Marvel Films Worst MCU movie?

[Cap2024]

IM2 was rushed into production yea (they only had less than 2 years) but it was rushed because of how succesful Iron Man 1 was. David Maisel wanted to strike while the iron was hot and get working on a sequel asap. This was also partly due to them wanting to pay back the Merrill Lynch loan earlier than they intially expected.

Yeah, I got Thor and Cap mixed up.

May have been they didn’t know if those would be solid hits after Hulk which was noticeable dip from Iron Man earnings.

What I mostly recall from Icons Unearthed: Marvel episode 2 (which had interviews with those involved behind the scenes) was the company was financially stressed and they were unsure of how others would perform.

 

[Venom 1988]

Yeah, I got Thor and Cap mixed up.

May have been they didn’t know if those would be solid hits after Hulk which was noticeable dip from Iron Man earnings.

What I mostly recall from Icons Unearthed: Marvel episode 2 (which had interviews with those involved behind the scenes) was the company was financially stressed and they were unsure of how others would perform.

The info I cited is directly from an interview with Maisel from the Reign of Marvel Studios book. Also IM2 was greenlit before Hulk came out.

 

[Cap2024]

The info I cited is directly from an interview with Maisel from the Reign of Marvel Studios book. Also IM2 was greenlit before Hulk came out.

Was it just green lit or fast tracked “we need tomorrow”? There’s a difference.

Obviously it would be green lit before Hulk came out. The difference is was it going to have a more standard production window or be rushed.

Adding: a film can be green lit and then have the timeframe to complete and premiere it significantly tightened. This is the situation I’m referring to.

 

[Venom 1988]

Was it just green lit or fast tracked “we need tomorrow”? There’s a difference.

Obviously it would be green lit before Hulk came out. The difference is was it going to have a more standard production window or be rushed.

Adding: a film can be green lit and then have the timeframe to complete and premiere it significantly tightened. This is the situation I’m referring to.

...I know there's difference. And I don't understand why you're questioning all this when the info is readily available. But if you want a timeline...

* David Maisel hosted a dinner for Downey and Favreau the weekend of the Iron Man 1 premier to one celebrate the soon to be success of the movie and two get them commited to do a sequel in exactly 2 years. He even tried to entice them by even buying them cars. Favreau was sceptical given how much work went into the first one and now he was gonna commit to another. And he didn't officially sign on until a few months later.

* After opening weekend, Marvel announced the sequel was being developed with an intial release date of April 30th, 2010 (this later got delayed to May 7th). Again a month before TIH even came out, so already they are putting themselves on this crunch timline, regardless how the Hulk's box office performance was going to turn out.

 

[Cap2024]

...I know there's difference. And I don't understand why you're questioning all this when the info is readily available. But if you want a timeline...

* David Maisel hosted a dinner for Downey and Favreau the weekend of the Iron Man 1 premier to one celebrate the soon to be success of the movie and two get them commited to do a sequel in exactly 2 years. He even tried to entice them by even buying them cars. Favreau was sceptical given how much work went into the first one and now he was gonna commit to another. And he didn't officially sign on until a few months later.

* After opening weekend, Marvel announced the sequel was being developed with an intial release date of April 30th, 2010 (this later got delayed to May 7th). Again a month before TIH even came out, so already they are putting themselves on this crunch timline, regardless how the Hulk's box office performance was going to turn out.

As you said - the information is readily available and can even be viewed at this Amazon link here (for free, so anyone with Prime can see it).

But, if you want a transcript...

Vice TV: The Incredible Hulk had stumbled, making less than Iron Man's box office, putting the MCU on uneven ground. To even things up, Feige and Marvel had a choice to make.

Zack Stentz (Thor screenwriter) : They had a board and it was like Thor, Iron Man 2, Captain America, and then like TBD movie, TBD movie. And then we came in one morning and we saw they had flipped Iron Man 2 and Thor.

[supplemental material: 'Thor gets a date in 2010' Empire article link (released 2011, this is why I got confused with including Thor before - I thought I remembered that it played a role somehow]

Vice TV: Thor was considered a much bigger risk than the Hulk. At the same time, Iron Man 2 was in a position to set up the bigger MCU.

