You nailed the point of how I feel about marvel movies, the fact they feel almost engineered to be appealing to most audiences is what makes them feel kinda artificial, specially in the visual department on another note, your videos are amazing man, I can tell you're really passionate about cinema because it shows in each one of them. Keep going!
I would describe the MCU like it's a TV-series where every episode is a big budget blockbuster film and i absolutely love that concept. Unfortunately, much like you described, this does make the films blend together and it can be hard to distinguish them from another.
In theory, the idea sounds cool and I feel like Endgame proves that it's a very effective method of storytelling in terms of scale and impact. It just doesn't resonate with me much, personally, because of that blend between films. I've also never been the type of person to invest myself in many long running television shows. I just really love seeing vastly different stories and worlds in each film I watch!
I really do wish that Edgar Wright had been allowed to finish Ant-Man to his satisfaction. Coming from a MCU fan who liked Ant-Man, but I also enjoy Wright's work and can't even imagine what he'd have done with the project. I agree that the movies tend to feel the same, especially in phase 1 and 2, but I feel like it diverges from there. As you said, Guardians is James Gunn through and through. Ragnarok is definitely a Watiti film. The Russo Brothers definitely have a unique style, granted it's closer to the more generic movies then the Gunn and Watiti, but it's a unique brand of grounded story telling that I like a lot. I haven't seen any of Ryan Coogler's work outside of Black Panther, but it seemed to diverge a fair bit in tone. Although it did fall into the villain-with-the-same-power-as-hero trope. I also think they're moving more in the direction of unique styles more broadly. Sam Remi directing Doctor Strange 2 for example. I also think that after the success of Ragnarok that Thor: Love and Thunder will be even more Taika Watiti wonder. It's a hard balance to have very different movies function together as the marvel movies have, and I understand that it often restricts more creative visions of films. But I also feel like they're past the point of something like Thor 2 which by all accounts was a film that was created exclusively because a Thor movie was on the schedule. And as for the reduction of creative in mainstream film, I'm far more concerned about reboots than the MCU. Things like Jurassic World and the new Ghostbusters come to mind. Though I suppose neither of those saw as much commerical success. On a final note on MCU movies in general, I feel like they also provide an opportunity for directors to springboard into more original ideas. Something like JoJo Rabbit, which is my second favorite film of all time, would have likely never had been approved if it weren't for the success of Ragnarok and Taika Watiti's heightened brand. As an aside, I wonder how you didn't enjoy Ragnarok. I enjoy the comedy and all, but the thing that draws me back to it is the more character based dynamic, especially between Thor and Loki. The scene with them in the elevator gets me everytime.
I wholeheartedly agree that it seems like Marvel is moving into a bolder direction with the new phase. I think even Wandavision proves that they can afford to break the mold a bit, and I'm hoping we see that more. I do agree that some level of uniformity is necessary for something like the MCU to work, but to me it is a bit of "necessary evil." Not because I think it's inherently wrong or immoral, but because I personally don't resonate with it. I do believe that reboots and remakes are also of concern in this equation, but shockingly I feel like a lot of soft rebooting came as a result of Marvel's success. Only so much in that a lot of these reboots are made with the idea of springboarding a cinematic universe in the same vein as Marvel. I shockingly enjoyed the first Jurassic World a lot for what it was. Fallen Kingdom was absolutely horrible though lmao. Also, I beg to differ on Jurassic World not being commercially successful. It's literally the 6th highest grossing film of all time, not adjusted for inflation. Ghostbusters was definitely a flop though, but Sony is still trying their hand at it again. They must believe there's some blood left in that IP. I did mention in the video that I think Marvel does inadvertently allow directors to go on to make some of their more unique and bold films, even citing Taika Watiti as a perfect example of that Having a successful Marvel film under your belt is a huge key to many doors in the film industry. But as I said in the video, I feel like more pressure needs to be on Marvel/Disney to have a more direct hand in allowing that to happen. They're making ridiculous amounts of money from Marvel as a property. Surely they could use some of that money to fund more risky mid-budget projects and still be okay. To me, the future of cinema as a whole is more important than maximum profit. But hey, their marketing and business teams are clearly much smarter than I am. As far as Thor Ragnarok goes, I thought it was a fun time for what it was but it didn't leave any lasting impression. I enjoyed it enough as a passing distraction. Had a few laughs, the action scenes were engaging, but I'd pretty much forgotten the whole film a day after I viewed it. Maybe it's one I'll have to revisit!
