What are your biggest disappointments with the MCU?

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Autbot_Benz

Everyone hating on Thor Rangarok blah I say. its the best Thor movie and reinvented the character. Hemsworth was sick of playing him as the straight shakespearean god and wanted to do something different.

But... but that's who Thor is... like, literally all the time.

I really, really, really don't like it when actors get too much creative control. They make everything about themselves for nebulous reasons. See also: Robbie, Margot and Quinn, Harley.

Whatever Hemsworth was portraying in the latter MCU films may have been entertaining, but it absolutely wasn't "Thor". And it kinda irks me because Thor's one of the few Marvel characters I pay any attention to. They started off well even if it was a little dry, but by the end it was so far away from who the Thor character is, they could've just called him Hammer McDudeBro or something and it would've made no difference. People always whine and whinge quite loudly in accusing lots and lots of comic book movies of not being faithful in representing their characters, and what a grave injustice that is, but DudeBro Thor is celebrated by many because... "jokes" (And the quotes are definitely warranted)? What a paper-thin double-standard that is.

Of course, apparently most of what he did in Chickbusters was his own personal choices, too. So I guess it turns out that Chris Hemsworth, a guy whose work I initially enjoyed in his early years, is kind of a goofball jagoff who thinks he's hilarious but isn't really, and insists on putting too much of himself in his material. That's unfortunate. I liked him fine ten years ago but now I'd kinda be fine never seeing him again.

"Cabin in the Woods" is alright, though. Gotta admit, I LOVE seeing him wipe out on that trap wall.

[Coola Yagami]

Originally Posted by Leo656

But... but that's who Thor is... like, literally all the time.

I really, really, really don't like it when actors get too much creative control. They make everything about themselves for nebulous reasons. See also: Robbie, Margot and Quinn, Harley.

Whatever Hemsworth was portraying in the latter MCU films may have been entertaining, but it absolutely wasn't "Thor". And it kinda irks me because Thor's one of the few Marvel characters I pay any attention to. They started off well even if it was a little dry, but by the end it was so far away from who the Thor character is, they could've just called him Hammer McDudeBro or something and it would've made no difference. People always whine and whinge quite loudly in accusing lots and lots of comic book movies of not being faithful in representing their characters, and what a grave injustice that is, but DudeBro Thor is celebrated by many because... "jokes" (And the quotes are definitely warranted)? What a paper-thin double-standard that is.

Of course, apparently most of what he did in Chickbusters was his own personal choices, too. So I guess it turns out that Chris Hemsworth, a guy whose work I initially enjoyed in his early years, is kind of a goofball jagoff who thinks he's hilarious but isn't really, and insists on putting too much of himself in his material. That's unfortunate. I liked him fine ten years ago but now I'd kinda be fine never seeing him again.

"Cabin in the Woods" is alright, though. Gotta admit, I LOVE seeing him wipe out on that trap wall.

Wasn't he also portrayed as a bumbling 'how did they even hire this guy' type of idiot in the new MIB? It's kinda like he went from being the manly man men aspire to be to now being Homer Simpson.

[Leo656]

I didn't see it - not a big "Men In Black" guy - but I saw snippets of trailers on YouTube when that thing was coming out and yeah, I kinda don't like this dude. He's a clown shoe.

I mean guys like Bill Murray can make "Obnoxious, Insufferable Twat" their gimmick and play it in every movie to the point where they're not even "acting" in roles anymore, if they have a certain charisma, but not everyone can or should even try for that. For one thing, Hemsworth hasn't earned that kinda thing yet, and for another, he's not even incredibly funny or charming. If you're "neutral" on him in general like me he just comes off as a goof, and the more you see the less you wanna see.

I'm aware that mileage will vary. And I did really, really wanna like the guy once upon a time. When I saw "Thor 1" I thought the movie was slightly above average but that he himself was good. But it's been all downhill from there in everything I've seen him in.

So of course he's playing Hulk Hogan in some upcoming biopic. Ohhhhh brother, Brother! Real treat for me. I love how they got a guy with a full head of hair who can barely get tan and vocally hates working out, to play a guy who went bald at age 2, has the skin tone of overcooked bacon and still has arms like tree trunks at age 60-whatever. Such perfectly inspired casting. I haven't seen such "perfect" casting since Will Sasso played Jesse "The Body" Ventura on MAD TV.