Todd McFarlane: If you build a strong foundation as they did with Iron Man, you can put a skyscrapper on a strongfoundation.

Vice TV: Iron Man 2 was now set to come out a year earlier than expected, sending the production into scramble mode.

[supplemental material: the only trace that I can find of the 2011 release date being flirted with is this interview with Jon where he states 2010 or 2011 and these comments in 2008 for the LA Times (which the article says there was a debacle with Jon and that he has now confirmed (in August) that it is set for 2010); which has it sound as though 2011 was discussed more during this time period (summer, 2008) as a possibility. Due to how many years ago these articles are - it's difficult to actually find articles to present here. If I was to guess, behind the scenes Jon may have wanted 2011 whereas Marvel wanted 2010 that could explain discrepancies and the "debacle".]

Adam Chitwood (The Wrap writer): Immediately Jon Favreau was under the gun, and he's gotta get the sequel made, and the sequel has to be successful.

I guess it all comes down to whose side of the story one is more apt to believe - an "unauthorized" account or an account by Vice TV that is authorized.

Adding: Marvel, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, James Bond, Batman, and the Fast and the Furious franchises have all entrusted Vice TV with access to film clips and interviews with the filmmakers involved.

 

[Venom 1988]

As you said - the information is readily available and can even be viewed at this Amazon link here (for free, so anyone with Prime can see it).

But, if you want a transcript...

Vice TV: The Incredible Hulk had stumbled, making less than Iron Man's box office, putting the MCU on uneven ground. To even things up, Feige and Marvel had a choice to make.

Zack Stentz (Thor screenwriter) : They had a board and it was like Thor, Iron Man 2, Captain America, and then like TBD movie, TBD movie. And then we came in one morning and we saw they had flipped Iron Man 2 and Thor.

[supplemental material: 'Thor gets a date in 2010' Empire article link (released 2011, this is why I got confused with including Thor before - I thought I remembered that it played a role somehow]

Vice TV: Thor was considered a much bigger risk than the Hulk. At the same time, Iron Man 2 was in a position to set up the bigger MCU.

Todd McFarlane: If you build a strong foundation as they did with Iron Man, you can put a skyscrapper on a strongfoundation.

Vice TV: Iron Man 2 was now set to come out a year earlier than expected, sending the production into scramble mode.

[supplemental material: the only trace that I can find of the 2011 release date being flirted with is this interview with Jon where he states 2010 or 2011 and these comments in 2008 for the LA Times (which the article says there was a debacle with Jon and that he has now confirmed (in August) that it is set for 2010); which has it sound as though 2011 was discussed more during this time period (summer, 2008) as a possibility. Due to how many years ago these articles are - it's difficult to actually find articles to present here. If I was to guess, behind the scenes Jon may have wanted 2011 whereas Marvel wanted 2010 that could explain discrepancies and the "debacle".]

Adam Chitwood (The Wrap writer): Immediately Jon Favreau was under the gun, and he's gotta get the sequel made, and the sequel has to be successful.

I guess it all comes down to whose side of the story one is more apt to believe - an "unauthorized" account or an account by Vice TV that is authorized.

Adding: Marvel, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, James Bond, Batman, and the Fast and the Furious franchises have all entrusted Vice TV with access to film clips and interviews with the filmmakers involved.

So you deleted your original post that basically ended this tiring argument just to turn around and double down on it. Ok...

First off, the interview snippit from Zack Stentz you posted does not contradict anything about what I said (how Vice TV presents it in the video though is pretty suspect and misleading). All it means is that at some point, Thor was planned to come first. That's it. And that was indeed the case, because Iron Man 2 wasn't on the slate yet when Thor was first added.

Also neither account is authorized btw. Obtainting a license for to use film clips or interviewing people does not make it authorized. But I'll believe the person who interviewed Feige, Maisel and Favreau directly, not to mention countless others over the span of several years. Like how she interviewed Feige for this article. Secrets of the Marvel Universe

But even then, even if for some reason you didn't want to believe it (which seems to be your prerogative at this point), you just need to look at the facts.