@@meeptop I had thought that Fallen Kingdom had made less money. I was wrong. So disregard what I said about that. I do think it's fair to say that the MCU has had an effect on the reboot craze, but I hardly think that it's responsible. It is definitely responsible for the craze of spin offs, and everyone trying to make cinematic universes. However I will say almost all the others have failed. Largely because they they to cheat it and take short cuts. I think film will be alright though. I think Ragnarok might be better from the perspective of someone who follows the MCU more closely. The biggest thing for me in it was Thor and Loki's relationship. And also Loki feeling as less than Thor in the eyes of Odin among other things. It might be worth sitting down and watching the MCU in release order. I really do feel like it's a product that gets better with consumed at least once in it's totality. But that is a lot of time, and Lord knows that we don't all have like 50 hours to sit down and watch marvel movies.
The problem with this argument maybe not started by Scorsese but at least catapulted to a discussion by him is that just because a medium is corporatized and engineered to be pleasing doesn't discredit the art. To say it does means none of us have ever listened to real music, The Beatles were not a real band, Eminem isn't a real rapper, The Ramones weren't a punk band. By the time they broke into mainstream they were cleaned up and refined and had the label representing them ensuring success. Coppola thinks the same of Star Wars but that hasn't slighted The Empire Strikes Back as being an all time great film.
I personally feel that the only way art is compromised by being refined or engineered to be more palatable is if it isn't done of the artist's conviction. There's absolutely nothing wrong with an artist making a piece of art of any medium that is designed to be marketable and loved by as many people as possible, so long as that is the artist's decision. In your own example, if the corporate mentality of the film industry of today was applied to The Beatles then they would've been writing "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" their entire career. They had ambitions, they wanted revolution, and they had to break free and start their own label to be able to achieve that. The same can be applied to the original Star Wars trilogy, as George Lucas independently produced and financed two out of three of those films. His creative vision was to make a crowd-pleasing, thrilling space opera. If Fox had their way, they would've pulled the plug on the project and we wouldn't be able to enjoy Star Wars today. What I'm getting at is that I absolutely agree with you, but only in the case that it is the intent and sole decision of the artist to make their art universal. Unfortunately that's just not how it works because art is a business where a lot of money is at stake. Money that corporations would rather not watch burn. But idealistically, that's what I would like to see.
They kinda started the independent risks in filmmaking with the new movies, like taika waititi, chloe zoe, and the newer films and tv shows. But I get your point too. It's a bit of both at the moment
I'm always going to be sad for what they did to Hulk and Thor. The former going out like a punk and Thor becoming a stereotypical jock type character. For Thor 3, giving the directing chair to a guy that openly stated "I'll ruin your mythos in a minute baby"... Do we honestly want people like that directing these films of characters we want for them to be the best they possibly can be and Hulk... The best version of him is either the 2003 game or the 90s TV series... What is wrong with these studios...
I will say even as an extremely casual "fan," I found the way they handled Hulk very odd. I understand what they were going for, but I don't think it quite hit the mark (for me, at least). I also can completely understand why you may feel that way about Thor, but I completely disagree! Thor: Ragnarok may not be my favorite film from the MCU, but one thing I really enjoyed about was the sense that Thor finally became his own distinct character. I really respect Taika Waititi and want to dive into his filmography more because, for an MCU movie, Thor: Ragnarok felt very expressive to me. I think if studios hired more filmmakers that were willing to say "I'll ruin your mythos in a minute, baby" to helm these mega-franchises, I'd personally have far less complaints about them.