[Spike Spiegel]

Everything involving Spider-Man
Brie Larson's casting as Carol Danvers
The lack of Hulk-related side stories
Too much Iron Man/RDJ wank
The Guardians of the Galaxy are unlikable assholes for the most part

I agree with the sentiment that the overall tone has too much humor. Infinity War and Endgame were so good because, for once, they played things pretty straight.

[Slade]

Pretty much what everyone else has said.

I'd have liked to see the X-Men and better Fantastic 4.
I need more Punisher.
Some Death, Deadpool and Thanos stuff would have been nice.
Fix Spider-Man altogether.
Better sequels.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Spike Spiegel

I agree with the sentiment that the overall tone has too much humor. Infinity War and Endgame were so good because, for once, they played things pretty straight.

Unfortunately, that leaves people like me who will probably never see those last two films in their entirety, because they just don't have the patience to sit through 87 skit comedies posing as super-hero movies, first, before everyone involved finally decides to stop doing shtick at the very end of the race.

I kid, I kid. Kinda. I do highly doubt I'll ever see them, though. That would require sitting through TWO Ant-Man movies and I really don't care enough.

I did really like the first Captain America, though.

[TommyT]

You know, it’s just so boring to hear Snyder apologists wank repeatedly about how great the failed DC franchises could have been, while simultaneously slamming the beloved Marvel films.

Like, I understand that you don’t like something, but maybe it’s just not for you. Maybe they were too smart for you, who knows, but let others like what they like.

[Leo656]

Wrong thread, buddy, nobody's doing that. We're just talking.

Your trolling efforts lately have been very, very weak. Go recharge and try again. I think your craft peaked somewhere in early-June but since then it's been tepid. Just sayin'.

[ZariusTwo]

Originally Posted by TommyT

Maybe they were too smart for you

These movies are the furthest you can imagine from "smart"

[Whatswiththeheadbands?]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Unfortunately, that leaves people like me who will probably never see those last two films in their entirety, because they just don't have the patience to sit through 87 skit comedies posing as super-hero movies, first, before everyone involved finally decides to stop doing shtick at the very end of the race.

I kid, I kid. Kinda. I do highly doubt I'll ever see them, though. That would require sitting through TWO Ant-Man movies and I really don't care enough.

I did really like the first Captain America, though.

As someone who hasn't seen all the MCU films yet understood Infinity War and Endgame perfectly, you don't need to see all of them.

If we think of the MCU as a TV show, then both Antman films, Thor 2, Guardians 2 and Black panther are kind of like 'filler episodes'. The later 'episodes' barely reference them in any important way.

[Leo656]

Eh, maybe. I'unno. I see what you're saying, though.

For me, I'm "supposed" to see all of them because that's the way the material was meant to be digested so I'd feel disingenuous at half-assing it. If I was gonna bother taking the journey I'd at least want to respect the creators' intent and follow the path they asked me to follow. I feel like otherwise I'd be missing some of the points or finer nuances of what they were trying to do. It's nice that you can skip some of the movies before watching those at the end, just like it's nice that you can read "Infinite Crisis" and make sense of it without reading "OMAC Project" or even "Crisis on Infinite Earths", really, just for example... you can make sense of the plot, but you're not SUPPOSED to do it that way. To get the absolute most out of the story you're supposed to follow the trail of breadcrumbs left in front of you before arriving at your predetermined endpoint. If you hopscotch around, you inevitably miss a few notes here and there; even if they're not important notes, they're still "supposed" to be part of the overall experience.

Thus, it makes perfect sense to me that the people who got the most overall enjoyment out of the final two Avengers movies are the ones who saw every single other movie first. Of course they'd get the most out of it because they're going to see things other people aren't aware of, even if they're minor or even inconsequential.

So I'd actually prefer to take the Long Way There if I were to ever sit and do the deal, even though I make (half) jokes about completely not caring about certain movies. But the truth is, I've never actually read the entire Saga from the comics that the movies are loosely based on, and I'd truly, truly rather read that for the first time than ever watch a bunch of movies water down the concepts. I've never been a huge Marvel guy, period, BUT, I can say with full conviction that I'd much rather read their comics - of a certain era, anyway, primarily 80s/early-90s - than watch any of the movies based on them.

It's not even "a knock" against the movies, it's fine that people like them and they excel at what they aim at doing, there's no denying that. They just do a lot of things that I don't care for in movies, is all. Not even "super-hero movies", just movies in general. At my age, with just about ANY comic book adaptation... I'd just rather read the books again. They're just more in line with my sensibilities and what I like about super-hero fiction. Movies and TV shows do not elevate the material of super-hero fiction, they simply water it down and diminish it so they can serve it fast-food style to a mass audience. It's like if comic books are spaghetti, live-action adaptations are Chef Boyardee. And again, at my age, the novelty of seeing stuff play out in live action isn't really enough to entice me anymore. I'm over it. The best versions of the stories and characters are always, always going to remain in print, and that's just the way it is.