Cha-ching! ‘Iron Man 2’ set for summer 2010

Following the film’s blockbuster opening weekend, Marvel Entertainment is planning an “Iron Man” sequel for 2010 after a 2009 without feature releases.

www.today.com

"Marvel Studios announced Monday it will release “Iron Man 2” on April 30, 2010, following the success of the first in the comic-book franchise, which pulled in $104.2 million domestically since opening last Thursday and $201 million worldwide."

Marvel released this press statment on May 5th, 2008, a month before TIH came out. So the decision to release Iron Man 2 in 2 years, before Thor, has nothing to do with the Hulk's performance. Now later on was there added pressure on Favreau to deliver a great movie due to the Hulk's performance? Or maybe Favreau felt the crunch timeline was too much and wanted an extra year before agreeing to Marvel's already announced 2010 release date? Sure absolutely, both of those things are valid and could be very well be true. But neither of those things have anything to do with I'm talking about.

 

[Cap2024]

First off, the interview snippit from Zack Stentz you posted does not contradict anything about what I said (how Vice TV presents it in the video though is pretty suspect and misleading). All it means is that at some point, Thor was planned to come first. That's it. And that was indeed the case, because Iron Man 2 wasn't on the slate yet when Thor was first added.

Now later on was there added pressure on Favreau to deliver a great movie due to the Hulk's performance? Sure absolutely.

First off - he literally says Iron Man 2 was slotted to come after, not before Thor.

“They had a board and it was like Thor, Iron Man 2, Captain America…” in that order.

Second off - well done, absolutely.

There is also a difference between Marvel wanting 2010 while Jon (from all sounds of it) kept on fighting for 2011 or more time. Behind the scenes disputes and shifting release dates isn’t unheard of because of that. Over the summer was the (LA Times phrasing, not mine) “Jon debacle” that cooled down in August. So Hulk put the pressure on? Oh, yeah, it did.

 

[Venom 1988]

First off - he literally says Iron Man 2 was slotted to come after, not before Thor.

“They had a board and it was like Thor, Iron Man 2, Captain America…”

Yea and? I'm not saying there wasn't a board. I literally said this "Iron Man 2 wasn't on the slate yet when Thor was first added." Which is true. Their intial slate of movies included Iron Man, Hulk and Ant-Man. Then they later added Thor, Cap and Nick Fury (which of course, that last one never happened). Still no Iron Man 2 yet when Thor was first added.

Comic-Con 2006: Marvel Announces Three

Second off - well done, absolutely.

There is also a difference between Marvel wanting 2010 while Jon (from all sounds of it) kept on fighting for 2011 or more time. Behind the scenes disputes and shifting release dates isn’t unheard of because of that.

Never said they weren't unheard of? My dude, I've been following movie productions for 25 years. Of course there's behind the scenes polictics and disputes going on. I don't know what you are trying to get at here. It doesn't change the fact that Marvel wanted Iron Man 2 fast tracked due to the first movie's success. That's it, that's literally all I've been saying since my first post.

 

[Cap2024]

Yea and? I'm not saying there wasn't a board. I literally said this "Iron Man 2 wasn't on the slate yet when Thor was first added." Which is true. Their intial slate of movies included Iron Man, Hulk and Ant-Man. Then they later added Thor, Cap and Nick Fury (which of course, that last one never happened). Still no Iron Man 2 yet when Thor was first added.

Comic-Con 2006: Marvel Announces Three




Never said they weren't unheard of? My dude, I've been following movie productions for 25 years. Of course there's behind the scenes polictics and disputes going on. I don't know what you are trying to get at here. It doesn't change the fact that Marvel wanted Iron Man 2 fast tracked due to the first movie's success. That's it, that's literally all I've been saying since my first post.

So now you are agreeing that at some point Iron Man 2 was slotted in-between Thor and Captain America? Per as the Thor screenwriter has said.

It wasn’t “and then Iron Man 2 appeared” it was “and the Iron Man 2 was positioned earlier than originally planned.” There’s a difference.

Marvel increasingly wanted over the summer and put the pressure increasingly on Jon (who didn’t want to play ball) because - Hulk underperformed and didn’t meet their expectations. I assume you would at the very least agree to that.

