Marvel Cinematic Universe Discussion Thread

All non-Nolan related film, tv, and streaming discussions.
Posts: 5435
Joined: June 2012
Location: Free
BlairCo wrote:
chinn70 wrote:over rated & sick of more than half of the movies :twisted:
except IM 1
chinn rises
No. You can give these films whatever score you like, it's your opinion, but the use of the word 'overrated' is just stupid and childish.

Instead of analysing why don't you like a film and trying to consider why do other people like it, you simply act like a kid who believes himself to be the King of the Mountain, saying: "yeah, I don't like that thing but because a lot of other people do I just call it overrated so that my opinion can still be the correct and most intelligent one because the others are dumb and can't rate it properly".

It's just insulting. Give your opinion but always with respect, saying things like 'overrated' pretty much obliterates any sense of impartiality you had in the discussion. And if you're biased, you probably won't be here to discuss about qualities and flaws, just to take attention to yourself.

------------

Re-posted for anyone interested:
didich wrote: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.

Posts: 3470
Joined: October 2011
Location: Bates Motel
didich wrote:
BlairCo wrote: chinn rises
No. You can give these films whatever score you like, it's your opinion, but the use of the word 'overrated' is just stupid and childish.

Instead of analysing why don't you like a film and trying to consider why do other people like it, you simply act like a kid who believes himself to be the King of the Mountain, saying: "yeah, I don't like that thing but because a lot of other people do I just call it overrated so that my opinion can still be the correct and most intelligent one because the others are dumb and can't rate them properly".

It's just insulting. Give your opinion but always with respect, saying things like 'overrated' pretty much obliterates any sense of impartiality you had in the discussion. And if you're biased, you probably won't be here to discuss about qualities and flaws, just to take attention to yourself.



sometimes I don't),
dude ,you wrote it yourself that sometimes you don't like them , that makes lot of sense :clap:
you are still living in a superhero vibe , come out of it & see it my way , you'll understand the difference .
it doesn't make any sense with no. of superheroes with super powers saving the world .
the reason behind the success of Batman trilogy is it's realistic unlike the super power's( suits real gud for kids in 3D :lol: )
movie means a lot of art , hardwork , action etc... but not with too much of graphics showing super hero saving America which makes me sick.
people will remember TWBB, The prestige or rear window & talk about them for long time that's not true with Thor etc...

Posts: 3470
Joined: October 2011
Location: Bates Motel

Posts: 16715
Joined: March 2012
About time. This was supposed to release alongside the Avengers Blu Ray which was ages ago.

Posts: 5435
Joined: June 2012
Location: Free
chinn70 wrote:dude ,you wrote it yourself that sometimes you don't like them , that makes lot of sense :clap:
You're still missing my point. I never said you had to like these films and, as you correctly quoted, I myself don't sometimes. What I'm criticising is the way you present said opinion.
chinn70 wrote:you are still living in a superhero vibe , come out of it & see it my way , you'll understand the difference .
it doesn't make any sense with no. of superheroes with super powers saving the world .
the reason behind the success of Batman trilogy is it's realistic unlike the super power's( suits real gud for kids in 3D :lol: )
What I just bolded is a perfect example of how you don't have to present your criticism. Look, while I don't think realism has anything to do with a movie's success nor status (otherwise we wouldn't have Sci-Fi or Fantasy, for starters), I have no idea about how well will these films be remembered in the future. The James Bond franchise, for example, is pretty well remembered, and it contains great films and other, not so great, installments. But I'm not comparing, because the ability to predict the future is outside my level of competence, so I won't try.

Anyway, what I'm criticising here is that you directly say that most people who like them are either brain-dead fanboys or uneducated kids. Well, as you've probably read too, I like (at least, it's the one I always like) Marvel's The Avengers. Not only that, I consider it to be a good film. So... If we play by your rules... What am I? A brain-dead fanboy or an inmature kid?

That's why I say it's insulting. For some reason I can't understand you can't even conceive the fact that other people may disagree with you (and, as a side note, that they may be right too), so you just call the film overrated and move on, because this way you're still the smartest guy in the room.

When I first met you in this forum, I remember has a strong appreciation of you. You looked like a cool, respectful guy who once even told that 'you may win the argument but you may lose the person' (paraphrasing)... While your opinions were the same, your attitude (which, again, is what I've been criticising here) wasn't... You now make fun of me, some days ago you called 07202012 a cunt during an argument... What happened?

As a side note, it may surprise you that a braindead, inmature fanboy-kid like me also loves Hitchcock, and Welles, and Kubrick and (for comparision to the examle you posted) PTA... So lets try to be a more humble when talking about our tastes, shall we? If you don't mind.
Last edited by didich on March 28th, 2013, 8:35 am, edited 9 times in total.

Posts: 16715
Joined: March 2012
Having superpowers doesn't make it automatically inferior. Star Wars has the Force, does that mean that it's bad because it's unrealistic?

It's called science-fiction.

Posts: 13377
Joined: August 2011
SilverHeart wrote:Having superpowers doesn't make it automatically inferior. Star Wars has the Force, does that mean that it's bad because it's unrealistic?

It's called science-fiction.
Don't bother.

Posts: 11410
Joined: August 2010
Location: Texas
SilverHeart wrote:Having superpowers doesn't make it automatically inferior. Star Wars has the Force, does that mean that it's bad because it's unrealistic?

It's called science-fiction.

Yeah I'm not really sure what chinn is going on about. I like the marvel films less then Nolan's Batman films but that's my own personal views. The Marvel stuff is still good. What they have done is impressive. Most impressive.

Posts: 3470
Joined: October 2011
Location: Bates Motel
didich wrote: Anyway, what I'm criticising here is that you directly say that most people who like them are either brain-dead fanboys or uneducated kids. Well, as you've probably read too, I like (at least, it's the one I always like) Marvel's The Avengers. Not only that, I consider it to be a good film. So... If we play by your rules... What am I? A brain-dead fanboy or an inmature kid?
omg , relax buddy .
first of all , i was criticizing the present movies & their work but not anyone of us in the forum ( this is crystal clear)
i said it thousand times that each of us have our own individual opinion's & i respect that , all i was asking you is to look in my perspect of approach towards movies.
When I first met you in this forum, I remember has a strong appreciation of you. You looked like a cool, respectful guy who once even told that 'you may win the argument but you may lose the person' (paraphrasing)...
i was & i'm the same person with the same attitude which you like out of me :D ;)
i too remember that i supported you with avenger's issue or so ... & i will in the future Undoubtedly.
but at the same time stop misunderstanding dude :P

Posts: 5435
Joined: June 2012
Location: Free
^^^^It's all ok then buddy, sorry if I was rude.

Post Reply