Cynical pandering in movie form

It confuses me how people continually misstake the cynical pandering of the Marvel movies as being "hopeful" and "optimistic".

The main "hero" of these movies is a billionare manchild born with a silver spoon in his mouth, a one man PMC that bragged about "privatizing world peace", the personification of the Military-Industrial complex who's first "heroic" act is to illegaly kill a bunch of low level insurgents in Afghanistan in the most blatant endorsment of the fantasy of drone warfare portrayed in a film.

He's all that is wrong with the world wrapped up in a handsome snarky package. And under his leadership (don't kid yourself about Captain America, he's not in charge of shit. He's just a Stark employee like the rest of them.) The Avengers main goal seems to be simply maintaining the status quo against some dreaded other that threatens the stability of what the Marvel films continue to present as the best of all possible worlds.

These are the reasons people voted for Trump for fucks sake. Becase the status quo being run by the likes of Tony Stark is intolerable.

And don't get me started on how the Marvel fims keep pushing the perfidious lie of the "clean war", violent conflict without collateral damage or consequence, that the Amercian government has been trying to sell everyone on for decades. These movies might as well be propaganda films for fucks sake!

But they have quips and shawarma so they're "fun" and "uplifting" right?

My question is why do the first two Raimi Spider-Man films feel so alien to the rest of Marvel?

SOME MUCH BAIT IN ONE POST!!!

>le upvote, like, reblog, and subscribe XD

still butthurt no one likes your DC kino, eh Sup Forums?

they pander hope and Dc panders Edge.

one actually makes money and the other flops

There are somethings that OP said that I agree with and there are somethings that OP said that I don't agree with.

>they pander hope.
Nothing about the MCU is hopeful tho. These films have zero tension and people mistake as bright and hopeful.

MCU has a narrative that was given enough time to develop, the characters are sympathetic at least some of the time, and the people in charge understand the core of the characters involved and are willing to portray them on the big screen.

DCEU has a narrative that tries to do in five movies what the MCU spent six movies, released over four years, to achieve. The characters differ too much from their other adaptations and aren't really sympathetic, and WB can't help but meddle in every stage of development, to the point where directors can be fired and scripts can be rewritten even though the movie supposedly has a released date.

TL;DR: one studio has been allowed time to develop itself while the other can't even scratch its own ass without WB going "reshoots, rewrites, recast, etc."

see this OP


many posts and many posters

your glorified blog post has very few of either and will die quickly

let this be a lesson to you if you want to talk shit about a movie universe make sure it's the right one

How about I dab on you instead, op?

If anything the DCEU are the hopeful superhero films. There the one with the central message that the world may seem bad at surface value, their still good in people and that Tomorrow will be better.

>OP manages to piss off Marlel shills

>your glorified blog post has very few of either and will die quickly
You're keeping this thread alive with this post user.

>the people in charge understand the core of the characters involved and are willing to portray them on the big screen.
PFFFFFFT!

DCEU is a better contender for movies that have "zero tension" than the MCU though.

In the MCU, even if the heroes win, everything that happens still has a long-lasting effect on the cinematic universe, which also extends to their auxilliary shows like "Agents of Shield," which means that the world changes due to the presence of aliens and powered being roaming around, especially since HYDRA is still a thing.

In the DCEU, everyone involved is unsympathetic and nothing that happens has any long lasting effects on the universe as a whole. Even Superman's death seems shallow since we knew way back when that they'd just bring him back after a movie or two.

It's okay man, it's not your fault that you can't recognize a decent adaptation.

>DCEU
>Hopeful
If it was so hopeful then people wouldn't be praying that the next film is actually decent.

>MCU has a narrative that was given enough time to develop.
The MCU narrative is actually pretty weak. none of these movies really flow together to tell the story of Thanos and the infinity gems, they all kist crashed into each other.

>and that Tomorrow will be better.

So why their movie get worse and worse with each flick?

>OP writers a post criticizing MCU without even mentioning DCEU
>everyone's response is basically WELL DCEU IS STILL WORSE
If you can only praise a product for being better at something than some other product, that's not very good of a product to begin with.

