XtremelyBaneful
xoxxxoooxo
- Joined
- May 11, 2012
- Messages
- 15,179
- Reaction score
- 1,112
- Points
- 103
I decided to make this thread because while I love the fact that the mcu exists, I don't like all of the things they've established in its respective universe, and all the liberties they're taking in changing from the source material. I realize that obviously comic book adaptations can never be a panel for panel adaptation, but I'll get into my specific complaints.
I'll start from the beginning. Iron Man, is a great film. Great, great film. I'll go so far as saying it still seems like one of the best MCU films. No major complaints here.
tih is also a good film. I didn't love it, but I liked it. No major complaints here either, however, I don't like how they've downplayed (what becomes of) the secondary villain. I heard there is a marvel one shot, or something of the sort that explains and deals with the evil dr. samuel sterns? Honestly, I'd rather they just make a sequel and feature him there somehow. but overall, this was a good installment to the mcu.
iron man 2 - the fact that this film came when it did is my main issue. people try to argue that tony stark isn't the main character in the mcu, when...he had the biggest role in avengers, and he's the only superhero to have two films in a single phase. the film didn't even do much to advance the mcu narrative imo. as for the film itself, i did not like it that much - i don't like how justin hammer's actor didn't find the necessity to do the british accent. i don't like how terrence howard was recast - i know it was done because he badmouthed marvel about not being paid as much as rdj. if i were marvel, i would've just gone to howard and told him to watch what he says if he wants to keep his job, instead of recasting him. i didn't much like the plot or the final act - i think finishing off whiplash would've been cooler in a combat duel between him and natasha romanov instead of the hand to hand beam between the iron superheroes.
OK, next up is thor. I think this film was really good too, but it came with some miscasting, but the first is a bit personal. i don't think stellan skarsgard is a good actor, I wish they'd've cast someone else as the professor. the other thing is heimdall. i hate how they skipped over the whole sibling thing with sif, just to racebend the character for no goddamn reason. now since the asgardians aren't exactly human, so it's not exactly the same as fant4stic, I would've been fine with it if they just included one line from heimdall calling sif "sister" or vice versa with sif calling heimdall "brother," or her showing more concern than everyone else when they got back to asgard at the end, but they didn't. it was changing a character's race and neglecting to incorporate other things about the character.
now the film was great, but here's another hting with that - it very largely felt like this film was there to set up and build up for the avengers. the reason being, the fact that the end credits had a line saying "thor will return in the avengers." what was the purpose of this message? wouldn't people just find out the following year? iron man 2 didn't end with "iron man will return in avengers"
captain america was pretty good. i'm not crazy about it but I think it was a good movie, overall. my only complaint is the same as thor. the ending very much felt like an indication that this film was just buildup for the avengers. correct me if i'm wrong but the post credit scene was pretty much just a teaser for the avengers.
avengers is one of the greatest comic book movies of all time. and it was great. admittedly I didn't pay much attention when phase 1 was still happening because my favorite superhero (spiderman) was being kept separate from it all. so during the previews, I expected the villain to be one that was so powerful, it would take several superheroes to fight against it. but it ended up being an overwhelming army instead. but, that's that. the most important thing was that it was the first piece of massive fruition that marvel studios showed us. i'm also not fond of how they faked coulson's death. makes it meaningless in this movie. i liked the character, but if this movie gets the viewer and the avengers to believe him dead, he should've been.
after av1, I heard that it was said that cap2 was gonna be the phase 2 film that had most to do/most affect from av1. why the hell did iron man 3 come first then? now I think the final act of this film was kickass, but I certainly was not a fan of the mandarin twist. people are just saying things like "people are just whining the mandarin twist was fine/okay/nothing to complain about" to me, that comes off as people feeling like the mcu can do no wrong. well, hell no. i was not fond of it, and that's that. yes, it grossed $1.2 billion, but I think it was hot coming off of av1. I wonder how much higher cap2 would've grossed if it was released in IM3's slot.
cap2 was amazing, I loved it. what I didn't like is how they were making cap look so perfect though. he had the upperhand in his battles with the winter soldier pretty much every time they fought. I'd have rather seen the winter soldier get the upper hand more of the time. he was intimidating, and that would make it even more intimidating. i also don't like how falcon didn't have all the aspects he did in the comics - such as the connections with actual birds. i'm hoping they'll touch upon that in the future, but I don't see it.
for thor 2, i thought it was okay, my main gripe was how they're handling loki. similar to coulson. like, I don't like what they're doing with his character. i could write more about it but here's a blog that explains it pretty well
https://ponderingsofacinephile.wordpress.com/2013/10/30/my-fury-over-thor-the-dark-world-ending/
guardians of the galaxy was fantastic as well, but as I mentioned in the beginning of this post - what I most dislike about changes from the adaptations, are the characters' origins. as I understand it, peter quill does not have quite the same origin as he does in the comics because his father isn't the same.
i have several complaints about av2, first being the romance between black widow and bruce, and writing hawkeye to have a wife and kids. smh. i wanted black widow and hawkeye to continue being a thing, and i HATE how they're pretty much letting betty ross go. i also don't like how they killed off quicksilver. for once, i hope that was a fake death though. his actor did sign a multifilm contract, so yeah. the only other thing is: i heard that originally, the plan was for av2 to be the infinity war, and av3 to be the civil war. but because of issues, they just wrote av2 to be another film against an army. this time of robots.
from my understanding, ant man was supposed to be the first phase 3 film but because of certain issues that are unclear, it became the final chapter of phase 2.
and cap3 is next up - I really don't like how the title is captain america and the subtitle is civil war. it's becoming so clear how this should've been titled as an avengers film or marvel's civil war - because if there are several main characters here, it really does not do justice calling this a captain america film.
