Marvel Films Thread


think ant man is much lower stakes, thor is a-list marvel and ragnarok is way weirder than ant man but basically yes


nah i think gotg just did what avengers assemble did but with a new cast really


eeehhhh i think ant man was a proper deviation from the standard formula. it’s not about the character, it’s that they made ocean’s eleven the marvel film, and many of the core characters were randomly invented buddies who weren’t ‘powered’


i dunno man, I for one thought a film starring big dave batista about a talking raccoon and a tree man was deffo gonna suck


Not Marvel, but I saw the Titans trailer this morning.

DC are so clueless.


@andyvine characters with established books are not risks. They aren’t sure things maybe, but that’s not the same thing.

By risks I mean their films are still structured in very safe ways, with scripts that are safe.

Ragnarok wasn’t remotely risky. As @kiyonemakibi points out, it is very much in the GotG vein and also they used a known director with a following (not something they do much). Given Thor’s previous outings were both considered low hitters in the MCU anything was a decent shot.

But again, their films are fun, sometimes excellent fun, but they’re not really surprising. They are also written with too much of an eye for ‘banter’ to the point where you get whole sequences of the Whedon effect: lots of quips that could have been made by any of the main characters.

It’s not that I am surprised phases 1 and 2 were safe it’s just that Civil War’s complete failure to give us any real sense of consequence or depth to the feud showed Phase 3 just wasn’t interested in breaking out of that.

Edit I’ve not seen either Ant Man movie or Homecoming


astonishingly so


ant man is worth a watch. if only because paul rudd


And Michael Pena


I’d like to see it I just can’t be arsed paying 4 dollars for a 3 day window as it’s not on any current streaming platforms.


ragnarok broke from that tho, no other character than hulk could call thor “baby arms”, no other director would go off on the surreal riffs that that rock guy did. using a director who was known for this sort of stuff is a risk compared to the rest of the films and it paid off, coz the first two thor films are really straight laced and srsbsnss, whereas ragnarok is properly funny and feels more like a comic book in its narrative structure than maybe any other marvel film


tbf if you haven’t seen all of P3 this statement is moot.


FFS, okay. Homecoming is Lynchian madness I’ll accept that the entire MCU is the greatest cinematic achievement since Kubrick made a good film. :roll_eyes:


Have you been stung by a bee or something today Theo? Calm down. You’re arguing like I used to


Mate, the first Thor movie is broad comedy for large sections.

You are nuts if you think that one liner from Hulk had any impact on 99% of the audience. It’s a good film, I enjoyed it a lot but it wasn’t a risky proposition, IMO.

You’d have to find me a lot of articles leading up to it’s release that show it was considered worrying


phase 3 largely took no risks. but some of the films did. you haven’t seen all the films, so can’t say otherwise.

there’s a difference between that and accepting feige as your god


esp since ant man and homecoming establish that lighter tone that made ragnarok possible


Sorry I just don’t really see how not seeing Homecoming means that I can’t say that of Phase 3? The rest are as safe as I said so Spidey would have to be out there to change phase 3 as a whole


come on now, the comedy in the previous thor films was crap. im not saying it was a financial risk, im saying taking the crappy comedy from the first two thor films and giving it to the man who made what we do in the shadows is a bold move


Ant man 1 is not Phase 3