Products have to have their own quality, the one that can be seen without having to compare it to their inferiors. OP criticized the quality of MCU movies. Instead of discussing the universe as in of itself, you start discussing it in comparison to another universe. That only proves that MCU movies are literally so fucking dull and safe that even their fans can't really discuss them on their own, without comparing them to DCEU.

>everything that happens still has a long-lasting effect on the cinematic universe.
lol good one user.

When you consider that the MCU encompasses 14 movies (that were released ATM), Agents of Shield, and several of the Marvel Netflix shows, it honestly flows a lot better then you'd expect for something like this.

Not saying it's perfect but it's workable considering how many projects are involved.

>If you can only praise a product for being better at something than some other product, that's not very good of a product to begin with.
Which is why DCEU fanboys constantly shit on MCU as well? Seriously, is this your first day on Sup Forums or something?

>everything that happens still has a long-lasting effect on the cinematic universe
>the world changes due to the presence of aliens and powered being roaming around
no it doesn't
I remember one thing in Ant-Man that ticked me off in particular was when police came at the climax, they had plain usual guns and OF COURSE they were useless.
Why the fuck would they have plain guns in a world where super-powered criminals are a very real thing? Has nobody bothered to develop some kind of a laser gun technology for them? Maybe that's what Tony Stark should be doing instead of inveting Ultrons?
Apparently not, because there is no long-lasting effect on the universe.
Also, why was Stark back as Iron Man in the first place after the events of IM 3? Was that EVER explained?

>that the world changes due to the presence of aliens and powered being roaming around.
Yeah 9/11 times ten happened in Manhatten and the worst thing that happen is that Hell's kitchen temporarily became a shithole again. Tony's father created the flying car in the 40s but everyone drives normal cars. Nazis created Superweapons that outclassed modern weapons but the US military still uses conventional weapons.

What the he'll is your point?

The MCU is outstanding and there's nothing quite like it. The only nearest comparison is the DCEU, which is, for all intensive purposes, bad. So it should be no surprise when people also mention DCEU

Now go back to your hugbox BvS threads on Sup Forums.

>Why the fuck would they have plain guns in a world where super-powered criminals are a very real thing?


What the fuck? 99,999999% of the crimes are made by regular people doing regular things, even on that world.

We get all the super folk that showed up so far know earth, and it would be less than 40.

and yet the MCU puts out better stuff than DC EVER has

The events of the Avengers reveals to the world that aliens and heroes exist, which leads to several individuals (including HYDRA and SHIELD) getting their hands on Chitauri tech.

Winter Soldier also affects the narrative in "Agents of SHIELD" since the public associates SHIELD with HYDRA and now the characters within the show have to work in secret without the public realizing that they're a thing.

And even Age of Ultron affects Agents of SHIELD during the second season, when SHIELD's decision to meet with the Inhumans was based on what happened in Sakovia, as well as what could happen if a society of powered being decided to go rogue and attack society.

To say nothing on Civil War and how the Accords were being signed because of all the destruction caused throughout the MCU.

I mean, I'm sorry you haven't watched any MCU flicks but don't try and claim that nothing that happens has no quantifiable effect on the overall narrative.

>everyone involved is unsympathetic. Bullshit.
>nothing that happens has any long lasting effects on the universe as a whole.
Bullshit. These movies are way better interconnected than the MCU, Superman legitimately changed the world and is credited with all the freaks coming out of hiding.

>Tony's father created the flying car in the 40s but everyone drives normal cars.

Flying cars exist for quite some time, but they are not practical due to a lot of limitations.

The USA military had a super weapon and had plenty of hellcarriers, that were show to be infiltred by Hydra. All for this is adressed on Winter Soldier.

You only prove my point further. I actually recognized DCEU as being inferior, but apparently you have dyslexia or something. Anyway, my main point was that you're all strawmanning. Instead of directly rebutting the opponent's actual arguments, which had nothing to do with DCEU, you start making up things about your opponent's opinions and rebutting and mocking that instead. Is that because you can't actually rebutt said arguments?

>The events of the Avengers reveals to the world that aliens and heroes exist,
Shouldn't Iron man amd Thor done that already?

Motherfucker was showcasing androids in the 40s.

Even if there are powered beings and the like, do you really think that ordinary cops would have the budget to afford non-conventional weaponry?

Even then, do you really think that they'll buy expensive weaponry when most of their perps are going to be ordinary people that can be taken out using conventional weaponry anyways?