I'll start from the beginning. Iron Man, is a great film. Great, great film. I'll go so far as saying it still seems like one of the best MCU films. No major complaints here.
tih is also a good film. I didn't love it, but I liked it. No major complaints here either, however, I don't like how they've downplayed (what becomes of) the secondary villain. I heard there is a marvel one shot, or something of the sort that explains and deals with the evil dr. samuel sterns? Honestly, I'd rather they just make a sequel and feature him there somehow. but overall, this was a good installment to the mcu.
iron man 2 - the fact that this film came when it did is my main issue. people try to argue that tony stark isn't the main character in the mcu, when...he had the biggest role in avengers, and he's the only superhero to have two films in a single phase. the film didn't even do much to advance the mcu narrative imo. as for the film itself, i did not like it that much - i don't like how justin hammer's actor didn't find the necessity to do the british accent. i don't like how terrence howard was recast - i know it was done because he badmouthed marvel about not being paid as much as rdj. if i were marvel, i would've just gone to howard and told him to watch what he says if he wants to keep his job, instead of recasting him. i didn't much like the plot or the final act - i think finishing off whiplash would've been cooler in a combat duel between him and natasha romanov instead of the hand to hand beam between the iron superheroes.
OK, next up is thor. I think this film was really good too, but it came with some miscasting, but the first is a bit personal. i don't think stellan skarsgard is a good actor, I wish they'd've cast someone else as the professor. the other thing is heimdall. i hate how they skipped over the whole sibling thing with sif, just to racebend the character for no goddamn reason. now since the asgardians aren't exactly human, so it's not exactly the same as fant4stic, I would've been fine with it if they just included one line from heimdall calling sif "sister" or vice versa with sif calling heimdall "brother," or her showing more concern than everyone else when they got back to asgard at the end, but they didn't. it was changing a character's race and neglecting to incorporate other things about the character.
now the film was great, but here's another hting with that - it very largely felt like this film was there to set up and build up for the avengers. the reason being, the fact that the end credits had a line saying "thor will return in the avengers." what was the purpose of this message? wouldn't people just find out the following year? iron man 2 didn't end with "iron man will return in avengers"
captain america was pretty good. i'm not crazy about it but I think it was a good movie, overall. my only complaint is the same as thor. the ending very much felt like an indication that this film was just buildup for the avengers. correct me if i'm wrong but the post credit scene was pretty much just a teaser for the avengers.
avengers is one of the greatest comic book movies of all time. and it was great. admittedly I didn't pay much attention when phase 1 was still happening because my favorite superhero (spiderman) was being kept separate from it all. so during the previews, I expected the villain to be one that was so powerful, it would take several superheroes to fight against it. but it ended up being an overwhelming army instead. but, that's that. the most important thing was that it was the first piece of massive fruition that marvel studios showed us. i'm also not fond of how they faked coulson's death. makes it meaningless in this movie. i liked the character, but if this movie gets the viewer and the avengers to believe him dead, he should've been.
after av1, I heard that it was said that cap2 was gonna be the phase 2 film that had most to do/most affect from av1. why the hell did iron man 3 come first then? now I think the final act of this film was kickass, but I certainly was not a fan of the mandarin twist. people are just saying things like "people are just whining the mandarin twist was fine/okay/nothing to complain about" to me, that comes off as people feeling like the mcu can do no wrong. well, hell no. i was not fond of it, and that's that. yes, it grossed $1.2 billion, but I think it was hot coming off of av1. I wonder how much higher cap2 would've grossed if it was released in IM3's slot.
cap2 was amazing, I loved it. what I didn't like is how they were making cap look so perfect though. he had the upperhand in his battles with the winter soldier pretty much every time they fought. I'd have rather seen the winter soldier get the upper hand more of the time. he was intimidating, and that would make it even more intimidating. i also don't like how falcon didn't have all the aspects he did in the comics - such as the connections with actual birds. i'm hoping they'll touch upon that in the future, but I don't see it.
for thor 2, i thought it was okay, my main gripe was how they're handling loki. similar to coulson. like, I don't like what they're doing with his character. i could write more about it but here's a blog that explains it pretty well
https://ponderingsofacinephile.wordpress.com/2013/10/30/my-fury-over-thor-the-dark-world-ending/
guardians of the galaxy was fantastic as well, but as I mentioned in the beginning of this post - what I most dislike about changes from the adaptations, are the characters' origins. as I understand it, peter quill does not have quite the same origin as he does in the comics because his father isn't the same.
i have several complaints about av2, first being the romance between black widow and bruce, and writing hawkeye to have a wife and kids. smh. i wanted black widow and hawkeye to continue being a thing, and i HATE how they're pretty much letting betty ross go. i also don't like how they killed off quicksilver. for once, i hope that was a fake death though. his actor did sign a multifilm contract, so yeah. the only other thing is: i heard that originally, the plan was for av2 to be the infinity war, and av3 to be the civil war. but because of issues, they just wrote av2 to be another film against an army. this time of robots.
from my understanding, ant man was supposed to be the first phase 3 film but because of certain issues that are unclear, it became the final chapter of phase 2.
and cap3 is next up - I really don't like how the title is captain america and the subtitle is civil war. it's becoming so clear how this should've been titled as an avengers film or marvel's civil war - because if there are several main characters here, it really does not do justice calling this a captain america film.
