and I'm left a husk of a person...that's pretty much how the Nolan films felt, although not to the degree of, say, _Requiem for a Dream._ There was none of the fun that make superhero movies so fun. Don't get me wrong, I still liked them, but I preferred the Burton films. For me it would be Burton first, then Nolan, then Schumacher a distant third.


----------



## MechaPilot (Aug 10, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> I hear and agree with you. I just prefer movies that I don't feel like my soul has been sucked out of me and I'm left a husk of a person...that's pretty much how the Nolan films felt, although not to the degree of, say, _Requiem for a Dream._ There was none of the fun that make superhero movies so fun. Don't get me wrong, I still liked them, but I preferred the Burton films. For me it would be Burton first, then Nolan, then Schumacher a distant third.




I know the feeling that you're talking about, but I never had that feeling from the Nolan Batman films.  Reservoir Dogs?  Certainly.  Just not from any superhero film.


----------



## Jester David (Aug 10, 2015)

MechaPilot said:


> I get their execution so far.  I do.  However, AoS is part of the MCU regardless of what Wedon's feelings about it were or are.  The fact that there hasn't been any influence on the films by events in the show doesn't mean that there can't be.  it probably just means that Disney recognizes the need to give the movie writers greater free reign than the TV writers (likely because movies are a much greater investment of capital).



The timing is likely tricky. 
They're filming _Captain America: Civil War_ right now (likely finished and into post-production) while also filming the first half of _Agents of SHIELD_ season 3. But most of AoS will all air before Cap 3, and they won't write and film the last half of the season until this fall/winter. So it can't influence the movie, as the movie releases after but was filmed first. Anything in the series will be written to be reactive. 

That said, I'm still hoping inhumans/enhanced created during the SHIELD episodes will have an effect on the cinematic universe.


----------



## delericho (Aug 10, 2015)

Crothian said:


> Actually, there is a separation between the TV and Movie MCU universes. A little after Avengers 2 there was an article that suggested Whedon was not happy with Coulson coming back in the TV show and was staying dead as far as the movies are concerned. It is one of the problems with Agents of Shield nothing in the TV show will ever be allowed to effect or influence the movies.




It's not even as simple as that: for Avengers 2, Whedon also decided to ignore Iron Man 3 - note that War Machine appears instead of the Iron Patriot. Plus there's the small matter of Tony deciding to blow up all his suits at the end of IM3...

In any case, when it comes right down to it, I'm not sure it's Whedon's choice - hasn't he left by now anyway?


----------



## Jhaelen (Aug 10, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> And to be honest I thought Ang Lee's _Hulk _is a bit underrated and a better movie overall, but perhaps not well received because of how dark it was.



Agreed. I really liked it. It represented the Hulk I remembered from the comics way better than the other movies. Reducing him to 'Hulk Smash!' is something that only happened in other comic series, e.g. the Avengers, where he was reduced to a cameo role and his somewhat tragic theme was superseded by good ol' superheroic fun.


----------



## Jester David (Aug 10, 2015)

delericho said:


> It's not even as simple as that: for Avengers 2, Whedon also decided to ignore Iron Man 3 - note that War Machine appears instead of the Iron Patriot. Plus there's the small matter of Tony deciding to blow up all his suits at the end of IM3...
> 
> In any case, when it comes right down to it, I'm not sure it's Whedon's choice - hasn't he left by now anyway?




Well, Rhodes seemed to want to be War Machine again, and it seemed unlikely Tony wouldn't rebuild any suits.


----------



## Legatus Legionis (Aug 10, 2015)

.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 10, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> And to be honest I thought Ang Lee's _Hulk _is a bit underrated and a better movie overall, but perhaps not well received because of how dark it was.




I don't think it was poorly received because of how "dark" it was.  I think it was poorly received because Ang Lee could not decide if he was making an action movie, or a moody drama, and he split the difference poorly.

And because of mutated poodles, because that was just dumb.


----------



## Crothian (Aug 10, 2015)

Legatus_Legionis said:


> But for the MCU?
> 
> While by themselves they are OK, but as a full over-lining story-arc (yay I know it all leads up to the Infinity Wars), the movies are too... disconnected for my liking to view as a marathon.




Going into Avengers 2 some movie theaters across the US did this. I think they all sold out so there were plenty of people that would do this. The only problem for me is it would be it is tough to do a 30 or so hour movie marathon. That would have been something I would enjoy 20 years ago.


----------



## Tonguez (Aug 10, 2015)

Umbran said:


> I don't think it was poorly received because of how "dark" it was.  I think it was poorly received because Ang Lee could not decide if he was making an action movie, or a moody drama, and he split the difference poorly.
> 
> And because of mutated poodles, because that was just dumb.