That said, this thread is about stuff that specifically disappointed people about the MCU films, so even though I don't care as much, I feel that it's fine to toss a nickel into the "WHY I don't especially care" bucket. I'm not taking shots or trying to bang the drum, people have already said a lot of how I feel about it so I don't need to rehash what they've said.

I think Captain America and Iron Man were both really well-done, though. I think those two are going to hold up better over the ages than most of what's come since. They're nowhere near as ambitious but they're also a lot more focused and do a great job of presenting the source material, providing a strong bridge between the movies and comics for anyone who maybe hadn't heard of the characters and wanted to know more. Later movies, you really couldn't do that because the stories and characters became so unrecognizable. It's like, "So you like ______ and wanna read more about them? Tough break, in the comics they're a totally different character so it's pointless."

I really appreciated how the earliest movies were both good on their own, and also good adaptations. I've turned a lot of people on to the first Captain America who said they skipped it because he was "The boring Avenger" after jumping into the series with the more recent movies. They're usually surprised to find how much they like that movie. But that's purely anecdotal.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by ZariusTwo

These movies are the furthest you can imagine from "smart"

As someone who likes MCU, I must agree.
Marvel movies are definition of popcorn and not particularly smart at all.

[Whatswiththeheadbands?]

I think after Endgame I've just decided to largely not watch any more MCU film.

Not from any sort of stubbornness, but simply because they've spent the last 11 years building up a series of interconnecting film that lead up to a (mostly) satisfying conclusion that I was (mostly) happy with.

Waiting around for possibly another 10 years or so for the next one which probably won't be done nearly as well seems like a waste to me

I'll probably watch the odd or so if the film really interests me, but overall I'm kind of just done with the MCU

[Leo656]

I think that my biggest problem with them isn't even the movies, it's the audience, or certain parts of it.

People have proven to be willing to rabidly attack certain flaws in other movies, not even super-hero movies but just plain movies in general, yet those same exact criticisms can be lobbed towards MCU movies, often to a much greater degree, but it's like nobody is supposed to point it out. Like someone can rant and rave about how many plot threads were abandoned between "Prometheus" and "Alien: Covenant" and how they're both crap for those reasons and more- I disagree, by the way, I think they're alright, but anyway - but if you apply those same exact criticisms to, like, "Why does 'The Incredible Hulk' movie have nothing to do with anything, when it Could and Should be a major building block for the entire project?" or "If the second Thor movie was just gonna be disregarded, why did they make it and ask people for money to watch it?", people accuse you of spoiling their fun when you're merely questioning where the selective criticism comes from.

There's literally millions of movies people like which I don't care for and that's absolutely fine. The thing with the MCU that puzzles me is simply, things people attack in other films, no matter what kind of films, sometimes rabidly attack... they just handwave if the movie has a "Marvel" sticker on it. And it's like, you either care or you don't. If you're a person who bangs on about Movie X's flaws but ignores the exact same problems in Movie Y, I just can't understand it.

It's got nothing at all to do with the specific movies or their subject matter, let me be perfectly clear on that. It's just a thing people do more with those movies and it drives me up a wall.

It's true that "Everyone is a Critic", but such dramatic levels of inconsistency is frustrating if you pay attention to people as closely as I do.

[Spike Spiegel]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I think that my biggest problem with them isn't even the movies, it's the audience, or certain parts of it.

People have proven to be willing to rabidly attack certain flaws in other movies, not even super-hero movies but just plain movies in general, yet those same exact criticisms can be lobbed towards MCU movies, often to a much greater degree, but it's like nobody is supposed to point it out.

That's what infuriates me about their version of Spider-Man. People shout to high heaven that Snyder's Superman is a brooding jerk, but the MCU completely changes Peter Parker's setting, supporting cast, and overall portrayal and every "Marvel stan" on Twitter claps like an intoxicated seal.

Zendaya is NOT Mary Jane Watson. Flash Thompson is NOT a fast talking, academically inclined Indian kid. Ned Leeds is NOT a pudgy, comic-relief sidekick Peter met in high school or a Ganke Lee expy. In fact, MCU Spider-Man is basically Miles Morales in whiteface anyway. As an African American fan myself, I see they love to promote all that "diversity" but they couldn't really follow through in a way that was meaningful. And in that regard, don't get me started on the Carol Danvers/Monica Rambeau relationship in the movies vs. the comics.

