You know, it's really funny. I know superhero films are better now, (debatable with the Spider-Man films), but for some reason, I felt like I was more excited about comics in the 2000's. It feels like a style/charm is gone from superheroes now.
Anyone else feeling that?
Other urls found in this thread:
>I know superhero films are better now
No?
I don't know. I'm looking at that picture, and probably four of those are worth defending.
All but Catwoman and Elektra are better than Thor 2.
Maybe because comics are just recycling the same shit over and over again and it finally got stale for you?
Spider-Man, Hulk, Hellboy, X-men, Batman Begins & Punisher are all better than the majority of MCU movies, x-men apocalypse and suicide skwad.
>comics
DON'T YOU MEAN CAPESHIT YOU LOSER
I READ INDIE COMICS
I AM BETTER THAN YOU
The difference is that these movies, while sometimes being bad, had personality because they directors and writers had free reign and exacted their vision.
MCU and DCEU are just focus tested products that maintain a consistent level of mediocrity and homogeneity through the universe so they "fit together", rather than allowing creativity to showcase different aspects of the vast universes. I think the cinematic universe has ruined comic book movies desu, Fox was the outlier compared to the MCU and DCEU with higher highs (First Class, DOFP) and lower lows (Apocalypse), but the New Mutants and Dark Phoenix and Deadpool 2 make it seem like they are going the Marvel Studios route
In short, stop watching capeshit
>and lower lows (Apocalypse)
Apocalypse is not worse than the Thor movies.
Because back then (more so in the late 90s, most of the examples you picked were kinda shitty, OP, sorry dude), for the most part they were edgier and darker and we were younger and therefore more easily excited with that kind of thing, not to mention they were still a somewhat nicher movie genre than they are now and were less accepted by normies for being 'too dark' or whatever which automatically made them cooler, whereas now even fucking soccer moms and Stacies like MCU movies.
Also over-saturation does play a part, even if they were widely loved and acclaimed, Deadpool and Logan still kinda fell into that 'another superhero movie' category where they can't really stick out and be their own separate thing in our minds; it was all just another chapter in the MCU/X Men/whatever movies. Whereas those movies would've had people back in the early 2000s absolutely shitting bricks on a cultural level like Spiderman did. I know at least Deadpool would've (not that I'm suggesting that Logan was a shit movie; because it was brilliant, it was just too depressing to be seen in that way)
Venom's going to be a horror movie and so is Spawn according to McFarlane who fucking finally finished the script ( youtu.be
I still say you could slap the MCU logo on the Fantastic Four films and all the normies would say they love them.
You were likely a kid in the 2000s where you're now a jaded adult who already knows exactly what every movie is going to do before you see it
Isn't wrong either
this
Literally no difference.
This man speaks the truth.
I've always felt that making a shared cinematic universe is a mistake. Yeah, seeing those heroes interacting is cool on a superficial level but then you would have to give every movie in that universe a similar tone so it will be consistent and, as a result, hampers the creative process. I know people frown on the Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies and the Tim Burton Batman movies but you know what those movies had that the majority of comic flicks didn't? A directorial vision. Those movies were made by guys who had a specific style and point of view and their sensibilities that they brought to those movies help make it stand out. Hell, even Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance, while I would not argue was a good movie, wasn't at least trying to be the Christopher Nolan Batman movies or even the MCU movies and was just marching to the beat of it's own drum.
I remember getting excited for comic book movies but now I have a hard time doing so since, most of the time, it's now turning into a case of been there done that.
>I know people frown on the Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies and the Tim Burton Batman movies
wha
Burton Bats maybe, but Raimi Spidey is objectively well made.
Plenty of people don't care for them, I'd argue about as many who don't like Burton Batman and for similar reasons.
Nostalgia.
They are simply bad people then. Something must be broken inside them. I pity them.
So many of shit those films you people defend for the sake of personality and you fuckers still leave out Blade. One with its own identity and legitimately good, arguably allowing people to be more open to capefilms before heavy hitters X-men and Spider-Man.
My fucking god.
The DCEU ciold avoid all their films having a similar tone if they made Vertigo films. It woiuld be part of the DCEU but not really like the comics used to be. Sure it would have be low budget but we would get a non neutered Constantine and some good Body horror with Swamp Thing
I can see the reasons for loving and not loving either franchise, while I love one and personally don't like the other.
But, either way, both IMO were, from a technical standpoint, well made movies but were extremely specific visions that smelled more of their respective directors than some fans might like, and differ source material in some regards that some fans wouldn't like, with the stylized dark and gothic Burton style (most notable in Returns, but Batman 89 was not exactly faithful to what some fans would have wanted either) and in the case of Spider-Man, Raimi's uber camp and maudlin delivery
We can just leave Spider-Man 3 out of this discussion since Burton's Batman never had a third...