Ravensnation5220
Ravens Ring of Honor
I guess you really didnt like deadpool
-
Welcome to PurpleFlock! Be sure to sign up here so that you can chat with your fellow Ravens fans.
The Movie Thread
- Thread starter usmccharles
- Start date
Oldfaithful
Hall of Famer
Not in the same movie universe at all.....
And Deadpool is superhero satire. Different genre entirely
Ravensnation5220
Ravens Ring of Honor
Isnt he marvel though? I mean. He was with Xmen people
Cville-Raven
MVP
Fox own the rights to xmen and certain characters surrounding them (Deadpool). Disney owns the main marvel heroes(iron man, cap, hulk,etc.). Both of them are marvel but because of rights issues, they exist in two separate movie universes. In fact, Spider-Man is owned by Sony but they made a deal with Disney to get him in avengers because they suck at making movies.
Ravensnation5220
Ravens Ring of Honor
Im watching the winter soldier now. Ive kinda gotten bored with all these super hero movies. Their all the same and ypu always know what happens. Not like the super heros are gonna die lol
Oldfaithful
Hall of Famer
I have to disagree there. As a MOVIE it is incredibly flawed, but as a COMIC BOOK movie it's great. The point is that it is a significant event within the universe. Every character(except for Hawkeye... He's useless) gets good character development the action set pieces are still excellent, Loki is a damn good bad guy, the acting is good, the humor ages a bit poorly but the team has phenomenal chemistry. I'd agree it hasn't aged as well as it could have thus far, but it has fundementally changed the way comic book movies were made. It, the Dark Knight, Batman 1989, and the first two super man movies are the most influential comic book movies of all time and it's not really close. It's had a significant impact on the genre, so much so that I have no choice but to put it up that highly. Avengers, and most marvel movies in general, is meant to be a fun ride. It doesn't challenge you thematically, but it's got some of the better action set pieces in the Universe, and easily the best bad guy in the MCU. It's not the best made movie in the universe, but easily the most influential. You're right, it's an event, not really a movie, that's why it works.
id say iron man is far more influential than the avengers in terms of changing how comic book movies are made and their perception - it destroyed the idea of an infallible hero, it approached the idea of greed and had some interesting comments on modern life - and more importantly it set the tone and blueprint for the rest of the MCU - so much of the MCU (not all but a lot) is variation on a theme or formula that was established in iron man - the avengers was an event but it was by no means the inception of the MCU or modern superhero movies and it wasnt a watershed moment - its major legacy is making a ton of money from being an event film that was done well enough that it succeeded and alerted other studios to the profitability of an expanded universe - im not gonna be blind and say its not a significant watershed moment in comic book movie history but its impact on the industry is purely based on finance and profit rather than good/iconic film making
the other thing id say is (and this is incredibly technical and a little pointless but i find it interesting anyway) but the colouring of marvel movies has been bad/wrong until quite recently because they set a standaradised aesthetic around the time of the avengers - (they finally fixed it before guardians of the galaxy 2 which is why it (and subsequent films) looks more colourful and brighter than guardians of the galaxy 1 - if you want a direct comparison)
SepticeyePoe
Hall of Famer
I really liked the colors in Ragnarok and GotG2
it's great - and do you know the fundamental change they implemented was as simple as adding a true black colour to the colour grading - everything seems brighter in contrast but in older MCU films they rarely have true black colours in the frame so the rest of the bright colours look duller by contrast because there's no absence of colour in the shot
SepticeyePoe
Hall of Famer
Whoa, that's so interesting. I just thought they weren't using bright colors.
haha no its weird but without a dark area that's properly coloured the brighter colours are dulled
Cville-Raven
MVP
Yup if your darkest values are grey then the the brighter more saturated colors wont pop at all. It makes everything look dull and desaturated as hell. It kind of hilarious when you think how colorful marvel comics are.
there problem was that they brought in a colourist and then used what he did as a standard for the rest of their movies... imagine how good some of those shots in avengers or age of ultron or civil war would look if they were colour corrected properly without oversaturating them or making them too yellow
BloodRaven
MVP
I think color grading follows trends, when Nolan's Batman set the tone for what a gritty, realistic superhero film should be you saw MCU and especially the DCEU (MoS) reflect this with very sombre movies, Guardians of the Galaxy flipped the script in 2014 by returning to it's Jack Kirby roots and a lighter tone, MCU and DCEU followed this trend also. Superman's suit went from looking like dark leather armor to looking like it was spraypainted baby blue.
