What don't you like about the Marvel Cinematic Universe? (Spoilers)

[Primal Slayer]

One of the MCU's biggest let downs is that while I love movies....the solo movies....half of them aren't really solo movies, you cant have some sort of "ending" for the character in a trilogy or film. It's all TBC in this upcoming film

 

[psylockolussus]

Maybe Thor Odinson would have an ending in the neXt Thor movie.

 

[SPO2 Dalisay]

This is ultimately why I'm convinced that the MCU will not stand the test of time and be remembered decades from now in the way that Star Wars, Bond, etc are. I can certainly recognise the success of Marvel's business model. But then again, Amazon and McDonald's have successful business models too and I don't admire or celebrate them, so why should Marvel be given special treatment?

The MCU is a commercial triumph, rather than a creative one. A tour-de-force of managing the business cycle rather than of creating authentic art. You could just as easily see Feige running a Big Tech company or even a car manufacturer as heading a film studio and that's a problem. It shows that he's a businessman and not an artist.

In other words, a perfect film franchise for our Late Stage Capitalist era!

I think the Infinity Saga will stand up very well next to Star Wars whose big accomplishment was getting over a quantum leap in 1977 special effects. And it has been running on fumes since The Empire Strikes Back. And the MCU is far above where the James Bond franchise was in the 1970s after its first decade.

 

[Drizzle]

This is ultimately why I'm convinced that the MCU will not stand the test of time and be remembered decades from now in the way that Star Wars, Bond, etc are.

If the Bond series has stood the test of time then the MCU definitely will. If anything, the Bond series is even more of a factory-made assembly line franchise than the MCU with the exception of maybe 3 or 4 of them, and I say that as a Bond fan. As for Star Wars, the original trilogy will always stand the test of time but a big reason why the franchise in general is so omnipresent today is because of Disney shoveling it down everyone's throats for the last six years or so. There were periods of time where the franchise lay dormant between trilogies.

I think the MCU will endure not just because of the films, but because of the characters. Iron Man and Captain America have endured the test of time for the better part of the last century and people will still be watching them on film for years to come, just like people will still watch Batman movies, whether they're the Burton films or the Nolan trilogy.

 

[psylockolussus]

A series with 23 films (and counting) without a reboot inbetween the films isn't going to be done by any other studio anytime soon if not ever. Mcu will be remembered for making a shared cinematic universe a big success for decades to come.

With so many iconic heroes appearing in 1 franchise, I don't see why it is suddenly going to be less remembered than someone like James Bond.

 

[Spider-Fan]

The MCU def will stand the test of time. Many of them are 10 years or older now. They already kind of have.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

The MCU def will stand the test of time. Many of them are 10 years or older now. They already kind of have.

Certainly at least I think it is safe to say that the MCU as a whole through Endgame will. Maybe that will continue post-Thanos, but way too early to tell after just a couple of shows.

 

[Frodo]

I certainly think alot of the MCU films of the first 10 years will stand the test of time.

I suspect, like with any film series, they'll be debates about which ones are the " weakest" in relation to the others , but even then ,I think the "weakest" ones will receive passing grades.

As far as the immediate future , i.e the next few years, I suspect there's gonna be alot of rebuilding , recalibrating , and adjusting to the new status quo.

Films like Doctor Strange and Black Panther 2 will be resetting the table in alot of ways, while Marvel will be introducing new properties like Shang Chi and Eternals.

Spiderman No Way Home really seems like the event film in the near term ,that most of fandom is excited for , and that looks that could be a milestone in terms of CBMs.

Aside from Spiderman , I suspect the next real major event will be the incorporation of the Mutants and the Fantastic Four into the MCU, which is still several years off.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I do think over time the MCU is going to be viewed more as a series tha individual films. So while it is easy to say something like Iron Man 2 or Thor 2 might not hold up that well, they are likely to get lost in the shuffle like a poor episode in an otherwise stellar series. For example, not every episode in the classic Batman TAS were winners. You don't hear a lot of people singing the praises of "I've Got Batman in My Basement" when reflecting upon that series.

As a whole though, the MCU is definitely going to be remembered 30-40 years from now. Whether it will be 80-100 years from now when everybody who was alive when it was new have passed on is a bit of a different question, but given how significant it was in terms of how it was a trendsetter for films to follow, I suspect it will be a permanent fixture in pop culture much like how the Classic 30s Universal Horror films are today.

