The Superhero Cinematic Civil War

[flickchick85]

I'd take Franco's Hobgoblin over what the hell they were doing in TASM2.

Neither pls.

 

[Ninjablade]

Seeing Spider-Man 2 last week is funny because it meant that I got to relive the full disappointing Spider-Man 3 experience of thinking "man this movie really sucks" in theaters today.

Yeah, that movie is still really that bad. It just has an actual director behind it so it's not as corporately hollow as other bad CBMs that have followed are. Raimi has sauce. It's a crime Christopher Young's score still hasn't had an official release. The Black Suit theme hits with those theater speakers.

 

[DA_Champion]

I'm going to guess that Nolan has never seen anybody die, because that scene is weak.

 

[DA_Champion]

Anybody heard of this?

Nice story.

 

[Drizzle]

But Flick it was more engaging than TASM1. That movie wished it had a modicum of SM3’s excitement.

Not even the tiniest bit.

From a quality standpoint I'd call TASM1 the better movie but Spider-Man 3 is far more entertaining. TASM2 on the other hand makes Spider-Man 3 look like Spider-Man 2.

 

[Batgirl0202]

So recently I purchased a digital copy of Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance on Prime. I've never seen it and it was on sale for only five bucks so I thought, why not...

Now I'm reading online about how many folks hate the movie and consider it one of the worst CBMs every made, which is making me even more curious about it. I often find polarizing films to be far more interesting than blander, more homogenized product...

Anyway, it can't really be that bad, can it?

 

[Drizzle]

So recently I purchased a digital copy of Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance on Prime. I've never seen it and it was on sale for only five bucks so I thought, why not...

Now I'm reading online about how many folks hate the movie and consider it one of the worst CBMs every made, which is making me even more curious about it. I often find polarizing films to be far more interesting than blander, more homogenized product...

Anyway, it can't really be that bad, can it?


View attachment 89006

I found that movie to be more forgettable than outright bad. I can barely remember anything about it other than the flaming skull effect being an improvement over the first movie and Idris Elba having a weird French accent in it. By comparison I remember the first movie a lot more and I haven't actually watched that one since it was in theaters 17 years ago.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance is abysmal. But I love. Great example of so bad it's good

 

[Babillygunn]

I need to rewatch Ghost Rider sometime. And maybe I should finally watch Spirit of Vengence. I tried once and didn’t make it very far into it.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I find Ghost Rider to be a boring movie. Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance though is like everyone on the set and editing bay was just....rocked out on coke constantly. It's just so weird lol!

 

[blueharvest]

 

[Drizzle]

He's absolutely right when it comes to the first two Avengers movies. It was pretty clear that Whedon didn't care much for Thor at all. He doesn't show up until about 45 minutes or so into the first movie and he's almost completely absent from the second act of Age of Ultron and even when he was there he wasn't given a whole lot of development.

 

[Pennywise]

 

[Ninjablade]

Supergirl? Awesome. Can't wait.

 

[Shinobi Shaw]

So recently I purchased a digital copy of Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance on Prime. I've never seen it and it was on sale for only five bucks so I thought, why not...

Now I'm reading online about how many folks hate the movie and consider it one of the worst CBMs every made, which is making me even more curious about it. I often find polarizing films to be far more interesting than blander, more homogenized product...

Anyway, it can't really be that bad, can it?


View attachment 89006

I keep forgetting there’s a second Ghost Rider movie. I need to watch it also.

 

[Sithborg]

So recently I purchased a digital copy of Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance on Prime. I've never seen it and it was on sale for only five bucks so I thought, why not...

Now I'm reading online about how many folks hate the movie and consider it one of the worst CBMs every made, which is making me even more curious about it. I often find polarizing films to be far more interesting than blander, more homogenized product...

Anyway, it can't really be that bad, can it?


View attachment 89006

I keep forgetting there’s a second Ghost Rider movie. I need to watch it also.