Not to mention, how exactly would non-conventional weaponry help within the context of dealing with someone who can shrink and grow at will?

Seriously user, use that brain between your shoulders.

>All for this is adressed on Winter Soldier..
No it's not.

>Yeah 9/11 times ten happened in Manhatten and the worst thing that happen is that Hell's kitchen temporarily became a shithole again.
Thanks to the Avengers keeping the destruction contained to a comparatively small part of NYC.
>Tony's father created the flying car in the 40s but everyone drives normal cars.
Maybe flying cars aren't as practical or couldn't be mass produced quite as easily as normal cars. I mean, Coulson has a flying car but that could be rationalized as him being a SHIELD agent who is also best friends with director Fury.
> Nazis created Superweapons that outclassed modern weapons but the US military still uses conventional weapons.
It was addressed in "The First Avenger" that while tesseract powered weapons had a one-hit kill setting, they also couldn't keep up with a conventional weapon's rate of fire. Like for every soldier they killed, at least five of their own would get gunned down in the time it took to fire another blast.

>We get all the super folk that showed up so far know earth, and it would be less than 40.
So I suppose all that super folk doesn't matter enough for us to advance our technology, but it matters enough to enforce super-powered people registration and claim all who disagree as criminals?
>Not to mention, how exactly would non-conventional weaponry help within the context of dealing with someone who can shrink and grow at will?
That would at least show some effort on their side, the "long-lasting effects".

Some Superman right?

Raimi films were self-contained in their own universe and didn't try to be a big, extended one.

>So I suppose all that super folk doesn't matter enough for us to advance our technology
But they have weapons, guns and even hellcarriers for this reason. Shield has them, not regular cops.

>but it matters enough to enforce super-powered people registration and claim all who disagree as criminals?

Fucking yes too.

But this isn't even the plot of Civil War, that is the accords.

Actually it's because DCEU fanboys have been invading Sup Forums for months, spreading their console war bullshit from their containment board on Sup Forums, and people automatically assume that anyone who shits on MCU is a DCEU shill since there'd be no reason to make a thread otherwise.

People don't have to defend MCU every waking hour because it's already a successful franchise, you can think that it's not all it's cracked up to be but don't sit here and imply that just because people defend it and draw comparisons to the only other similar product available that it somehow means that the product is bad.

Otherwise any point of comparison would mean that both products were shit if we went by your logic.

The movies allow me to forget about how shitty life is for 2 hours at a time. That's enough, and more than I can say for most things.

Iron Man simply had a weapons dealer develop a suit that allows him to fly and take out terrorists; it's amazing but it's nothing that the military couldn't recreate if given enough time and the proper blueprints (which they did in IM2).

Thor took place in a small town in New Mexico and the bulk of the movie never really spreads out beyond that since SHIELD manages to contain everything that happened before it reached the general public.

Does it really matter when people just like the movies?

Why are you making such a big deal out of nothing?

>Maybe flying cars aren't as practical or couldn't be mass produced quite as easily as normal cars.
You should still see them, ot's a flying car for fuck's sake. You're tellong the ultra-rich is chomping on the bit for that you? Hell ignore the flying car and gocus on how it was flying! Howard Stark made jet propulsion technology obsolete before it even came out.

Why do DCEU fans keep mentioning Star Wars and Ghostbusters? That's one thing I don't understand.

>Otherwise any point of comparison would mean that both products were shit if we went by your logic.
If this comparison is the only argument either of the sides have, then yes.

OH LOOK A NORMIE HERE
LET'S ALL POINT AT HIM AND LAUGH

>Thanks to the Avengers keeping the destruction contained to a comparatively small part of NYC.
IT'S STILL A FUCKiNG ALiEN BATTLE ON NEW YORK! 9/11 completely changed America but the farthest change in the MCU is Hell's kitchen dod the time warp back to the 80s.

High RT scores perceived as undeserved.

>another dc fan butthurt general

They show that people don't want to be challenged.

>That would at least show some effort on their side, the "long-lasting effects".
The thing is though, an individual powered being could have practically any superpower in the world but most times, they aren't going to be bulletproof. Ordinary cops wouldn't have the clearance to use the bullshit that we see in Agents of SHIELD for example and even if they could, they'd still be outmatched by HYDRA who have technology similar to SHIELD's as well as several powered beings on their side as well.