 

[Frodo]

I do think over time the MCU is going to be viewed more as a series tha individual films. So while it is easy to say something like Iron Man 2 or Thor 2 might not hold up that well, they are likely to get lost in the shuffle like a poor episode in an otherwise stellar series. For example, not every episode in the classic Batman TAS were winners. You don't hear a lot of people singing the praises of "I've Got Batman in My Basement" when reflecting upon that series.

As a whole though, the MCU is definitely going to be remembered 30-40 years from now. Whether it will be 80-100 years from now when everybody who was alive when it was new have passed on is a bit of a different question, but given how significant it was in terms of how it was a trendsetter for films to follow, I suspect it will be a permanent fixture in pop culture much like how the Classic 30s Universal Horror films are today.

Definitely.

It's certainly changed not only the CBM landscape ,but its also influenced Hollywood .

I have no doubt it will inspire future generations of film makers to come.

 

[psylockolussus]

Definitely.

It's certainly changed not only the CBM landscape ,but its also influenced Hollywood .

I have no doubt it will inspire future generations of film makers to come.

It definitely inspired foX (Marvel film rights), WB (DCEU/Wizarding World), Sony (Marvel film rights), Universal (Dark Universe), Lionsgate (Valiant) and Paramount (Hasbro ips) to do their cinematic universes in the last few years. Its only a matter of time before someone in NetfliX/Prime to launch theirs.

 

[Fosterson]

It definitely inspired foX (Marvel film rights), WB (DCEU/Wizarding World), Sony (Marvel film rights), Universal (Dark Universe), Lionsgate (Valiant) and Paramount (Hasbro ips) to do their cinematic universes in the last few years. Its only a matter of time before someone in NetfliX/Prime to launch theirs.

Whether or not this is a positive effect remains to be seen...

 

[psylockolussus]

Whether or not this is a positive effect remains to be seen...

Well, i think it definitely encourages studios to take a 2nd look with their less popular ips or broaden up their franchises. However, MCU is still leagues ahead. I don't think I have seen other cinematic universe that didn't have a critical panned film eXcept for the MCU.

I forgot to mention, but The Conjuring Universe is another one from WB.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Whether or not this is a positive effect remains to be seen...

I don't feel we should blame groundbreaking entertainment for the endless souless copycats just looking to cash in on a trend. That has occurred as long as entertainment has existed.

 

[Dr. Evil]

What I do not like about the MCU, oh this one is simple for me at least:

- Too many characters having the same power set. Now with Loki, I get it, it's all variants of the original Loki. That's not my issue. My issue is that three different characters have the same set of powers. With She Hulk, we are expected to have She Hulk, Hulk and Abomination. Rumors are that William Hurt becomes Red Hulk in She Hulk. Plus the rumors of Skaar? That's 5 Hulks. If Betty Ross comes back and she does change, I hope she becomes Harpy instead of Red She Hulk. I would like a diverse powerset among characters in the MCU. In Falcon and the Winter Soldier, I would have loved to have seen the Flag Smashers not all be super soldiers and instead have a diverse array of super powers. With the Marvels coming up, I do hope that Monica and Carol do not have the exact same powers and I do hope that Kamala keeps her stretchy powers in the comics to go along with blasts. The Eternals intrigue me because it brings back a speedster in the MCU, which is sorely needed after Joss Whedon killed off Quicksilver.

 

[NeverReadComics]

What would I change about near perfection?

Two things:

a) more deaths with missed opportunities with Betty Ross, Nick Fury (should’ve died in Winter Soldier, was barely used afterwards and it would’ve lead to a big pay off with Captain Marvel), War Machine and some of the other love interests who were never fully developed and who could’ve created a big driver for our superheroes.

b) more explanations around superpowers especially for non-enchanced humans. If Tony Stark was going to face off against Thanos they should’ve given him extremis, Black Widow should’ve been biologically enhanced and Falcon should’ve had some kind of enhancement perhaps after he suffered a war wound.

 

[Drizzle]

What would I change about near perfection?

Two things:

a) more deaths with missed opportunities with Betty Ross, Nick Fury (should’ve died in Winter Soldier, was barely used afterwards and it would’ve lead to a big pay off with Captain Marvel), War Machine and some of the other love interests who were never fully developed and who could’ve created a big driver for our superheroes.

b) more explanations around superpowers especially for non-enchanced humans. If Tony Stark was going to face off against Thanos they should’ve given him extremis, Black Widow should’ve been biologically enhanced and Falcon should’ve had some kind of enhancement perhaps after he suffered a war wound.