@@meeptop I'll disagree. I'm all for creative folks pushing boundaries and making the film their own vision but there has to be respect for the legacy of the character along with trying your own thing, finding that sweet spot. Instead of going too far from the original source.
@@dr.feelgoodmalusphillips2475 But what is the "original source" when it comes to comic books? I think that one of the aspects of the comic book medium that I admire the most is that creators can take these characters in wildly different directions and tell unique stories with them!
@@meeptop The characteristic traits that are shared throughout the medium. Almost every character has them, otherwise how are we supposed to understand their motivations and needs etc? I think you have a bit too broad a mindset. It almost sounds like canon itself is nonexistent to you. Yes, their can be different interpretations but the legacy must be respected in some shape or form, otherwise it is disingenuous. Without the original works, we'd have none of this.
@@dr.feelgoodmalusphillips2475 See, whereas I think that mindset is too narrow. I don't see either of our approaches as incorrect, though. I agree that there are distinct characteristics that make the characters who they are and that, ideally, the person putting together the interpretation has reverence for the material it's based on. But I just think, truthfully, everyone has their own (for lack of a better term) headcanon and their idealized version of what that hero should be, and that there's no realistic way that everyone unanimously is going to agree on what's "right" for the character. I think Raimi's interpretation of Spider-Man is most true to what I want from the character, but there's a whole legion of people who think the MCU's interpretation is more accurate and faithful. It's not that the canon isn't existent, but we all have differing subjective visions on that canon. Plus a lot of my favorite films are deconstructionist in nature. The Dark Knight Returns is considered a masterpiece, and that version of Bruce Wayne (at least at the start) is a completely different interpretation of the character than we know him as traditionally. Snyder attempted to capture that in Batman V Superman, with his version of both those titular characters being wildly different than our preconceived notions. I personally don't want a Superman who is a dark, existentialist edge lord, and I don't think he did The Dark Knight Returns interpretation of Batman proper justice. But Zack Snyder did what he did, wholeheartedly, and I can't really call his interpretation "wrong" just because I didn't like it. All I can say is that I disagree, I hated it, and point out evidence that I think supports my feelings. That's what a review is. Yet despite all that, he has (and will continue to have) an entire army of fans that are fighting tooth and nail to see his complete vision realized. I'm not saying I have a definitive answer, I'm saying there is no definitive answer. It's messy and complicated because it's all dependent on human emotional interaction with the piece. It's all dependent on what you value.
just found you and gotta say your vids are fantastic and extremely captivating please keep making these vids man they are genuinely amazing and i am sure you will be able to be next to names like hitop films and browntable
I wouldn't necessarily say the universal solution is just unbridled creative vision because that doesn't guarantee a movie is good. Whatever the case just make well written emotionally effective movies. It was Sam Raimi's creative intent to change Venom and Sandman, and those changes fall short compared to other iterations. One things for certain is the MCU is great at not making characters grow and making films with pseudo emotions.
i disagree. maybe it’s because i grew up with these movies, but i feel that visually, they are distinct from each other. to use your examples, the avengers looks cheap as shit, the lighting is awkward until the 3rd act, where i feel that joss whedon (asshole that he was) managed to capture a comic book splash page in live action. civil war is shot like a political thriller, with everything looking gray and gritty, and spider-man homecoming, while not having much in terms of engaging camerawork, uses the orange-blue color palette so prevalent in blockbusters to make Spider-man stand out much more and emulate john hughes-esque teen summer comedy movies. i agree that they do feel samey in an abstract sense, but i disagree that director personality doesn’t come thru, especially with projects like thor ragnarok and multiverse of madness.
You nailed the point of how I feel about marvel movies, the fact they feel almost engineered to be appealing to most audiences is what makes them feel kinda artificial, specially in the visual department
on another note, your videos are amazing man, I can tell you're really passionate about cinema because it shows in each one of them. Keep going!
I would describe the MCU like it's a TV-series where every episode is a big budget blockbuster film and i absolutely love that concept. Unfortunately, much like you described, this does make the films blend together and it can be hard to distinguish them from another.