 

[Spider-Fan]

@Cap2024 You're dying on an odd hill here. Just let it go. Ultimately, this is an argument about semantics and does it really frigging matter at this point who was right about movie timeliness in 2008? It's 2024 and it ultimately doesn't matter anymore. Regardless why Iron Man 2 was rushed, it was rushed and I stand by it being my least favorite MCU movie. Regardless WHY it was rushed. The fact is it was rushed and had a sloppy story. The product speaks for itself and it being rushed doesn't make me excuse the overall product. Every production has challenges. Make a better movie.

Hopefully this ends this argument for everyone

 

[Spider-Fan]

Though as I said before, while Iron Man 2 is my least favorite movie, I do think both Secret Invasion and Falcon and the Winster Soldier are worse than Iron Man 2. I'd also say What If is my least favorite MCU product, but I haven't even finished season 2 yet so it has an asterisk for that reason for me

 

[Ironfan72]

Iron Man 2 was rushed, i think it was scheduled to release after Thor but for some reason Marvel didnt think Thor would do well, especially after Hulk under performed so they decided to rush Iron man 2 into theaters as they knew it would do well and overall, it did perform well at the box office, making more than the first film, the problem was Marvel insisting on adding so many non-Iron man characters and essentially making a launching off point for the Avengers, I didnt mind having multiple Iron man villians, the more the merrier for me, but Whiplash being the son of Anton Vanko was a stretch, was it the worst film, no, but i am abit bias as I am an Iron man superfan, so I try to take the rose colored glasses off and see other perspectives and this film isnt a top 10 film in the MCU and felt like a wasted film as an Iron Man fan as it really wasnt completely about him and his characters.
Iron Man 3 was another film that gave a giant middle finger to shellhead fans as they couped out on the Mandarin, some liked the twist, but in the iron man community they hated it, it did resonate with non-iron man fans as it did make $2 Billion at the box office, gave us the first MCU hero to deal with PTSD but it felt less an Iron Man story and more lethal weapon as Shane Black wrote and directed it.

 

[psylockolussus]

I checked my rankings on my laptop. This is my bottom 3:

3. Iron Man 2
2. Thor: The Dark World
1. Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania

 

[Harleen SB]

Movies:
3. Eternals
2. Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania
1. Thor: Love and Thunder

Shows:
3. She-Hulk
2. Moon Knight
1. Secret Invasion

 

[psylockolussus]

I can get some enjoyment from Thor: Love and Thunder and Eternals, so I wouldn't consider them as bottom 3.

The line up for Eternals was refreshing and interesting. Production wise, it looked splendid. The premise was ambitious and didn't feel like another Mcu film despite all the issues.

Thor: Love and Thunder had Jane Foster as Thor which I find a better watching experience than anything on The Dark World. I cringed a lot when watching The Dark World.

 

[HRPUFFSTUFF]

Still remains Iron Man 3.

I for the longest time didnt care for this movie but in the last few years have come around on it. I'm not mad a the Mandarin change up and i just go with the flow of the movie. its not my go too movie but i dont hate it.

 

[Zyraquis]

I did cringe a little on second viewing of The Marvels but not as bad as my poor partner who by the dance scene already hated me a little putting him to sit through this. So The Marvels for me.

Love and Thunder is close especially on second viewing a lot of jokes feel overly corny and completely unfunny.

 

[WolverineHunt01]

By far Eternals. That movie serves absolutely no purpose in the grand scheme of things. A friend of mine said it best that the only reason that it was likely made was to Beat DC to the punch to making a New Gods movie. But even if you take all that out of the equation it’s just absolutely boring and has dreadful pacing and nothing characters for the most part. I would rather watch X-Men origins Wolverine then watch Eternals, at least origins has Hugh Jackman carrying the hell out of it. There isn’t a single character I give a flying **** about in Eternals (accept for maybe Kumail Nanjiani’s character but he was barely in the movie). Though a close second for me is Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness. I really loved the first Doctor Strange film and wanted to see a sequel to it for years this film is the definition of careful what you wish for a barely utilizes the multi-verse concept and the cameos are a complete waste and are almost as bad as what they do in Suicide Squad kills the Justice League. Multiverse of Madness was so bad that I almost don’t wanna Doctor Strange 3, which is something I thought I’d never say.

 

[WolverineHunt01]

I for the longest time didnt care for this movie but in the last few years have come around on it. I'm not mad a the Mandarin change up and i just go with the flow of the movie. its not my go too movie but i dont hate it.

