Marvel Cinematic Universe Discussion Thread

All non-Nolan related film, tv, and streaming discussions.
Posts: 1068
Joined: August 2011
Location: Poznan, Poland
Iron Man - 5/10
Incredible Hulk - 3/10
Iron Man 2 - 4/10
Thor - 5/10
Captain America - 3/10
Avengers - 7/10

Posts: 20369
Joined: June 2010
poplar wrote:Iron Man - 5/10
Incredible Hulk - 3/10
Iron Man 2 - 4/10
Thor - 5/10
Captain America - 3/10
Avengers - 7/10
Image

Posts: 13377
Joined: August 2011
Pathetic Nolan fan. :| :roll:

Posts: 22407
Joined: May 2010
Location: Castle
We need a Deadpool movie now. :judge:

Posts: 42100
Joined: May 2010
IWatchFilmsNotMovies wrote:
poplar wrote:Iron Man - 5/10
Incredible Hulk - 3/10
Iron Man 2 - 4/10
Thor - 5/10
Captain America - 3/10
Avengers - 7/10
Image
fixed for more believability.

Posts: 3470
Joined: October 2011
Location: Bates Motel
over rated & sick of more than half of the movies :twisted:
except IM 1

Posts: 4761
Joined: June 2012
Location: Gotham City
Dodd wrote:We need a Deadpool movie now. :judge:
It won't be part of the MCU, cause FOX owns the rights.

Posts: 13377
Joined: August 2011
http://collider.com/marvel-phase-one-bl ... et-images/

The set looks great. It comes out on Tuesday. Has a lot of detail in the case and the goodies included look great. And the Phase 2 sneak peek is tempting me to buy. It's currently around $150, not sure if it's really worth it yet or if it will ever go down or just go OOP with in the next few months.

Posts: 5435
Joined: June 2012
Location: Free
While (with the exception of Marvel's The Avengers) I've got mixed feelings about Marvel's Phase 1 in terms of quality (sometimes I like them more, sometimes I don't), in any circumstance I always have a great deal of respect for what they tried and accomplished.

In the minds of any sane film producers, the idea of making a film about a B-list comic book character with a washed-up actor in the lead role and with a director whose last film was the epitome of underwhelming wouldn't be even considered. In hindsight, it was Marvel's greatest decision they ever made. And they didn't stop there. Before Thor was released, a lot of critics and bloggers thought it wouldn't do well because the title character wasn't as much of a household name as Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, or the X-Men; it involved a lot of super-shiny costumes and set pieces; and it was directed by someone primarily known for Shakespearean adaptations who hadn't directed a big action movie before. And then it made 450$ worldwide, was pretty well-received critically, and gained an active and devoted fandom (personally it's my favorite pre-Avengers movie, although probably not the best). The Marvel Cinematic Universe and Marvel's The Avengers as a whole were also quite risky in hindsight. Ever since the nineties it was declared over and over that a movie about a Super-Team consisting of superheroes each big enough to have his own solo movie, thus requiring a lead-star-capable actor for each role, would never be more than a fanboy's daydream. Even so, The Avengers are not exactly the most-well know superheroes.

Now, indepedently on whether you like the end result or not, they put a lot of (risky) effort in this project and I'm glad it paid off for them (from a general standpoint, both critically and financially). Possibly the best proof about this experiment's influence over the genre and (sometimes ignored) merits is that Fox and WB have decided to try their own, with X-Men: Days of Future Past and Justice League respectively.
Last edited by didich on March 28th, 2013, 7:18 am, edited 2 times in total.

Posts: 19700
Joined: June 2011
Location: The Ashes of Gotham
chinn70 wrote:over rated & sick of more than half of the movies :twisted:
except IM 1
chinn rises

Post Reply