In theory, the idea sounds cool and I feel like Endgame proves that it's a very effective method of storytelling in terms of scale and impact. It just doesn't resonate with me much, personally, because of that blend between films. I've also never been the type of person to invest myself in many long running television shows. I just really love seeing vastly different stories and worlds in each film I watch!
I really do wish that Edgar Wright had been allowed to finish Ant-Man to his satisfaction. Coming from a MCU fan who liked Ant-Man, but I also enjoy Wright's work and can't even imagine what he'd have done with the project.
I agree that the movies tend to feel the same, especially in phase 1 and 2, but I feel like it diverges from there. As you said, Guardians is James Gunn through and through. Ragnarok is definitely a Watiti film. The Russo Brothers definitely have a unique style, granted it's closer to the more generic movies then the Gunn and Watiti, but it's a unique brand of grounded story telling that I like a lot. I haven't seen any of Ryan Coogler's work outside of Black Panther, but it seemed to diverge a fair bit in tone. Although it did fall into the villain-with-the-same-power-as-hero trope. I also think they're moving more in the direction of unique styles more broadly. Sam Remi directing Doctor Strange 2 for example. I also think that after the success of Ragnarok that Thor: Love and Thunder will be even more Taika Watiti wonder.
It's a hard balance to have very different movies function together as the marvel movies have, and I understand that it often restricts more creative visions of films. But I also feel like they're past the point of something like Thor 2 which by all accounts was a film that was created exclusively because a Thor movie was on the schedule.
And as for the reduction of creative in mainstream film, I'm far more concerned about reboots than the MCU. Things like Jurassic World and the new Ghostbusters come to mind. Though I suppose neither of those saw as much commerical success.
On a final note on MCU movies in general, I feel like they also provide an opportunity for directors to springboard into more original ideas. Something like JoJo Rabbit, which is my second favorite film of all time, would have likely never had been approved if it weren't for the success of Ragnarok and Taika Watiti's heightened brand.
As an aside, I wonder how you didn't enjoy Ragnarok. I enjoy the comedy and all, but the thing that draws me back to it is the more character based dynamic, especially between Thor and Loki. The scene with them in the elevator gets me everytime.
I wholeheartedly agree that it seems like Marvel is moving into a bolder direction with the new phase. I think even Wandavision proves that they can afford to break the mold a bit, and I'm hoping we see that more.
I do agree that some level of uniformity is necessary for something like the MCU to work, but to me it is a bit of "necessary evil." Not because I think it's inherently wrong or immoral, but because I personally don't resonate with it.
I do believe that reboots and remakes are also of concern in this equation, but shockingly I feel like a lot of soft rebooting came as a result of Marvel's success. Only so much in that a lot of these reboots are made with the idea of springboarding a cinematic universe in the same vein as Marvel. I shockingly enjoyed the first Jurassic World a lot for what it was. Fallen Kingdom was absolutely horrible though lmao. Also, I beg to differ on Jurassic World not being commercially successful. It's literally the 6th highest grossing film of all time, not adjusted for inflation. Ghostbusters was definitely a flop though, but Sony is still trying their hand at it again. They must believe there's some blood left in that IP.
I did mention in the video that I think Marvel does inadvertently allow directors to go on to make some of their more unique and bold films, even citing Taika Watiti as a perfect example of that Having a successful Marvel film under your belt is a huge key to many doors in the film industry. But as I said in the video, I feel like more pressure needs to be on Marvel/Disney to have a more direct hand in allowing that to happen. They're making ridiculous amounts of money from Marvel as a property. Surely they could use some of that money to fund more risky mid-budget projects and still be okay. To me, the future of cinema as a whole is more important than maximum profit. But hey, their marketing and business teams are clearly much smarter than I am.
As far as Thor Ragnarok goes, I thought it was a fun time for what it was but it didn't leave any lasting impression. I enjoyed it enough as a passing distraction. Had a few laughs, the action scenes were engaging, but I'd pretty much forgotten the whole film a day after I viewed it. Maybe it's one I'll have to revisit!