For me, the death that should have happened was Happy Hogan in Iron Man 3. When I first saw it, I really thought he was dead in that scene with the theater explosion. It would have greatly raised the stakes for Tony even though we'd have missed out on seeing Favreau build on the character more in the Spider-Man movies and Endgame. I think there's always creative hesitation when it comes to killing off secondary characters and villains in the MCU, especially since it's even more prevalent now that they have room to grow down the line (Darcy in WandaVision being one such example), hence all the fakeout deaths we've seen over the years.

As for your second point, I absolutely agree with you that Black Widow should have been an enhanced soldier, even if it was something that she didn't know about, like if she was secretly injected with a similar type of serum that Steve got while she was in the Red Room operative. She's done some very superhuman-like stunts in the MCU, particularly in the Avengers movies and Black Widow. It's a bit odd especially in the first Avengers seeing her in a state of shock fleeing from the Hulk and confiding in Clint how she wasn't prepared for that situation, fast forward a half hour later and she's leaping 15 feet in the air with a boost from Cap's shield to catch hold of an alien spacecraft.

 

[Fosterson]

b) more explanations around superpowers especially for non-enchanced humans. If Tony Stark was going to face off against Thanos they should’ve given him extremis, Black Widow should’ve been biologically enhanced and Falcon should’ve had some kind of enhancement perhaps after he suffered a war wound.

Why? They already gave him an absurdly OP nanotech suit. Why does he need Extremis on top of that?

 

[Fosterson]

As for your second point, I absolutely agree with you that Black Widow should have been an enhanced soldier, even if it was something that she didn't know about, like if she was secretly injected with a similar type of serum that Steve got while she was in the Red Room operative. She's done some very superhuman-like stunts in the MCU, particularly in the Avengers movies and Black Widow. It's a bit odd especially in the first Avengers seeing her in a state of shock fleeing from the Hulk and confiding in Clint how she wasn't prepared for that situation, fast forward a half hour later and she's leaping 15 feet in the air with a boost from Cap's shield to catch hold of an alien spacecraft.

Natasha may have done stuff that nobody in real life could do, but she's still been consistently shown to be far weaker than super-soldiers like Steve and Bucky, so giving her a serum of her own would actually contradict the previous movies more. Not to mention that it would raise the question of whether Clint has a serum too, since he was able to fight Nat on equal terms.

And "normal" humans surviving insane damage is par for the course with these types of movies. Even if you look at the Nolan Batman movies, (one of the most "grounded" CBM series), Bruce Wayne still survives a whole load of stuff in that trilogy that would either kill or permanently cripple a real-life person (falling dozens of storeys, being set on fire, getting stabbed and shot, getting his spine snapped and somehow escaping a nuke with a six-mile blast radius in only 5 seconds.)

 

[Drizzle]

Natasha may have done stuff that nobody in real life could do, but she's still been consistently shown to be far weaker than super-soldiers like Steve and Bucky, so giving her a serum of her own would actually contradict the previous movies more. Not to mention that it would raise the question of whether Clint has a serum too, since he was able to fight Nat on equal terms.

And "normal" humans surviving insane damage is par for the course with these types of movies. Even if you look at the Nolan Batman movies, (one of the most "grounded" CBM series), Bruce Wayne still survives a whole load of stuff in that trilogy that would either kill or permanently cripple a real-life person (falling dozens of storeys, being set on fire, getting stabbed and shot, getting his spine snapped and somehow escaping a nuke with a six-mile blast radius in only 5 seconds.)

Good points. I guess they've always emphasized that Clint is more of a regular guy moreso than Natasha. He got the wind knocked out of him when he crashed through that window during the Battle of New York and him being injured and questioning his role on the team as well as his overall mortality was explored in Age of Ultron. By comparison, Natasha's pretty much shaken off any injury that she's gotten and the only time I really recall her actually struggling during a fight was against Bucky in both TWS and Civil War.

 

[metaphysician]

Clint already is more of a "regular guy". He wasn't the product of an unethical child soldier training program.

I think the real problem here is people holding to the idea that, in a superhero setting, there is a firm and absolute distinction between "superhumans" and "normal humans". There isn't, and never was, at least outside of iron age comics. "Extreme training and skill" has *always* been just as valid a superhero ability origin as anything else.

 

[NeverReadComics]

Why? They already gave him an absurdly OP nanotech suit. Why does he need Extremis on top of that?

He fought Thanos and won!

If Stark was going to be facing off against Thanos he needed a physical boost not just a suit.