I'll agree with that. The Hulk should have been presented as a horror/thriller movie, a dark drama in the vein of its literary predecessors. 

But Ang Lee thought he was making a Superhero movie. I think its unfortunate that the Hulk was one of the forerunners of the Cinematic Marvelverse, before that had really got everything pinned down and were happy doing each movie as a different genre peice within the unifying setting.


----------



## Tonguez (Aug 10, 2015)

delete


----------



## Umbran (Aug 10, 2015)

Tonguez said:


> The Hulk should have been presented as a horror/thriller movie, a dark drama in the vein of its literary predecessors.




That could be done, yes - The Hulk as a kind of modern Frankenstein.  However, going that route would have set the Hulk up to be in thematic conflict with the rest of the MCU, making working him into the Avengers extremely difficult.  



> But Ang Lee thought he was making a Superhero movie.




I don't think that's entirely true.  I think he was trying to blend genres, and just didn't succeed as well as he'd hoped.  Sometimes, when you set yourself a difficult challenge, you don't quite make it.


----------



## MarkB (Aug 11, 2015)

delericho said:


> It's not even as simple as that: for Avengers 2, Whedon also decided to ignore Iron Man 3 - note that War Machine appears instead of the Iron Patriot. Plus there's the small matter of Tony deciding to blow up all his suits at the end of IM3...




Yeah, there did feel like a big disconnect between the ending of Iron Man 3 and the Tony we see in Avengers 2. The man who decided to get rid of all his Iron Man suits and let go of his defend-the-world paranoia in favour of concentrating upon his relationship with Pepper is not the man who created an army of robotic peacekeepers and was so obsessed with trying to save the world that he inadvertently built the next Big Threat himself.

But then, this is pretty much the way it is in the comics, both DC and Marvel - the ensemble-character titles ignore the character development occurring in the single-hero titles if it happens to be inconvenient to them.


----------



## Mercurius (Aug 11, 2015)

Umbran said:


> I don't think it was poorly received because of how "dark" it was.  I think it was poorly received because Ang Lee could not decide if he was making an action movie, or a moody drama, and he split the difference poorly.
> 
> And because of mutated poodles, because that was just dumb.




I can't disagree with anything you say here, and just to be clear I didn't love it, although think it was better than the Norton one. I agree it was problematic and that I mis-spoke about the darkness being the factor that it was poorly received. I think it was too cerebral and psychological, not enough smashing. But I liked some of what Lee did - like the turning pages, for instance. And of course Sam Elliott. I love William Hurt, but Elliott was a better Thunderbolt imo. But yeah, it was a very flawed work, but interesting nonetheless.


----------



## delericho (Aug 11, 2015)

Umbran said:


> That could be done, yes - The Hulk as a kind of modern Frankenstein.




Jekyll & Hyde, surely?



> However, going that route would have set the Hulk up to be in thematic conflict with the rest of the MCU, making working him into the Avengers extremely difficult.




Well, they did it in "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen", which...

Oh. I see your point.


----------



## Tonguez (Aug 11, 2015)

delericho said:


> Jekyll & Hyde, surely?.




The Hulks a mixture of Jekyll and Frankenstein (and I was thinking Wolfman too), Banner is Dr Jekyll struggling to control the darkside of himself but the Hulk as a tragic monster is Frankenstein. Frankensteins Monster wasn't bad just driven by revenge and Hulk doesn't want to hurt people, just defend himself whilst driven by rage (that animalistic rage is the Wolfman, Frankensteins Monster was cold and calculated).

I think Ultron touches on the dual nature of Hulk. I also think it could have worked in a stand alone movie, within the MCU but understandably 'different'. The fight across the desert part was good, as were the sonic canons from the second movie but getting a good climax without an Abomination fight might have been difficult.
 Maybe they could have done something like the Trial of the Hulk instead (including the Daredevil crossover)


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 11, 2015)

trappedslider said:


> Too much talking not enough smashing basically sums up the issues with Ang Lee's Hulk.  It focused way too much on the daddy issues.




I tend to refer to Ang Lee's "Hulk" as the only movie Jennifer Connelly's body couldn't save.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 11, 2015)

delericho said:


> Jekyll & Hyde, surely?




You could go that way with it, but I think Hyde has more "the inner nature of man is evil" and the Hulk is more, "the inner nature of man is animal" which makes me lean a bit more to it being a Frankenstein/Monster dichotomy.



> Well, they did it in "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen", which...
> 
> Oh. I see your point.




