Best Comic Book Movie Trilogy Ever?

[Batgirl0202]

I would say TDK in terms of pure quality.

However, in terms of pure enjoyment, charm, and nostalgia, I would say Raimi's original Spider-Man trilogy is probably my favorite. I even have a place in my heart for the third one, though I do concede it has issues lol. Every time I revisit any of those films I feel like I've literally entered into a comic book, which is kinda the point of watching a CBM...

And since nobody mentioned them, I still have a lot of fondness and affection for the original X-Men trilogy too. It's undoubtedly nostalgia talking but I actually like TLS more than most fans seem to. While not perfect, I still find the original X-Films make for a very satisfying rewatch every once in awhile

 

[Spider-Fan]

Oh no I don't believe it's an Avengers movie. Just that the Cap films don't function as a trilogy without other inter-connected films informing them.

Gotcha. There is truth to that, but that is just kind of the MCU at this point.

 

[metaphysician]

Oh no I don't believe it's an Avengers movie. Just that the Cap films don't function as a trilogy without other inter-connected films informing them.

Honestly, I think we are at the cultural point where this is almost the same thing as saying "Saving Private Ryan doesn't work as its own movie because it requires outside knowledge about WWII to inform it", or "The Green Knight doesn't work as its own movie because you need to know outside knowledge about King Arthur". The "other films informing" are not necessary prequel viewing, so much as a ubiquitous part of the ambient pop culture.

( Honestly, I'd almost ask "How well does Batman Begins work without prior knowledge of the character", except that's essentially an impossible question because the prior knowledge is so universal. . . )

 

[henzINNIT]

Honestly, I think we are at the cultural point where this is almost the same thing as saying "Saving Private Ryan doesn't work as its own movie because it requires outside knowledge about WWII to inform it", or "The Green Knight doesn't work as its own movie because you need to know outside knowledge about King Arthur". The "other films informing" are not necessary prequel viewing, so much as a ubiquitous part of the ambient pop culture.

( Honestly, I'd almost ask "How well does Batman Begins work without prior knowledge of the character", except that's essentially an impossible question because the prior knowledge is so universal. . . )

I understand the sentiment but don't really agree. These characters are familiar enough that you can skip a lot of long-winded exposition, like how Spider-Man is introduced in Civil War. Most of the other characters don't even get that though. And it's just as much about actual story events as it is just understanding who characters are. The emotional weight of Steve vs. Tony relies heavily on how the characters have previously gotten on, as well as Tony's background from his own movies. That is necessary reading for the core of the movie to resonate. The other characters aren't so important emotionally, but there's a bunch of them who are basically unknowns in just the Captain America films alone.

 

[Bayne]

Tony's background from his own movies, ok, but I don't think you can say Civil War relies on how well Tony and Steve have gotten on previously. They literally only appeared together in Avengers 1 and 2 and spent large portions of the first film and a smaller portion of the second one fighting. Their friendship is largely implied more than shown. And Civil War implies it just as well as the other films.

 

[Babillygunn]

I love The First Avenger and Winter Soldier, but Civil War is just heroes making stupid decisions. The whole central conflict could’ve been avoided if the main characters would’ve had a conversation. That always frustrates me.

Avengers 1 is a fun but flawed novelty. Avengers 2 is a mess and Infinity War is once again a film of people making stupid decisions. I did really enjoy Endgame though.

The TDK trilogy easily takes it for me. Begins is a masterpiece and TDK transcends the genre. TDKR has its flaws but is still a solid film and much better than the worst of the other trilogies.

 

[Bayne]

The extent to which anyone sees their decisions as stupid (or too stupid to believe, since superheroes are not automatically perfect decision makers) is always subjective, but I will never not roll my eyes at the 'why didn't they just have a CoNVeRSAtIoN?!' criticism of Civil War.

They did have a conversation. They had a bunch of conversations, in fact. Having a conversation in no way guarantees people come out the other end of it in agreement about what to do or even in agreement about what is real, and since Tony and Steve spend most of the movie having a very fundamental disagreement about what is, in fact, the truth they necessarily cannot agree about what is to be done.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I also agree, there was a lot of debate amongst the main characters in Civil War. The ideological differences on the matter meant that it wasn't an issue that could be hashed out by talking. So I don't see that as a valid critique either

 

[Babillygunn]

It is a valid criticism. The debates were about the accords. But the accords ultimately weren’t what caused the split. The accords created tension, but ideological tension didn’t drive them apart. It was ultimately emotional decisions regarding Bucky that caused the rift that split them up. They didn’t talk that through, or to the extent that they did, they didn’t listen to one another.

 

[Babillygunn]

The extent to which anyone sees their decisions as stupid (or too stupid to believe, since superheroes are not automatically perfect decision makers) is always subjective, but I will never not roll my eyes at the 'why didn't they just have a CoNVeRSAtIoN?!' criticism of Civil War.