@@meeptop I had thought that Fallen Kingdom had made less money. I was wrong. So disregard what I said about that.
I do think it's fair to say that the MCU has had an effect on the reboot craze, but I hardly think that it's responsible. It is definitely responsible for the craze of spin offs, and everyone trying to make cinematic universes. However I will say almost all the others have failed. Largely because they they to cheat it and take short cuts.
I think film will be alright though.
I think Ragnarok might be better from the perspective of someone who follows the MCU more closely. The biggest thing for me in it was Thor and Loki's relationship. And also Loki feeling as less than Thor in the eyes of Odin among other things.
It might be worth sitting down and watching the MCU in release order. I really do feel like it's a product that gets better with consumed at least once in it's totality. But that is a lot of time, and Lord knows that we don't all have like 50 hours to sit down and watch marvel movies.
The problem with this argument maybe not started by Scorsese but at least catapulted to a discussion by him is that just because a medium is corporatized and engineered to be pleasing doesn't discredit the art. To say it does means none of us have ever listened to real music, The Beatles were not a real band, Eminem isn't a real rapper, The Ramones weren't a punk band. By the time they broke into mainstream they were cleaned up and refined and had the label representing them ensuring success. Coppola thinks the same of Star Wars but that hasn't slighted The Empire Strikes Back as being an all time great film.
I personally feel that the only way art is compromised by being refined or engineered to be more palatable is if it isn't done of the artist's conviction. There's absolutely nothing wrong with an artist making a piece of art of any medium that is designed to be marketable and loved by as many people as possible, so long as that is the artist's decision.
In your own example, if the corporate mentality of the film industry of today was applied to The Beatles then they would've been writing "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" their entire career. They had ambitions, they wanted revolution, and they had to break free and start their own label to be able to achieve that. The same can be applied to the original Star Wars trilogy, as George Lucas independently produced and financed two out of three of those films. His creative vision was to make a crowd-pleasing, thrilling space opera. If Fox had their way, they would've pulled the plug on the project and we wouldn't be able to enjoy Star Wars today.
What I'm getting at is that I absolutely agree with you, but only in the case that it is the intent and sole decision of the artist to make their art universal. Unfortunately that's just not how it works because art is a business where a lot of money is at stake. Money that corporations would rather not watch burn. But idealistically, that's what I would like to see.
They kinda started the independent risks in filmmaking with the new movies, like taika waititi, chloe zoe, and the newer films and tv shows. But I get your point too. It's a bit of both at the moment
I'm always going to be sad for what they did to Hulk and Thor. The former going out like a punk and Thor becoming a stereotypical jock type character. For Thor 3, giving the directing chair to a guy that openly stated "I'll ruin your mythos in a minute baby"... Do we honestly want people like that directing these films of characters we want for them to be the best they possibly can be and Hulk... The best version of him is either the 2003 game or the 90s TV series... What is wrong with these studios...
I will say even as an extremely casual "fan," I found the way they handled Hulk very odd. I understand what they were going for, but I don't think it quite hit the mark (for me, at least). I also can completely understand why you may feel that way about Thor, but I completely disagree! Thor: Ragnarok may not be my favorite film from the MCU, but one thing I really enjoyed about was the sense that Thor finally became his own distinct character. I really respect Taika Waititi and want to dive into his filmography more because, for an MCU movie, Thor: Ragnarok felt very expressive to me. I think if studios hired more filmmakers that were willing to say "I'll ruin your mythos in a minute, baby" to helm these mega-franchises, I'd personally have far less complaints about them.
@@meeptop I'll disagree. I'm all for creative folks pushing boundaries and making the film their own vision but there has to be respect for the legacy of the character along with trying your own thing, finding that sweet spot. Instead of going too far from the original source.
@@dr.feelgoodmalusphillips2475 But what is the "original source" when it comes to comic books? I think that one of the aspects of the comic book medium that I admire the most is that creators can take these characters in wildly different directions and tell unique stories with them!