Actually, no.  In LoEG, Jekyll was surrounded by a number of folks who are, in their own way, monstrous.  With the exception of Sawyer, none of them is a particularly pure hero, so there's no thematic conflict with the beast there.


----------



## Tonguez (Aug 11, 2015)

Umbran said:


> , no.  In LoEG, Jekyll was surrounded by a number of folks who are, in their own way, monstrous.  With the exception of Sawyer, none of them is a particularly pure hero, so there's no thematic conflict with the beast there.




That could be said of the Avengers too though. Caps (and Falcon) are the only true heroes Black Widows implied to be a rather monstrous assassin, they could play up Thors war-loving barbarian side more and Stark the brooding alky.


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 11, 2015)

Umbran said:


> You could go that way with it, but I think Hyde has more "the inner nature of man is evil" and the Hulk is more, "the inner nature of man is animal" which makes me lean a bit more to it being a Frankenstein/Monster dichotomy.
> 
> Actually, no.  In LoEG, Jekyll was surrounded by a number of folks who are, in their own way, monstrous.  With the exception of Sawyer, none of them is a particularly pure hero, so there's no thematic conflict with the beast there.




Jekyll and Hyde approaches the concepts of id/ego vs. super-ego, whereas The Hulk examines the more simple rational mind vs. emotional response. Similar, but not the same. 

As far as LoEG goes the Jekyll and Hyde from the first 10 minutes of "Van Helsing" did more to comment on the human condition than did all of LoEG combined. That's not meant as a compliment of "Van Helsing."


----------



## Umbran (Aug 11, 2015)

Tonguez said:


> That could be said of the Avengers too though. Caps (and Falcon) are the only true heroes Black Widows implied to be a rather monstrous assassin, they could play up Thors war-loving barbarian side more and Stark the brooding alky.




You can't do that with Thor, at least given the canon, "He who is worthy..." thing of Mjolnir.  Thor must be a good guy, or he loses the title (as is currently happening in the comics!).  

In LoEG, the various characters are *still* monsters, and they rather openly admit to it.  One of them is a willing betrayer, one is an unrepentant thief, one's an out and out vampire, without all this, "Me Good Vampire!" stuff Whedon gave us  

Black Widow and Stark have things in their pasts they aren't proud of, sure, but have already gotten to the redemption phase long before the Avengers starts.


----------



## delericho (Aug 11, 2015)

Tonguez said:


> That could be said of the Avengers too though. Caps (and Falcon) are the only true heroes Black Widows implied to be a rather monstrous assassin, they could play up Thors war-loving barbarian side more and Stark the brooding alky.




I think it's hard to argue any of them are monstrous, but they're all at least somewhat flawed - indeed, to the point that the Avengers' greatest enemy is really themselves.

Cap, despite being the out-and-out good guy is also the man out of time; Stark is hugely arrogant, narcissistic, and worryingly short-sighted; Thor is both overly proud (but a different type of pride) and also quite stupid ("Are you ever not going to fall for that?"); Hulk we know about; Widow's the reformed assassin. Hawkeye is the only truly well-adjusted one out of the bunch.

And, of course, that's a really good thing.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 12, 2015)

delericho said:


> I think it's hard to argue any of them are monstrous, but they're all at least somewhat flawed




Yes, but "basically good people with flaws + horror-man-beast" is a thematic conflict, where "monsters and traitors with horror-man-beast" really isn't.  And that's a reason for them to have not done the horror-Hulk.  That's all I'm saying.


----------



## Mercurius (Aug 12, 2015)

Continuing my re-watch, Iron Man 3 wasn't quite as good as I remembered. In fact, I think I liked Iron Man 2 better this time around. 

I'm working my way through Agents of Shield. As I said in the original post, I watched the pilot when it came out and was underwhelmed. I'm watching episode 5 as I write this and it is decent enough. It is sort of like mediocre X-Files, but with superheroes instead of the supernatural. But it is decent television and I'm willing to stick it out until it supposedly gets better later in the season.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 12, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> I'm working my way through Agents of Shield. As I said in the original post, I watched the pilot when it came out and was underwhelmed. I'm watching episode 5 as I write this and it is decent enough. It is sort of like mediocre X-Files, but with superheroes instead of the supernatural. But it is decent television and I'm willing to stick it out until it supposedly gets better later in the season.




I took a pass on Agents of Shield for a season and a half.  Then, I started having the occasional hour on my own without much to do, so I started getting caught up.  It does get somewhat better over time, characters do develop.  It never becomes "great television", but it becomes worth the time to watch.  I admit to being curious about what happens next.