Dude, flying car have exist for 30 years on the REAL world, and you apparently doesn't even know about them.

>you can't criticized the marvel movies or else you're a butthurt DC fanboy.

Are you a supervillian?

Even if people are able to explain why they feel as though MCU is better using examples that can be seen in both products?

>completely changed America but the farthest change in the MCU is Hell's kitchen dod the time warp back to the 80s.


What about the huge flying super weapons on Winter Soldier, meant to kill enemies of the country before they did anything?

>people who like DC movies are challenged
at least you admit it

>The Avengers main goal seems to be simply maintaining the status quo against some dreaded other that threatens the stability of what the Marvel films continue to present as the best of all possible worlds.
user, to some degree this is true of all cape comics.

Super-people are expected to punch criminals in
the face, and not use their abilities in any way that could threaten the continued existence of the political/economical system they originate from.
Look at how characters who take a proactive stance against the status quo are depicted. They inevitably become power-hungry fascists, which indirectly undermines any valid point they had about the ways things were and closes the discussion. Faced with the threat of totalitarianism, suddenly reverting to the status quo will seem entirely palatable, and in the end nothing's changed.
Despite all the "liberals!" groaning, superhero stories are basically conservative in the sense that heroes willl never achieve true change for their world, because they're only allowed to fight the symptoms of injustice, not the roots of it.

Cape comics are fun though.

And then Steve goes to other countries killing enemies before they do anything?

It amaze me how blind people is to Steve being more of a cunt than Ultimate steve

>g-guys trust me, i'm not bitching because my anus is hurt because dceu is crap

yeah that's a flying car like a hoverboard is an actual hoverboard

Well, technically, nah.

That's not a flying car, that's a personal jet. Not even comparable to what we saw on Captaon America.

>And then Steve goes to other countries killing enemies before they do anything?

When?

Basically yes, because only DC fanboys still bother trying to claim that MCU is bad even after everyone else has accepted that it's at the very least an okay franchise featuring Marvel characters.

Doesn't count because reasons.
Just like how Tony's PTSD from the events of Avengers and the resultant creation of the Iron Legion and Ultron as a coping mechanism for that PTSD don't count.

The only "consequence" people want to see is skulls for the skull throne. Can't get a full erection unless a bunch of nondescript redshirts die horrible mangled deaths to show how real shit has gotten. Nothing else matters.

You should research before posting, it's a flying car.

Shit deleted my own paragraph

Also remember Stan Lee created Iron Man specifically to piss off 60's counter-culture. He was a billionaire entrepreneur, a weapons dealer and he was the hero. In a post-9/11 world, do you think the audience would prefer that kind of hero, or a technical pacifist? It's a no-brainer.

and this is a hoverboard

DCEU >>>>> MCU

you got your arrow things backwards

but you also have repeating digits so it must be true

It's always funny how the bulk of DCEU fags hate the MCU because the characters actually try to be heroes.

Like Superman saving people is given a montage that makes it seem moody and melancholic while in the MCU, heroes actually put themselves in harm's way, narrowly avoiding death at every turn, while the movies go on to portray it as "FUCK YEAH, GO HEROES, FIGHT FOR THE FREEDOM OF AMERICA!"

It's like MCU revels in its status as a superhero flick while the DCEU is embarrassed to admit that it's a movie about superheroes.

It's a jet that gets marketed as a "Flying car".
Howard actually created a flying car technology.

>the sequence in Iron Man where he literally goes over to the middle east to take out some terrorists and a fucking tank
I don't know how Iron Man managed to be more patriotic than Superman

>Also remember Stan Lee created Iron Man specifically to piss off 60's counter-culture.

>he actually believes Stan Lee rants


Stan is full of shit and lies, he retcon his own past

>because the characters actually try to be heroes.
You are watering down the very notion of heroism when you say shit like this.

>while the DCEU is embarrassed to admit that it's a movie about superheroes.
Nah, mate. That's just Snyder. Ayer managed to make a more heroic movie and his movie had villains as the main stars.

I don't think the DCEU is embarassed of being a superhero movie. I think it's more that they don't understand that there's ways to humanize their characters beyond making them flawed and pitiable.

