Which Marvel Movie franchise has been your favourite?

[WingedAvenger89]

As shocking as this is ... Blade.

Blade was awesome
Blade 2 was pretty good
Blade 3 was garbage

the only other contenders were:

Iron Man was an elite comic book movie
Iron Man 2 was entertaining
Iron Man 3 was goofy

 

[Doc Ock]

Going by the rules of not counting the MCU, X-Men definitely. Seeing X2 and DOFP for the first time are some of my greatest experiences watching a movie ever. X-Men, First Class, and The Wolverine are great too! Forget those other two.

I might be willing to have voted for Spidey if TASM2 didn't exist. Spider-Man 2 is still probably my favorite comic book movie.

There are so many awesome Marvel movies out there in and out of Marvel Studios that I have enjoyed and glad they exist. The first two Blades are awesome films, the 2004 Punisher is great, I even have a soft spot for Daredevil and Hulk! But I think the MCU is my favorite thing that has happened to the comic book film, really is a dream come true.

 

[WingedAvenger89]

Going by the rules of not counting the MCU

Oops. I have a level of fondness for 2004 Punisher too. It's often forgotten. So I take it you hated ASM2? It was a bad movie, but I'm a big fan of Spider-Man in that film. More so than the way the character is written in the Raimi films. Most of the CGI, particularly in the original, have aged horribly. And most of those films were absolutely ridiculously cheesy. Spider-Man 2 was a very, very good film though. Not enough consistency in a lot of these franchises. X-Men, and Spider-Man have the volume. But no consistency in quality. Same goes for even a lot of the MCU as a whole. That's why I chose Blade. Ignoring that last film, both are at worst good comic book movies.

 

[Doc Ock]

Oops. I have a level of fondness for 2004 Punisher too. It's often forgotten. So I take it you hated ASM2? It was a bad movie, but I'm a big fan of Spider-Man in that film. More so than the way the character is written in the Raimi films. Most of the CGI, particularly in the original, have aged horribly. And most of those films were absolutely ridiculously cheesy. Spider-Man 2 was a very, very good film though. Not enough consistency in a lot of these franchises. X-Men, and Spider-Man have the volume. But no consistency in quality. Same goes for even a lot of the MCU as a whole. That's why I chose Blade. Ignoring that last film, both are at worst good comic book movies.

Oops? I just meant not counting the MCU as a whole, based on what the poll had, so Iron Man is okay.

Hate might be a strong word, I did see it in theaters and liked it enough to buy it (sometimes I regret that though). It's a mess of a film, Spider-Man was done well. Andrew did a good job as Spidey and Emma Stone was great as Gwen, but the plot was just stupid, bloated, and all over the place. It felt very similar to Spider-Man 3, except I think Spider-Man 3 is pretty good (didn't always use to think that though).

Not enough consistency indeed! I'm hoping Doctor Strange will be able to open the door to Blade and other supernatural characters in the MCU.

 

[Micromind]

I know that many fans think that Marvel Studios has done a great job of making successful comic book movies but they have really avoided taking big risks, now ...some will argue that GOTG was a huge risk for Marvel, but it's not a really huge risk, I mean a bunch of characters who are likable like - talking raccoon and walking tree along-with Chris Pratt in space is a not that big risk.

If Marvel had decided to make these movies in their phase three then I would have agreed that the are taking huge risks but the fact is they are not.

* Hulk Solo movie.(Instead of Cap America Civil War)
* Punisher Reboot. (Instead of Black Panther.)
* Ghost Rider Reboot.(Instead of Dr. Strange)
* Elektra. (instead of Captain Marvel)
* Daredevil Reboot(instead of NetFilx series)

and,

* Moon Knight.
* Sentry.
* Namor.
* Black Widow.

 

[WingedAvenger89]

I know that many fans think that Marvel Studios has done a great job of making successful comic book movies but they have really avoided taking risks, now ...some will argue that GOTG was a huge risk for Marvel, but it's not a really huge risk, I mean a bunch of characters who are likable like talking raccon and walking tree alongwith Chris Pratt in space is a not that big risk.

Ohhh, someone who definitely has a brain. Avengers wasn't a "risk" either. GOTG is just piggy backing this huge trend in absolutely loving anything, and everything Marvel pumps out on their assembly line of average.

 

[Micromind]

Ohhh, someone who definitely has a brain. Avengers wasn't a "risk" either. GOTG is just piggy backing this huge trend in absolutely loving anything, and everything Marvel pumps out on their assembly line of average.

How was "Avengers" a risk ?

 

[WingedAvenger89]

How was "Avengers" a risk ?

I've heard people consider the entire concept of making those 4 solo films leading to Avengers being a risk.

 

[Micromind]

I've heard people consider the entire concept of making those 4 solo films leading to Avengers being a risk.

No, the real risk would be making successful movies to those franchises that under-performed or failed at Box Office.