@@meeptop The characteristic traits that are shared throughout the medium. Almost every character has them, otherwise how are we supposed to understand their motivations and needs etc? I think you have a bit too broad a mindset. It almost sounds like canon itself is nonexistent to you. Yes, their can be different interpretations but the legacy must be respected in some shape or form, otherwise it is disingenuous. Without the original works, we'd have none of this.
@@dr.feelgoodmalusphillips2475 See, whereas I think that mindset is too narrow. I don't see either of our approaches as incorrect, though.
I agree that there are distinct characteristics that make the characters who they are and that, ideally, the person putting together the interpretation has reverence for the material it's based on. But I just think, truthfully, everyone has their own (for lack of a better term) headcanon and their idealized version of what that hero should be, and that there's no realistic way that everyone unanimously is going to agree on what's "right" for the character. I think Raimi's interpretation of Spider-Man is most true to what I want from the character, but there's a whole legion of people who think the MCU's interpretation is more accurate and faithful. It's not that the canon isn't existent, but we all have differing subjective visions on that canon. Plus a lot of my favorite films are deconstructionist in nature.
The Dark Knight Returns is considered a masterpiece, and that version of Bruce Wayne (at least at the start) is a completely different interpretation of the character than we know him as traditionally. Snyder attempted to capture that in Batman V Superman, with his version of both those titular characters being wildly different than our preconceived notions. I personally don't want a Superman who is a dark, existentialist edge lord, and I don't think he did The Dark Knight Returns interpretation of Batman proper justice. But Zack Snyder did what he did, wholeheartedly, and I can't really call his interpretation "wrong" just because I didn't like it. All I can say is that I disagree, I hated it, and point out evidence that I think supports my feelings. That's what a review is. Yet despite all that, he has (and will continue to have) an entire army of fans that are fighting tooth and nail to see his complete vision realized.
I'm not saying I have a definitive answer, I'm saying there is no definitive answer. It's messy and complicated because it's all dependent on human emotional interaction with the piece. It's all dependent on what you value.
just found you and gotta say your vids are fantastic and extremely captivating please keep making these vids man they are genuinely amazing and i am sure you will be able to be next to names like hitop films and browntable
Deeply appreciate the kind words!
i had never looked at the subject from this point of view and i gotta say i found it really interesting. totally agree with you here. great video!
I wouldn't necessarily say the universal solution is just unbridled creative vision because that doesn't guarantee a movie is good. Whatever the case just make well written emotionally effective movies. It was Sam Raimi's creative intent to change Venom and Sandman, and those changes fall short compared to other iterations.
One things for certain is the MCU is great at not making characters grow and making films with pseudo emotions.
Here before the channel blows up. Great vids dude, keep it up!
i disagree. maybe it’s because i grew up with these movies, but i feel that visually, they are distinct from each other. to use your examples, the avengers looks cheap as shit, the lighting is awkward until the 3rd act, where i feel that joss whedon (asshole that he was) managed to capture a comic book splash page in live action. civil war is shot like a political thriller, with everything looking gray and gritty, and spider-man homecoming, while not having much in terms of engaging camerawork, uses the orange-blue color palette so prevalent in blockbusters to make Spider-man stand out much more and emulate john hughes-esque teen summer comedy movies. i agree that they do feel samey in an abstract sense, but i disagree that director personality doesn’t come thru, especially with projects like thor ragnarok and multiverse of madness.
Personally they’re just nerdy fun for me. Is it high art? Nah. Does it make my nerd self happy? Yes
Great video! Love your video’s!
No
Great take on the subject
Sarcasm: you don’t understand, if Edgar wright did make ant-man, then the entire mcu would have been ruined. Because of an ant-man movie.
Nice work King 👑 100% my feeling as well.
Pog
for me, Scorsese movies are like a very expensive meal from an exclusive restaurant, and Marvel movies are like fast food.
marvel movies are basically just animated movies at this point
Man, you need to watch Captain America: The Winter Soldier.
Yes