Originally Posted by Whatswiththeheadbands?

I think after Endgame I've just decided to largely not watch any more MCU film.

Not from any sort of stubbornness, but simply because they've spent the last 11 years building up a series of interconnecting film that lead up to a (mostly) satisfying conclusion that I was (mostly) happy with.

Waiting around for possibly another 10 years or so for the next one which probably won't be done nearly as well seems like a waste to me

I'll probably watch the odd or so if the film really interests me, but overall I'm kind of just done with the MCU

These things have a shelf life. Stories are supposed to end. I'm interested to see if the timeline of those movies ends up being as convoluted as that of the original comic universe.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Spike Spiegel

That's what infuriates me about their version of Spider-Man. People shout to high heaven that Snyder's Superman is a brooding jerk, but the MCU completely changes Peter Parker's setting, supporting cast, and overall portrayal and every "Marvel stan" on Twitter claps like an intoxicated seal.

Zendaya is NOT Mary Jane Watson. Flash Thompson is NOT a fast talking, academically inclined Indian kid. Ned Leeds is NOT a pudgy, comic-relief sidekick Peter met in high school or a Ganke Lee expy. In fact, MCU Spider-Man is basically Miles Morales in whiteface anyway. As an African American fan myself, I see they love to promote all that "diversity" but they couldn't really follow through in a way that was meaningful. And in that regard, don't get me started on the Carol Danvers/Monica Rambeau relationship in the movies vs. the comics.

Spider-Man was always my favorite Marvel character if I have one, anyway, so yeah, everything about these new ones just makes me go, "nope".

They have, like, nothing at all that's recognizable to me as someone who owns a few comics and has played plenty of video games. Nothing I know and like about Spider-Man exists in the new movies. It's fine if people like it, but you're right, it's pretty far from faithful so it's bizarre that some of the same individuals who care a lot about fidelity, or claim to, in Movie X, will disregard it entirely for Movie Y because Movie Y spoke more to them personally. I'm sure they're fun movies, but that's not the point. My point is simply that people are very selective with their criticism at times, and it's just weird.

They should just say, "I just liked this better for myself, and that's that," and leave the inconsistent straw-grabbing about character fidelity out of the conversation entirely, if they're going to be so wishy-washy about when it should apply and when it doesn't matter.
-------------------

I completely don't want to derail the topic, but since you mentioned it, it always baffles me how people see what's clearly meant to be read as "introspective and conflicted" as "brooding and mopey" with regard to Cavill's Superman. He mopes a little towards the back end of BvS - in like, one scene - because all he has are good intentions and people won't let him just Be Superman, but for 5 hours across one-and-a-half movies before that, he's just trying to figure this whole gig out. I mean, he's been tasked with the hardest job in the world, there's no manual for it, and people keep telling him to f*ck off when all he wants to do is help out. His emotional responses scene-to-scene are the appropriate emotional reactions to the events happening around him.

Aaaaaaaaand it's all directly lifted from the comic books where he's predominantly behaved Exactly In That Manner since at least the mid-70s. The problem isn't that he's "Out of character", it's that it's a version of the character the people making the criticisms haven't been exposed to, so it's foreign to them. But it isn't "wrong"; if you've read the Byrne and Jurgens and Stern and Ordway stuff, for example, you know that it's "Introspective and Conflicted", not "brooding and mopey". This is a character who spends a ton of his time wrestling with an existential crisis about whether he's doing Too Much or Not Enough. It's just that "standing around in the Alps lost in thought" doesn't make for very exciting cartoons and such, so most people don't realize that that's, like, 60% of his day when he's not Clark Kenting or saving people. It's fine if you don't know that's part of who he is, if you've never seen it, but if you don't know just say you don't know. Y'know?

People who don't read comics can't see his thought balloons, so they have no idea how neurotic Clark Kent really is, and he's got every reason to be. Especially Year One, which is what those movies were based on, when he just got started and isn't even close to knowing what he's doing yet.

I know most people know and love the Reeve movie where he literally gets his cape, is immediately a Perfect Being who knows everything and always does everything right, but... that's literally the One And Only Time that the character's ever been presented that way. In all the other versions that have ever been done of the character, his entire first year is a big game of trial and error and he has a lot of sh*tty days along the way. You can't insist that people throw out 80 years of Hard Canon because "I wanna see him smile more", that's kind of silly. "Out of character presentation" is one of the worst complaints about those movies, it's simply incorrect. It's alright to not have seen or read something in the canon until you start fighting wars over your position, that's how I look at it.