They should have made HULK, PUNISHER, GHOST RIDER, DAREDEVIL, ELEKTRA, and turned them around in phase three.

 

[WingedAvenger89]

No, the real risk would be making successful movies to those franchises that under-performed or failed at Box Office.

They should have made HULK, PUNISHER, GHOST RIDER, DAREDEVIL, ELEKTRA, and turned them around in phase three.

I'm agreeing.

 

[Tg11]

Guardians by far takes the cake

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

1. Spider-Man
2. Guardians of the Galaxy
3. X-Men
4. Captain America

 

[Doctor Octopus]

How was "Avengers" a risk ?

It was the first superhero ensemble movie.

 

[Micromind]

It was the first superhero ensemble movie.

Well, X-Men, Fantastic Four and Watchmen are also "Super-Hero ensemble movies", even if they were not exactly developed like Avengers...also, just being an super-hero ensemble movie does not qualify as making a riskier movie, as it has been tried in some way (X-Men, FF) before Avengers.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Bruce is right. Avengers was the eighth ensemble superhero movie. Eleventh if you count Hellboy as an ensemble

As shocking as this is ... Blade.

Blade was awesome
Blade 2 was pretty good
Blade 3 was garbage

Always find the Blade movies to be underrated

 

[Lorus]

No, the real risk would be making successful movies to those franchises that under-performed or failed at Box Office.

They should have made HULK, PUNISHER, GHOST RIDER, DAREDEVIL, ELEKTRA, and turned them around in phase three.

Should? Why 'should' Marvel be making films that have proved to be unpopular? Obviously everybody realises that when 'risk' is assessed in relation to comic book films, it's on a strictly relative scale (because there's little to no real risk in making huge tentpole superhero flicks).

The difference is, while other studios were content to coast on the same proven franchises and characters again and again, Marvel are fairly consistently attempting to use characters that are new to the big screen. Quite frankly, it's easy to sit back and say (after the fact) that film X wasn't a risk but that's largely because at this point, the gambit has been pulled off.

EDIT: I think the obvious risk with Avengers that is being forgotten is that none of the other ensemble superhero flicks were being developed while films that were feeding in to them had yet to be released. If Thor or Cap or whatever had been received as poorly as X-Men Origins or Green Lantern then that would have a knock on effect on Avengers' performance. Similarly, if any (or all) of those films had bombed then it would have drastically reduced the chance of Avengers making back it's budget, which was larger than the individual films.

Again, we're talking relative terms because for the most part, making superhero films = not risky, but Avengers was certainly a riskier endeavour than any of the previous super ensembles.

 

[Micromind]

Should? Why 'should' Marvel be making films that have proved to be unpopular? Obviously everybody realises that when 'risk' is assessed in relation to comic book films, it's on a strictly relative scale (because there's little to no real risk in making huge tentpole superhero flicks).

The difference is, while other studios were content to coast on the same proven franchises and characters again and again, Marvel are fairly consistently attempting to use characters that are new to the big screen. Quite frankly, it's easy to sit back and say (after the fact) that film X wasn't a risk but that's largely because at this point, the gambit has been pulled off.

There are many reasons...

* Hulk, Daredevil are A-list properties, it does seem odd that marvel are thinking about obscure comic book properties like Inhumans before trying the A-list properties (that failed due to poor execution of other Studios.)

* Punisher, Ghost Rider and Blade have been more recognizable names as compared to likes of Black Panther and Dr. Strange (overseas)

* If Marvel are so confident in making successful comic book movies, then why not start with those properties whose rights have reverted back to them ?

Edit: Apart from those listed, I want them to make Moon Knight, Nova, Sentry and Namor in phase 4.

 

[Flint Marko]

The concept if intertwining multiple characters from different movies and putting them together in a movie is "risk" in that it is unprecedented. Look at how movie-making has changed because of it; there are now multiple studios (not just those with comic book properties) trying to copy what Marvel did, because what they did was risky and unprecedented.
You can spout off about how Fantastic Four and X-men were ensemble films, but it's apples and oranges at best and we all know how those movies are different than the Avengers.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Avengers was a superhero team movie. Yes it was the first to take solo movie characters and put them into one movie, no one is disputing that or it's affect on Hollywood but at it's basis it's a superhero team movie and far from the first, to suggest otherwise is disrespectful to all the other superhero team movies that came before it.

The difference is, while other studios were content to coast on the same proven franchises and characters again and again, Marvel are fairly consistently attempting to use characters that are new to the big screen. Quite frankly, it's easy to sit back and say (after the fact) that film X wasn't a risk but that's largely because at this point, the gambit has been pulled off.

9/10 of Marvels movies are Avengers based. The same base characters again and again, not saying that to knock them but it's fact that Iron Man, Cap and Thor who are all the main Avengers comprise almost all of their movies. Thankfully Guardians was a success and now they're doing more non-Avenger movies in future.

 

[Flint Marko]

No, the real risk would be making successful movies to those franchises that under-performed or failed at Box Office.