I like Iron Man 3.
*gets booed at.

 

[ANTMANROCKET]

BLACK WIDOW

is the worst film in the MCU!

Why? Because the writers used the film to further the executive agenda instead of staying true to the characters and their stories.

NATASHA had no family until she gained one by being in S.H.E.I.L.D. and an Avenger.
But, here comes her solo film and we learn not only does she have a complete family, but each of them are super-heroes in their own right.
It's completely ridiculous and quite stupid.
Oh wow, her dad is MR. INCREDIBLE. Her sister is actually twice the "BLACK WIDOW " that Nat is. And her Mom is a female JASON BOURNE.
I'm sure if they made a sequel (which they can't because they ruined their fans loyal following)) but, I am sure that Nat's twin brothers would show up, one JOHN WICK, the other LUKE SKYWALKER - so they can use him in some new STAR WARS spin off.

It's absolute garbage trash and a complete waste of time.

They could have easily made a BLACK WIDOW trilogy had they just told cool stories about NAT & CLINT and even brought NICK FURY into it.
She was way super cool before they utterly destroyed her.

 

[Venom 1988]

Because the writers used the film to further the executive agenda

Um ok. And what is that exactly?

 

[ANTMANROCKET]

Um ok. And what is that exactly?

The main one being
"We need new characters since we killed a bunch, so we will just have them appear as family members of our beloved cast so that they are accepted.

Ps
Are we really going to have to spell all of this out? Is it not obvious??

Tell me, did you somehow like how they shredded Nat's entire MCU story / history?

 

[Spider-Fan]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I thought Black Widow was solid overall. Not perfect and the 3rd act action is a little too over the top, but I was more than okay with Natasha and the family

 

[Venom 1988]

Are we really going to have to spell all of this out? Is it not obvious??

Depends. In another thread you just ranted aout LGBTQ people existing in these movies. So forgive me if I'm not taking your complaints seriously.

 

[TheVileOne]

Eternals. The persona I feel bad for the most is Kumail Nanjiani. He deserved better, and the movie's failure clearly hit him hard.



I don't I can pin down a few reasons why Eternals doesn't work. For one thing, there are way too many characters. The cast is too big. No one really leaves a solid impression. It's poorly structured. The flashbacks aren't compelling. The Eternals aren't really compelling characters. The love story with Ikaris and Sersi is bland and they have no chemistry. The movie looks badly lit sometimes. Other times, the sound effects and fights just lack any pizazz or suspense.

Kro is a weak villain. He doesn't really do anything. The Deviants are not an interesting threat when the real threat is the Celestials. Not to mention, Arishem just reveals everything to Sersi and the Eternals without any suspense and we find out that secret very early.

Fighting against Kro in the final act makes no sense. Killing the Deviants and Kro makes no sense. The Deviants were basically pawns and victims of the Celestials as well. Not to mention, the Deviants just didn't seem all that bad or dangerous? They were basically just feral predators. It was hard to root for them killing Kro when Kro didn't feel like the bad guy here.

Also, it just never felt like a Marvel film to me. Everything was just kind of drab and lifeless. There was no sense of adventure or fun. Also most of the Eternals don't really do anything. Kingo seemed like the most fun character, but then he peaces out at the end because he agrees with the Celestials and that's it for him. Seriously? The movie even sets up for him to come back and save the day, but he never does. So why are we supposed to like Kingo now? He's OK with the Celestials blowing up the world, which includes his assistant he's very close to. Phastos has to be basically dragged into it even though not doing anything means certain death for his husband and family.

I think the difference between this and Guardians because Guardians was also a group of obscure weird characters, Guardians was basically James Gunn doing Star Wars mixed with Indiana Jones in space with pop culture references. He successfully emulated the Lucas and Spielberg formula and updated it for the 21st century. Also, the Guardians become a tight-knit likable group. The group isn't too big. That gives the movie more time to develop them and make them more interesting, and they all get involved and get to be heroic in the final act. Everyone's active in the Guardians finale. No one is sitting out or has to be dragged kicking and streaming into it. Everyone plays a part, and it's fun, action-packed and compelling. You care about the action because you care about the characters. Eternals you just don't really care about any of what happens.