Sorry to go off-topic, but obviously it's something I'm passionate about and it comes up a lot, and since you pointed it out specifically I felt like going into it. It's just such a bogus criticism that it exposes the person doing the criticizing as someone who literally doesn't know anything about the character, positioning themselves as an authority on the character. And it gets very frustrating when you're in my position, y'know what I mean? People screaming at the top of their lungs about something simply because they were personally misinformed.

At least it's harmless with fictional characters. People do it with politics and real-life issues as well, and we see how THAT goes.

[neatoman]

I know this might not be the thread to discuss this, but how do you feel about retcons that will surely come? Like we already know there's going to be a "real" Mandarin and it's a fairly safe assumption Wanda will be retconned as mutant. Because we've already seen some retcons and the main reasons the MCU differs from the comics are:

1. A lot of things are difficult to present in live-action movies or it's difficult to establish certain concepts and characters when you are bound by runtime instead of pages.
2. A lot characters and concept were barred until last year. When they started they simply weren't allowed to use Spider-Man, Deadpool, New Mutants, the X-Men, the Fantastic Four, Daredevil, Ghost Rider, Blade, Punisher and I think Man-Thing. Plus the fact that there are still some limits on Spider-Man and Hulk.

Of course, there have been retcons to make the series more complex and the recent addition of licenses means more are sure to come. And retcons could easily undo some decent directions.

[Leo656]

One of the biggest and most unfortunate will surely be retconning the previous TV shows away to make way for presenting some of those characters such as Daredevil, Ghost Rider, Punisher, etc. I never watched them but people seem to like them, mostly, but everything I've read/heard says they'll most likely be discarded as some kind of alternate universe one they decide to do a Proper Daredevil or Punisher movie. So that's kind of a shame.

I was originally very curious to see what would become of the X-Men, as they could have been done terrific justice in the "real" MCU if they'd started doing it 10 years ago somehow. But as is, with all the talk from inside about wanting to make Magneto or Xavier or both either black or gay or whatever else, I have no interest in yet another "In Name Only" adaptation like their new Spider-Man stuff. So I'm pretty disappointed in that, as well. I was very underwhelmed by the Fox X-Men series although some of the movies were good, but the idea of a far more accurate and true-to-the-comics version of the X-Men was really enticing. Then they say they're not interested in doing that, and it's like, "Alright, I'm out, then."

It seems like the X-Men are destined to never get a "proper" film adaptation, and that's a shame. I am preemptively angry at them for how they've already announced that they plan to waste this great and unique opportunity that's been presented to them. COULD have been great, but I don't think it will be unless they change their priorities.

[drgon78]

Where to begin...

Soy latte Hulk
Fat Thor
No Funeral For Black Widow
No Ironman vs The Mandorin
No Red Skull re-mach for Cap.
Many bad/Forgettable villains
No Scarlet Witch and/or Vision movie
No more Hulk solo movies
Captain Marvel
Many missed opportunities.

[ProphetofGanja]

Originally Posted by ZariusTwo

These movies are the furthest you can imagine from "smart"

This is one of the few times I agree with Zarius





I really enjoyed pretty much every MCU movie I saw in theaters, except for Thor 2 and Captain Marvel. I liked most of Doctor Strange but a lot of it just wasn't what I wanted from a movie about the character, after coming to love the way he was portrayed in his early comics (Benedict Cumberbatch was just not the right dude for the job, in my opinion).

And it's not that I don't love different takes on characters; I like new iterations of iconic figures that change a few things at a time in order to examine the character as a whole in a new light. I like the MCU's Peter Parker/Spider-Man for the most part but I recognize that making him Iron Man Jr. is a significant departure from the comics, but I don't need the movies to be EXACTLY like the comics. The comics are still out there.

I enjoyed Endgame a lot when I saw it in the theater, but now having re-watched it a couple times I gotta say, the inability of the directors and the writers to agree on how the fvck time travel is supposed to work in-universe is infuriating. It kinda ruins the whole thing, the phrase "sh!t the bed" comes to mind.

All that said, I'm still pretty curious about The Eternals, I'm vaguely interested in Black Widow, and I'm pretty excited about Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, the MCU Spider-Man 3, Thor: Love and Thunder, Black Panther 2, and Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness. And I'll definitely show-up for a Fantastic Four MCU movie, but I'll have strong opinions about that so we'll see how it goes.