They should have made HULK, PUNISHER, GHOST RIDER, DAREDEVIL, ELEKTRA, and turned them around in phase three.

They've already made a Hulk film, and they are working on a Daredevil netflix series. I really don't see your point.

* If Marvel are so confident in making successful comic book movies, then why not start with those properties whose rights have reverted back to them ?
.

...Maybe it's just because they don't really want to?
I mean seriously, if you can watch Guardians of the Galaxy and say that Marvel isn't taking risks, or that they aren't confident in their movies, I'm not sure what's going on with you.
Clearly Marvel is telling the stories they want to tell with the characters they want to use. For example the Inhumans and Captain Marvel are probably being made because everything is leading up to the infinity war in Avengers 3, so they are coming out with movies prior to that to further flesh out that story.
Just because they don't yet have plans (that we know of) for a ghost rider film or Elektra doesn't mean anything, it just means that they don't care to use that character at the moment.
And if they ever did make a ghost rider or elektra movie? It'd probably make $500 million dollars and be way better than the other movies made by Fox or Sony.

Avengers was a superhero team movie. Yes it was the first to take solo movie characters and put them into one movie, no one is disputing that or it's affect on Hollywood but at it's basis it's a superhero team movie and far from the first, to suggest otherwise is disrespectful to all the other superhero team movies that came before it.

Is it "disrespectful" to other films to acknowledge that what Avengers did was unprecedented?
It's a completely different ball game from any team film we've seen before, that's indisputable and that's the main point here.

 

[See Cap Run]

Should? Why 'should' Marvel be making films that have proved to be unpopular? Obviously everybody realises that when 'risk' is assessed in relation to comic book films, it's on a strictly relative scale (because there's little to no real risk in making huge tentpole superhero flicks).

The difference is, while other studios were content to coast on the same proven franchises and characters again and again, Marvel are fairly consistently attempting to use characters that are new to the big screen. Quite frankly, it's easy to sit back and say (after the fact) that film X wasn't a risk but that's largely because at this point, the gambit has been pulled off.

Exactly! Marvel Studios took 3 B-listers (Thor, Cap and Iron Man) and a group of C-listers (GOTG) and managed to raise them up to a level of popularity where they can compete with and even defeat the likes of Spider-Man, Batman, Superman and X-Men at the box office! Just take a moment to marvel at that! Those characters are no longer risky, it's true but if you'll take a moment to look ahead to 2019, you'll notice a slew of new B and C-listers about to be made A-listers by Marvel over the next few years: there's nothing risky about that!

 

[Micromind]

They've already made a Hulk film, and they are working on a Daredevil netflix series. I really don't see your point.


...Maybe it's just because they don't really want to?

I was talking about sequel to TIH movie (which under-performed.) Marvel are not making The Incredible Hulk sequel as they are not sure about it's success... same with Daredevil, which could be the reason why Daredevil is getting a Netfilx series.

I mean seriously, if you can watch Guardians of the Galaxy and say that Marvel isn't taking risks, or that they aren't confident in their movies, I'm not sure what's going on with you.

They did take some risk with GOTG movie but it was at par with WB taking a risk with Green Lantern or Fox taking a risk with first FF (and first X-men) movie.

 

[Flint Marko]

Exactly! Marvel Studios took 3 B-listers (Thor, Cap and Iron Man) and a group of C-listers (GOTG) and brought them up to where they can compete with and even defeat the likes of Spider-Man, Batman, Superman and X-Men at the box office! Just take a moment to marvel at that! Those characters are no longer risky, it's true but if you'll take a moment to look ahead to 2019, you'll notice a slew of new B and C-listers about to be made A-listers by Marvel over the next few years: there's nothing risky about that!

Great post
It's borderline obvious that everything Marvel has done is "risky". Hell back in 2008, the producers sent out the finished Iron Man screenplay to thirty different screen writers to punch up the script and all thirty sent it back in with a firm "hell no", saying they didn't want their name on it.
Everyone in hollywood thought that movie would fail; a renowned drug addict as the lead star? The director of Elf? Nope, this movie is gonna crash and burn. And look where we are now.

 

[Micromind]

Exactly! Marvel Studios took 3 B-listers (Thor, Cap and Iron Man) and a group of C-listers (GOTG) and brought them up to where they can compete with and even defeat the likes of Spider-Man, Batman, Superman and X-Men at the box office! Just take a moment to marvel at that! Those characters are no longer risky, it's true but if you'll take a moment to look ahead to 2019, you'll notice a slew of new B and C-listers about to be made A-listers by Marvel over the next few years: there's nothing risky about that!

They also took away the movie potential of A-listers Daredevil and Hulk.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

An Incredible Hulk sequel would have indeed been a risk.

If we ever get one, it'll have been at least 12 years after the first. That's more turnaround time than Green Lantern.

Avengers wasn't a huge risk. Iron Man was a huge success and that alone is enough to make the film.