The suit doesn’t explain his reactions.

An alternative would’ve been a one liner that basically says the arc reactor in his chest enhances his physical abilities as well as the suit.

 

[NeverReadComics]

For me, the death that should have happened was Happy Hogan in Iron Man 3. When I first saw it, I really thought he was dead in that scene with the theater explosion. It would have greatly raised the stakes for Tony even though we'd have missed out on seeing Favreau build on the character more in the Spider-Man movies and Endgame. I think there's always creative hesitation when it comes to killing off secondary characters and villains in the MCU, especially since it's even more prevalent now that they have room to grow down the line (Darcy in WandaVision being one such example), hence all the fakeout deaths we've seen over the years .

Happy Hogan was another I thought of too. His character didn’t really develop afterwards. It’s almost remained a mainly comedic role except for a couple of emotional parts after Stark’s death.

His role in Spider-Man Far From Home could’ve easily have been filled by Ned.

Had Fury died then it would’ve allowed Maria Hill to step up.

This is the thing about the deaths. It allows others to step up. It creates jeopardy, freshest things up, deals with characters that cannot be really developed (e.g. love interests to Hulk), leads to those darker motivations for our heroes like vengeance, and it gives opportunities for others to step up. I just can’t see a downside.

As to Black Widow, for me if the plan was to have these characters face off against Thanos and his kids then they all needed a boost.

Sure she had help, but surely it would’ve been easier and more plausible if she had been enhanced. All these enhancements take is one line or one flashback and we’re done.

Black Widow had to fight Proxima Midnight.

And "normal" humans surviving insane damage is par for the course with these types of movies. Even if you look at the Nolan Batman movies, (one of the most "grounded" CBM series), Bruce Wayne still survives a whole load of stuff in that trilogy that would either kill or permanently cripple a real-life person (falling dozens of storeys, being set on fire, getting stabbed and shot, getting his spine snapped and somehow escaping a nuke with a six-mile blast radius in only 5 seconds.)

That's a specific issue for Batman because there isn’t much scope to enhance him. The MCU embraces magic and gods, and enhanced human beings, so there are more options.

And my understanding is that in the comics both Iron Man and Black Widow have been enhanced at one time. So they could’ve done it.

My rule for superhero movies and movies generally is that the creators can make up whatever rules they like, but then they need to stick to those rules. So for example Superman is pretty much invisible which is pretty bring except for kryptonite which then creates the jeopardy.

The MCU made the decision to keep Iron Man and Black Widow as normal humans, and then decided to give them central roles figuring Thanos and his kids. I think they broke their own rules.

 

[Drizzle]

Had Fury died then it would’ve allowed Maria Hill to step up.

This is the thing about the deaths. It allows others to step up. It creates jeopardy, freshest things up, deals with characters that cannot be really developed (e.g. love interests to Hulk), leads to those darker motivations for our heroes like vengeance, and it gives opportunities for others to step up. I just can’t see a downside.

Yeah, Fury dying would have benefitted Hill, who has really felt like a nothing character after The Winter Soldier. She was given an impressive amount of development in Avengers considering she was the 9th or 10th most important character in the movie and she played a smaller yet still important role in TWS. After that she was basically a glorified secretary for the Avengers in AOU before going back to being Fury's sidekick, then she got dusted. I even forgot that she was in Far From Home. I know she's not supposed to be a major character at all, but Hill really got the short end of the stick and was pushed to the back once Phase 2 ended. It's not really surprising considering how many new characters were introduced in such a relatively short amount of time in the MCU at that time.

 

[SirStrangefolk]

Yeah, Fury dying would have benefitted Hill

While I agree Hill should've been developed more and killing Fury would be a way to do that, I also feel like it'd be stupid to replace Samuel L. Jackson with Cobie Smulders. I've never seen Smulders display the acting ability and charisma required for taking on that role. Maybe if someone else had been cast as Hill that would've been an option.

I even forgot that she was in Far From Home.

I think technically she wasn't. It was Soren the whole time, right?

As for characters that should've died, I'm personally fine with few characters dying. The only thing about the 'nobody ever dies' thing that irks me is all the fakeouts. Some characters that did die I feel should've been kept alive in some form because there was a lot of storytelling potential left for them that we're missing out on now (Ronan, Quicksilver, Ultron, Klaue). At the same time the fakeout deaths for characters like Loki, Fury, Pepper, etc. were all really dumb and unnecessary and shouldn't have happened.