It's a hard bit of cognitive dissonance to be asked to pity your heroes, because heroes are people you're supposed to look up to. And yeah, they may have their own shit going on under the surface that they're dealing with and maybe the DCEU is exploring that, but it's like the saying goes; you don't want to see how the sausage is made.

And it isn't practical for mass production.

Like the jet-flying car. Simple.

What is the difference between a jet shaped like a car and a flying car?

>Fights against aliens, terrorists, HYDRA, intergalactic overloards, genocidal robots, and arms dealers.
>Saves the world on multiple occasions
>"Hurr, you're watering down heroism, Durr!"
At least pretend that you aren't trolling.

The DCEU isn't afraid to be something more, even if it doesn't bode well with the public

Marvel panders to the lowest common denominator for cheap thrills and dudes in tights doing somersaults for their villain of the month/year

Fuck you and the high horse you rode on. Marvel are not reveling in Superheroism but instead Banal action scenes. There is no sense of triumph of good over evil in these movies, it's jist pithy one-liners and ineffectual villains.
So take your sense of moral superiority and shove it up your ass.

>It's like MCU revels in its status as a superhero flick while the DCEU is embarrassed to admit that it's a movie about superheroes.

We have a very different understanding of what superheroes are. You like Civil war, Infinite crisis, and siege. You would obviously love generic formulaic crap.

The DCEU isnt embarrassed of being a superhero movie, the dirrerence is that Snyder believes that Superhero isnt a genre, and he is right, the movies are crap anyway, but the idea they are not about superheroes is retarded. Snyder plays with the same stuff that Moore, and Morrison, using them as modern mythology, he failed.

This

At least the DCEU tries to show off that their heroes are actually HEROES saving people and being an icon for mankind

"Heroes" in the MCU have not saved a single person that they themselves did not put in harm

>no sense of triumph of good over evil
>MCU
Pick one.

Also, isn't most of the destruction in the DCEU caused by the heroes? I mean, I don't recall Superman stopping to save any random citizens that he put in harm's way by fighting in the middle of the city.

>bringing that up again
oh yeah let me save a couple of guys instead of beat off the guy who will literally cause human extinction

If you bother reading comics (which I know you don't) then you would know that Superman cares about HUMANITY and not just a couple of idiots standing in crumbling buildings

>We have a very different understanding of what superheroes are.
Yeah, I like heroes to that save people, not cause most of the destruction around them.

I mean, truly speaks that we see The Avengers save more people throughout the battle of NY than we see Superman save throughout the entirety of the DCEU.

that's not... well fuck DC anyway

>battle
it was more like a scuffle compared to Zod

>oh yeah let me save a couple of guys instead of beat off the guy who will literally cause human extinction
It'd certainly help establish that Superman gives a fuck about humanity rather than having one scene where he says "buh you're not replaceable mom" and then proceeding to cause more destruction and death later on.

I mean fuck, you could've even had a scene where the military was evacuating the city and Superman saves them from a laser or something. I mean fuck, it's not rocket science here, just show that Superman is capable of fighting off threats and saving civilians, or at least lessening the destruction that's happening around him.

>Fights against aliens, terrorists, HYDRA, intergalactic overlord.
They might as well be fighting wet cardboard because none of these bad guys offer any real sense of conflict.
I would call them Saturday morning cartoon villains but that's an inslut towards Saturday morning cartoon villains.

It was an all out fucking war between an army and six individuals, yet somehow they still managed to save people even while dealing with being outmanned and outgunned.

Compared to that, the fight against Zod was a scuffle that took place in a sand castle city on the beach.

It was a army of mooks who went down faster than your mom. Zod on the other hand was a legit threat, a unhinged super-soldier with superpowers and a geneocide boner.

>They might as well be fighting wet cardboard because none of these bad guys offer any real sense of conflict.
Except for the fact that they were global threats that, if they had succeeded, meant that the earth, and likely the universe as a whole, was completely and utterly fucked.

The more I talk to you, the more it seems as though the only way you feel that you can show a villain as threatening is if they kill people onscreen in horrible ways.

top lel

dude, the mcu is witty. it's dcue that is straight out dumb, especially when it comes to dialogue.