It kinda does when you cast charming actors and directors that are at least competent if not outstanding. Not even saying I don't like these movies either but weirdly in spite of how huge they are they feel like appetizers in between other better movies I go to see throughout the year. People keep saying of the MCU "well they're not trying to be great cinema" but why shouldn't they be?
Ok. Then why their competition never got off the ground while having plenty of charming actors and competent directors?
MCU ranges from serviceable to great blockbuster flicks with an average film bringing more to the table than it's direct competition. I'm not sure what "great cinema" you're talking about.
I think to me it's not even being ambitious or experimental so much as just putting more effort into the basics of film making and having the sense that it's not just going through the motions. Like I think the reason Joker or Logan are treated as outstanding movies is because they try their own thing, have a sense of artistic (instead of financial) intent behind them and pick at the status quo of comic book movies just a little even though in my book they're just pretty good.
You're implying a level of snobbery to my post that's not there. I don't consider action or comic book movies to be low genres, to me they can be every bit as great as the likes of Kubrick, Bergman or Tarkovsky (I'd point to movies like Aliens, Hard-Boiled, Into the Spider-Verse, Fury Road, The Raid 1 and 2, Die Hard, Terminator 2, Inception as my favorites of all time). I just think that the MCU overall is a lot blander than it could be.
Nah, but trolling people who watch superhero movies while bragging about how many films from the Criterion collection you have does.
This rolls back to my initial point, those movies didn't have the same level of completely deft and ambitious planning to them. To me the fact that The Avengers existed at the time was more impressive than the movie itself.
What MCU films are great for you? I'd say Thor Ragnarok comes closest just because Taika Waititi has such a deft hand compared to the cringier comedy you get in other Marvel movies (Endgame was especially painful) plus it's actually sneakily subversive with a final act that is surprisingly strong for the series. To me that's the one Marvel Studios movie where I wouldn't disagree with someone calling it great.
Plans aren't always working. Aside fom the IM non of the standalone films in Phase One put the box-office on fire with the Incredible Hulk being an outright dud. Avengers might not have impressed you personally (or me for that matter), but it definitely resonated with a movie going audience.
Iron Man, The Winter Soldier, GotG, Ragnarok, IW/Endgame.
I dunno mate, I think there's plenty of that around here.
Not sure I get what you're saying here. If Marvel movies could be genuinely great in the terms of action cinema they'd somehow make those directors seem less special? I wouldn't expect Marvel to do what Tarkovsky does, just live up to the potential of the area they're working in.
I'm not denying that, but I think part of the success was due to how awful Marvel movies mostly were before this where a baseline of solidly entertaining was enough. Plus you can't deny that the novelty of seeing all these heroes on screen was a big driving factor.
I mean, they weren't awful? If they were, nobody would've showed up on The Avengers, just look at the diminishing returns of Transformers.
Consider that the year before Iron-Man the three Marvel movies out were Ghost Rider, Spider-Man 3 and Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer with X-Men The Last Stand, Fantastic Four and Elektra coming out two years prior to that even. Sure we had Spider-Man 2 but that was more the exception than the rule.
Your argument is that "cinema elitism" will turn people off films with depth.
If we replace generalities like "cinema elitism" with specific instantiations of such (like Martin Scorsese being mean to Marvel movies!) and "films with depth" with specific instantiations of such (feel free to replace Kiarostami with your preference!) we get "I've been working in a rental store with a massive arthouse selection for long enough to know that Martin Scorsese being mean to Marvel movies like Thor: Ragnorok actively turns people off of films with depth like The Wind Will Carry Us"
No one is demanding highest form of art from MCU , theres a middle ground . A middle ground something like Nolan batman movies, like Logan , like Joker. The craft behind those films , the performances and the overall approach to story telling has far more substance . Even outside comic book movies , MCU has a lot of action but a lot of it ranges from solid to barely competent. Movies like Fury road , recent mission impossible films , even lower budget stuff like Raid films or Dredd. Theres craft and pride in making high quality action films . All of em arent high art cinema, they are action blockbusters, but those same films show the level of quality in their execution.
And I don't think "these hundred million dollars movies could stand to be just a little bit more exciting, colorful and daring" is a particularly high goal to set.
Did you not read my post? I specifically said "I wouldn't expect them to do what Tarkovsky does" and cited great action movies that they could strive to be instead. I don't know why you're thinking I want them to be 3 hour somber dramas where there's almost no dialog and every shot lasts 7 minutes.
Ah, you were talking pre-MCU, got it. Still, I'd like to point out that going from the performance of previous MCU films there were no indication that MCU ever would be what it is now. Avengers was a huge gamble for Feige, and it did worked out.
I noted Ragnarok earlier as the one where I wouldn't quibble with calling it great. It's maybe the only strong third act of any MCU movie and actually has a nice subversive message too. Black Panther is almost up there too until it just falls apart at the end into bad CG and routine battle scenes.
I would fuckin want Oscar bait movies from MCU , give me that . And im not talking about the writing /story telling only, i am talking about direction , sound design , cinematography , performances . As clunky as TDKR was and it was fucking clunky with its dialogue and plot, it was still better made film than a lot of MCU stuff .
I am asking for squares to be better squares, they have the talent and resources behind it . Why we, people who supports those movies have to be complacent with current offerings? MCU made great growth improving of their formula , especially when you look at phase 1 to current stuff. Why is it so wrong to ask for better from MCU? If they are okay with what they are doing and clearly its fucking working , is it so wrong to critique them on that same basis?
????
Imagine the people behind John Wick directing a Black Widow action scene and how much cooler that'd be than anything we've seen before in this series.
I make an argument about how the quality of these movies is not what they could be, you try to counter it, that's a de facto defense of them. I don't know why you're quibbling with this.
Are you a joke character? Spielberg has held the highest grossing movie record multiple times. Jaws, E.T. and Jurassic Park were all the biggest movie ever at some point. E.T. held the record for ten years until Spielberg beat himself with Jurassic Park. More or less the same the same thing James Cameron did with Titanic and Avatar.
Six. They didn't end with the OT, and then there's the expanded universe, which begun after the first movie.
edit: There's the current Disney films, too. Which are post Lucas.