I love it. I mean, objectively, its not a great movie, sure. But they let Cage off the chain, so that is fun. Plus, I like the design of Ghost Rider in this a bit more than the first onel

 

[Filmfreak]

He's absolutely right when it comes to the first two Avengers movies. It was pretty clear that Whedon didn't care much for Thor at all. He doesn't show up until about 45 minutes or so into the first movie and he's almost completely absent from the second act of Age of Ultron and even when he was there he wasn't given a whole lot of development.

Wasn't there suppose to be a whole side ark for Thor in Ultron that was eventually cut?

Even so I prefer him in the first two Avengers films than in the longest running movie joke that he was in Endgame, which totally crapped on his earlier development in Infinity War. And let's not even talk about Love & Thunder where even he admits they went too far. I'd say that his character probably was the most inconsistent in the MCU, both tonally and in narrative directions they chose to take him.

 

[Pennywise]

 

[The Caped Knight]

Sony wants their own Avengers!

That's never going to happen.

 

[Erzengel]

Sony wants their own Avengers!

DC can't even do their own Avengers.

 

[Drizzle]

Wasn't there suppose to be a whole side ark for Thor in Ultron that was eventually cut?

Even so I prefer him in the first two Avengers films than in the longest running movie joke that he was in Endgame, which totally crapped on his earlier development in Infinity War. And let's not even talk about Love & Thunder where even he admits they went too far. I'd say that his character probably was the most inconsistent in the MCU, both tonally and in narrative directions they chose to take him.

There probably was a lot cut from AOU involving Thor. I know Loki was originally supposed to make an appearance but that may have been as part of a vision similar to Heimdall's cameo.

As for Endgame, I think they went a little overboard with the humor around Thor but there were some aspects of his arc in that movie that I liked, such as getting closure with Frigga and his determination to snap everyone back into existence as a way of redeeming himself for not getting to Thanos in time. Either way it was a step down from what he was given through Ragnarok and Infinity War.

 

[Kane52630]

And maybe I should finally watch Spirit of Vengence. I tried once and didn’t make it very far into it.

It's completely unhinged.

 

[MbJ]

The DCEU being this chaotic even as it was in its death throes is so funny. We really need the behind the scenes documentary someday.

 

[Shinobi Shaw]

If I was Henry Cavill I would still be slapping all of them.

 

[Filmfreak]

There probably was a lot cut from AOU involving Thor. I know Loki was originally supposed to make an appearance but that may have been as part of a vision similar to Heimdall's cameo.

As for Endgame, I think they went a little overboard with the humor around Thor but there were some aspects of his arc in that movie that I liked, such as getting closure with Frigga and his determination to snap everyone back into existence as a way of redeeming himself for not getting to Thanos in time. Either way it was a step down from what he was given through Ragnarok and Infinity War.

What annoys me is the inconsistency of it all.

His relationship with his mother was a focal point in The Dark World as well and her death was used as a dramatic narrative structure that also raised the stakes just a smidge. Her Endgame appearance was nice and I wouldn't have any issue with it, I would probably even welcome it despite the fact that I didn't feel was necessary, if they hadn't completely crapped on his father. Odin was a more prominent figure in the trilogy and he just appears in one scene to die in the third film, at which point a minute later Thor and Loki are cracking jokes and completely forget about him. So focusing yet again on his mother was like giving the middle finger to the old king of Asgard.

And that brings me to an even bigger problem I had with Ragnarok. While I didn't care for the first two Thor movies, they started off with a different tone and then Feige decided out of nowhere to make it more into a comedy, even having the titular character acting like a part time comedian whose whole behaviour didn't match what came before and wasn't explained in any way narrative-wise. What's even worse is that they chose the swift to happen at a point where it makes absolutely zero sense in terms of plot. He literally loses everything (his father, his hammer, his eye, his whole planet) and everything is extremely lighthearted like never before.

Then the Russos decided to make him into a brooding character, which seemed more consistent with what was going on in the movie and his life, but yet again felt out of place. And then, boom! At the lowest point of his life he becomes a joker again and the cheese is up 400%.

It just feels like they really don't know what to do with his character. He's almost like the Hulk but in a far more prominent role.