Marvel's losing its edge and DC's getting its back

[metaphysician]

both movies had their problems

Which is the pessimists way to view things: what went wrong rather than what went right.

Me, I tend to think that since both movies were unthinkable not many years before, and potentially unfilmable unmarketable disasters even up to the point they were released? They should not be compared to some hypothetical perfect movie.

 

[sacripanta]

Yes, a live action Avengers movie will never, ever happen

Gotta love those old posts. t:

 

[Hammer!]

Which is the pessimists way to view things: what went wrong rather than what went right.

Me, I tend to think that since both movies were unthinkable not many years before, and potentially unfilmable unmarketable disasters even up to the point they were released? They should not be compared to some hypothetical perfect movie.

lol right. Both were well liked among critics, fans, and the general audience. Why only express that, "they had their problems".

Gotta love those old posts. t:

Yes. I'm a rather new member and I had so much fun I read the whole durn thing! Heres to hoping that this thread will live on!

 

[DrCosmic]

Captain America - Steve Rogers is a weedy american who really wants to fight those nasty Nazis. Give him a thing to make him strong! Give him a flimsy character arc. There's a "cosmic" McGuffin he's trying to maybe get or stop someone using. Love interest, maybe? Also add in some easter eggs for fans.

Right from the off Cap is instantly laboured by the fact that it's an origin movie for a character with years worth of background to try to filter. Indy can do whatever the hell he wants because he just existed in that film. Other films will build upon what that film did and create a bigger universe. Caps universe is already made.

Thank you, Captain America was a weeeeaaaak movie. I don't think the background was what weighed it down, as it could interepret the comics pretty freely for various effects. What weighed it down was that it was already in the MCU, and it had not only certain restrictions on what the story had to be and what the conclusion had to be, but it also had a very strict deadline to meet. That made it rushed in writing and production, leaving us with no pop/wow/gee-whi, no escalating drama and no compelling action.

Captain America was a casualty of the Avengers.

On the topic, DC might be stepping up, but it's only putting out one franchise at a time, and then gambling it's whole existence on this JLA film. We'll see if they get their edge back, meanwhile, Marvel shows no sign of losing theirs.

 

[Lord Valumart]

Thank you, Captain America was a weeeeaaaak movie. I don't think the background was what weighed it down, as it could interepret the comics pretty freely for various effects. What weighed it down was that it was already in the MCU, and it had not only certain restrictions on what the story had to be and what the conclusion had to be, but it also had a very strict deadline to meet. That made it rushed in writing and production, leaving us with no pop/wow/gee-whi, no escalating drama and no compelling action.

Captain America was a casualty of the Avengers.

To be fair I was comparing Captain America to Raiders of the Loast Ark, not just saying those things as a passing comment. And I only compared the two as it was the conversation at the time.

Personally I did not think it was a weak film. I think it was a solid action film with some good writing and some funny lines. The only weak part was the Red Skull. But for some reason all villains seam to be weak as hell in recent comic book movies only being there to be hit and not much else. I think it started with Spider-man 3, with Venom, but thats another argument.

 

[Xeno]

I think its a toss up, myself. Captain America had a little better writing, Thor had a little better acting.

While I love both movies, I think that CA:TFA was the stronger of the two overall. Thor had great performances from Hemsworth, Hiddleston and Hopkins, but the plot and specifically the pacing was very weak. Condensing a fall/redemption story into a mere two days did not allow for believable character development for Thor, nor for a realistic progression of his relationship with Jane Foster. It was just too rushed. Loki, on the other hand, was given terrific material that allowed Hiddleston to chew the scenery like no other Marvel villain. The result was an unbalanced movie in which the titular hero came off second best to the villain, which should never have happened.

 

[metaphysician]

While I love both movies, I think that CA:TFA was the stronger of the two overall. Thor had great performances from Hemsworth, Hiddleston and Hopkins, but the plot and specifically the pacing was very weak. Condensing a fall/redemption story into a mere two days did not allow for believable character development for Thor, nor for a realistic progression of his relationship with Jane Foster. It was just too rushed. Loki, on the other hand, was given terrific material that allowed Hiddleston to chew the scenery like no other Marvel villain. The result was an unbalanced movie in which the titular hero came off second best to the villain, which should never have happened.

I don't deny those faults, I just think they are much less important compared with the fact that the movie actually works. Bringing Kirby to screen and getting the audience to take it seriously was the kind of thing I'd have considered a pipe dream previously.

 

[roach]

lol right. Both were well liked among critics, fans, and the general audience. Why only express that, "they had their problems".



Yes. I'm a rather new member and I had so much fun I read the whole durn thing! Heres to hoping that this thread will live on!

I dont base my opinions on what the fans, critics or the GA has to say...thats why its called my opinion

 

[Anubis]

I thought both Cap and Thor coulda done with better endings.

Taking out the Destroyer armor so easily was a buncha boos**t.