----------



## Mercurius (Aug 13, 2015)

Umbran said:


> I took a pass on Agents of Shield for a season and a half.  Then, I started having the occasional hour on my own without much to do, so I started getting caught up.  It does get somewhat better over time, characters do develop.  It never becomes "great television", but it becomes worth the time to watch.  I admit to being curious about what happens next.




That's my sense of things so far. I've become jaded with "premium" TV shows like _Game of Thrones_ and _Ray Donovan_, and generally have a hard time watching network TV, with a few exceptions (e.g. _The Good Wife_) because there is usually a big drop-off in terms of both production cost and quality (premium TV shows are generally very "movie-like") but also star talent and acting. But through eight episodes, I do find myself enjoying it enough to at least put on in the background while I'm surfing the web.

That said, there was a real sense of cognitive dissonance when I went from watching _Thor: The Dark World _to Agents of Shield, episode 8. It was like I had gone from reading a well-established, professional fantasy author to a piece of fanfic. It was decent, even good, fanfic, but the difference was striking and a bit disconcerting.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 13, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> That said, there was a real sense of cognitive dissonance when I went from watching _Thor: The Dark World _to Agents of Shield, episode 8. It was like I had gone from reading a well-established, professional fantasy author to a piece of fanfic. It was decent, even good, fanfic, but the difference was striking and a bit disconcerting.




Hm.  I don't have that feeling at all.

Mind you, I start with markedly different expectations for TV and movies, what with their being different things in many ways. A lot more money gets spent on the technical bits on a movie, so I don't even try to compare them.  And, I didn't find Thor to really be the best writing for movies, so don't really feel like AoS is really jarring.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 14, 2015)

I think one aspect that Avengers got right about the Hulk was that they also highlighted Banner. The whole story how he even got into the story was that they needed a scientist with his particular expertise. The getting all angry and green part was basically just a bonus (and a penalty). 

The Hulk in a fight is kinda... Well, boring might be the wrong word. But he has a common superhero problem - he's seemingly indestructable. The fight can go on and and go on and go on, and Hulk won't be stopped (he might even get stronger, if I understand things correctly), and he basically doesn't get hurt. 

And I think that is important in a good fight scene -that you see the combattants actually struggling and suffering, that you see how they might get defeated, that they suffer, and that they overcome their pain and injuries to eventually beat their enemy.

Superman has the same problem. And I think for him it's even worse than for Hulk. For Hulk, you can at least create the suspsense of him losing control and starting to attack indiscriminately, and his inability to stop. But Superman doesn't have that. 

And it's an advantage a superhero like Wolverine has - sure, he can't be killed, and heals everything - but he still gets hurt along the way. His healing factor allows him to take great risks - but he still suffers from them. Heroes usually win in the end, but what makes them exciting is what they are willing to endure to get there.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 14, 2015)

I dunno. Iron Man knocked Hulk out in Avengers 2. He's not invulnerable, just very tough.


----------



## Mercurius (Aug 14, 2015)

Have Marvel and DC ever done a Superman vs. Hulk fight? If so I'm sure they copped out and made it a draw, but my money would be on old Ka'lel.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 14, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> Have Marvel and DC ever done a Superman vs. Hulk fight? If so I'm sure they copped out and made it a draw, but my money would be on old Ka'lel.




Two or three times, yeah.


----------



## Mercurius (Aug 14, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Two or three times, yeah.




I looked it up and some article said they fought three times, Superman winning all three times.

I think a more interesting and equal match-up would be Thor and Superman.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 14, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> I looked it up and some article said they fought three times, Superman winning all three times.
> 
> I think a more interesting and equal match-up would be Thor and Superman.




They've done that, too.


----------



## Mercurius (Aug 14, 2015)

Morrus said:


> They've done that, too.




The problem is, what haven't they done? That's one of the reasons I grew tired of comics - they (at least the superhero ones) just seemed to rehash the same old stuff, again and again. Still, I miss the glory days of X-Men in the 80s and early 90s, when I stopped reading (not long after Claremont departed).


----------



## Nellisir (Aug 16, 2015)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> The Hulk in a fight is kinda... Well, boring might be the wrong word. But he has a common superhero problem - he's seemingly indestructable. The fight can go on and and go on and go on, and Hulk won't be stopped (he might even get stronger, if I understand things correctly), and he basically doesn't get hurt.




You touch on it below what I quoted, but for the Hulk, it's both boon and benefit that he's nigh indestructable. He's almost uncontrolled as well. A boring fight against enemies isn't so boring when the unstoppable force turns against you. That creates drama and conflict.

Superman is something of a different issue. I'm rereading old issues of Majestic, and same problem there, but worse, since Majestros lacks Supes' moral code.


----------