They did have a conversation. They had a bunch of conversations, in fact. Having a conversation in no way guarantees people come out the other end of it in agreement about what to do or even in agreement about what is real, and since Tony and Steve spend most of the movie having a very fundamental disagreement about what is, in fact, the truth they necessarily cannot agree about what is to be done.

 

[Bayne]

It is a valid criticism. The debates were about the accords. But the accords ultimately weren’t what caused the split. The accords created tension, but ideological tension didn’t drive them apart. It was ultimately emotional decisions regarding Bucky that caused the rift that split them up. They didn’t talk that through, or to the extent that they did, they didn’t listen to one another.

No, the emotional decisions came at the end of the movie, they didn't drive the story. The accords also didn't drive the story. Zemo drove the story because Iron Man refused to believe he existed (because any information from a brainwashed assassin with a secret agenda isn't credible) and Cap refused to not try to stop him. And they did talk about this. Tony told Steve he was being lied to to his face. He simply did not believe Zemo existed.

 

[Babillygunn]

No, the emotional decisions came at the end of the movie, they didn't drive the story. The accords also didn't drive the story. Zemo drove the story because Iron Man refused to believe he existed (because any information from a brainwashed assassin with a secret agenda isn't credible) and Cap refused to not try to stop him. And they did talk about this. Tony told Steve he was being lied to to his face. He simply did not believe Zemo existed.

You are obviously much more invested in the movie than I am so I trust your recollection. I have only seen it a handful of times and always come away feeling like a) Tony is a complete jackwagon; and b) there are an awful lot of terrible decisions made in that film and characters seem to lose all semblance of intelligence in the last act.

It’s just not my movie. I’m glad other people like it though.

 

[Spider-Fan]

It is a valid criticism. The debates were about the accords. But the accords ultimately weren’t what caused the split. The accords created tension, but ideological tension didn’t drive them apart. It was ultimately emotional decisions regarding Bucky that caused the rift that split them up. They didn’t talk that through, or to the extent that they did, they didn’t listen to one another.

How to handle Bucky was a direct result of the Accords changing the way the Avengers operate. Have you had many political debates in your life? Often times one side doesn't listen to the other no matter how much you talk. We just largely don't fight supervillains in real life. So again, I don't see this as valid at all

 

[Babillygunn]

So again, I don't see this as valid at all

 

[Gothamsknight]

I really enjoy Civil War, but I don't any of it is really on the level of The Winter Soldier. Except for the end between Cap, Bucky, and Iron Man. That was easily the best scene in the movie.

 

[Herofan]

They did have a conversation. They had a bunch of conversations, in fact. Having a conversation in no way guarantees people come out the other end of it in agreement about what to do or even in agreement about what is real, and since Tony and Steve spend most of the movie having a very fundamental disagreement about what is, in fact, the truth they necessarily cannot agree about what is to be done.

Steve was near the middle reluctantly willing to sign the Accords until the reveal it apparently involved indefinite imprisonment of Wanda, with Tony having no problem with that apparently as things could be worse (and later claims he didn't know it would be applied, applied more broadly), and Wanda also flip flops on whether she deserves to be punished, whether she has done something wrong, that felt like the film plot and characters making abrupt drastic changes to continue and escalate conflict.

I also agree, there was a lot of debate amongst the main characters in Civil War. The ideological differences on the matter meant that it wasn't an issue that could be hashed out by talking. So I don't see that as a valid critique either

A lot of it was ignoring obvious points though, like that SHIELD even well intentioned had turned out to be malicious in effect (that was kind of addressed in just one sentence) and that Tony's last attempt to impose surveillance/security/control had backfired and caused a lot of the civilian suffering.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Steve was near the middle reluctantly willing to sign the Accords until the reveal it apparently involved indefinite imprisonment of Wanda, with Tony having no problem with that apparently as things could be worse (and later claims he didn't know it would be applied, applied more broadly), and Wanda also flip flops on whether she deserves to be punished, whether she has done something wrong, that felt like the film plot and characters making abrupt drastic changes to continue and escalate conflict.



A lot of it was ignoring obvious points though, like that SHIELD even well intentioned had turned out to be malicious in effect (that was kind of addressed in just one sentence) and that Tony's last attempt to impose surveillance/security/control had backfired and caused a lot of the civilian suffering.

It is still a superhero action film. Would you rather have an even more detailed debate that adds 5-10 mins of talking or would you rather see superhero action in your superhero movie? I think they struck a good balance

 

[psylockolussus]

Captain America or Avengers. I can't really pick because out of the siX films, the first Avengers is the worst for me, but I prefer Winter Soldier and Civil War compare to Avengers Assemble and Age of Ultron.

 

[Awest66]

I still stand by the Dark Knight Trilogy as the best (If Age of Ultron or the First Avenger don't disqualify their hero's from having "great trilogies" than neither does The Dark Knight Rises)

 

[Filmfreak]

Nothing even comes close of beating The Dark Knight Trilogy for me.