i think you misunderstand a little - i dont mean it in terms of that kind of tone necessarily - guardians was supposed to be bright but was still faded and washed out in colour - and in marvel terms its not really that its a matter of taste it just looks bad - its bad grading tbh which theyve now fixed seemingly
Oldfaithful
Hall of Famer
Have to disagree with you here. The idea of destroying an infalliable hero really came into play with Batman Begins. Or if we're being completely honest, Spider man 2. Peter fucks up his priorities and literally causes him to lose his powers. The villain of the movie continually calls him out for being lazy. In Batman Begins Bruce is continually making mistakes due to willingly becoming homeless and literally resorts of a life of crime to better understand the common criminal. In fact, Batman begins is a superior movie to Iron Man in this regard too because Bruce uses his humanity and skill in deception to turn his playboy persona, who is a complete and utter assclown, into his mask for who he truly is, Batman. The entire point of the movie is to show that Bruce is a very flawed, but good individual. Iron Man did a damn good job of portraying a flawed character in Tony Stark(further complimented by the fact that Robert Downy Jr was experiencing a similar recovery in his life), but it wasn't the movie's doing as much as the source material itself. And yes, Spiderman 2 and Batman Begins are very influential movies, far moreso than Iron Man(which is again, a damn good movie), could hope to be. Spiderman 2 low key has one of the most balanced tones we have seen in a super hero movie. The movie is dark when it has to be, but also a lot of fun when it has to be. Few movies have successfully replicated it(if we're being honest, Winter Soldier did it well, Wonder Woman did it well, and Xmen Days of Future Past/First Class did it very well). Not to mention, Spiderman 2 approached the struggles of modern day life as well(it's an underrated movie, easily the best spider man movie). Peter Parker may have super powers, but his situation is far more real than Tony Stark's could ever hope to be. He's dirt poor, didn't have his parents growing up, does not have a sense of humor, has the whole protective complex and refuses to ask out the girl of his dreams(Who was poorly written. Kristen Dunst is a good actress but Mary Jane sucks).
The Avengers did two things Iron Man didn't and let me explain why.
1. It made comic book movies grand. Iron Man was a good movie. The problem was that the greatest comic book movie of all time(and arguably the best film of the entire decade) was released 3 months after the release of Iron Man, who portrayed the flawed hero MUCH better. The Dark Knight also skull-fucked it at the box office when Iron Man's box office turnout was very impressive at the time for a super hero movie. The Avengers' greatest strength was that it WAS an event. Every little kid went crazy, and it was well executed. It was everything the general public, and comic book fans alike wanted. It was lighthearted, but actually went deeper in meaning, provided excellent character development for everyone(except Hawkeye.. He's useless. He should have gotten his own Netflix Series instead), and it was a ton of fun. This was a welcome change form the origins movies presented beforehand(sans Iron Man 2... Which sucked). Iron Man 1 was a darker movie. Not gritty, but it wasn't this lighthearted funfest. Neither was Thor, Neither was captain America. Hulk was a dark movie. They all had bits of humor sprinkled in there, but it wasn't the point. The Avengers, the humor was showcased and a lot of the jokes hit. Tonally, they are very different even if they follow the same archetypical hero's journey(which btw.. Is the basis for EVERY comic book origins story ever, sans Superman really). Dark Knight, while a vastly superior film, was not a grand event. Nobody thought it was going to be as good as it was. The only real influence that Iron Man had on the rest of the MCU was that it was the first film. Thor was different tonally even if there are parallels in their origin stories(which, while I think Kenneth Braughnah is a good director, I can't give him or his writers credit. That's the doing of the source material). Same goes for Captain America. Marvel movies became way more lighthearted after the Avengers. Iron Man 3 was funny like the Avengers(but sucked), Thor the Dark World was a fundamentally different movie tonally than the first movie as the humor was a far bigger focus than the first one(fuck you Kat Dennings), Winter Soldier is the exception as it was Dark(actually. This is the one movie that's tonally similar to Iron Man. Darker, but not gritty and has humor sprinkled in when it has to), and then Guardians of the Galaxy took the humor to an overload.
2.It proved that the cinematic universe could work. Because let's be real here for a second, every movie that came out between Iron Man 1 and the Avengers was average, at best. And none of them really followed the framework iron man cast from a tonal or thematic perspective. They were all origins stories that were pretty comic book accurate all things considered. A primary difference between Marvel and DC's heros(Batman and Green Arrow are exceptions to this rule) is that all of Marvel's characters are very flawed coming out of the gates in some capacity, whether it be personality wise or physical. DC's hero's are generally gods or super powered human beings who need to develop more of a personality. Iron Man 1, Thor 1, Captain America the First Avenger, and the Incredible Hulk all are origin stories that are uncanningly accurate to the comics. The movie did a good job of executing the portrayal of the origin stories, but Iron Man didn't start the flawed hero thing. That started several decades ago. In fact, now that I think about it. The Avengers is one of the most influential films OF ALL TIME solely for this reason. This inspired their immediate competition to create an expanded universe, but not just the DCEU. DC on television has the "Arrowverse", which is a connected universe in it's own right. Universal Studios is trying to make the Dark Universe. Harry Potter is trying to create a connected universe. There's also the "monsterverse" with movies like Godzilla and Kong: Skull Island(yup. Those two movies are in the same universe. Thanks Avengers... Only one of them was good). X-Men extended their universe out to include deadpool in a possibly different continuity. No Avengers, none of this shit happens.
So yeah. Iron Man might be the better made film, but Avengers was more influential by far. The "Iron Man blueprint" wasn't really set by Faverau(even though he's a damn good director). Spiderman 2 did the idea of the imperfect/flawed hero better, so did Batman Begins, Both connected it to modern life too... I mean, Tony Stark is a billionaire. He may have been trapped in a cave for a long time with a potentially fatal injury, but when he comes home he's still filthy stinking rich. He's not like Batman in Batman Begins who willlingly spends 5 years of his life completely homeless and as a criminal(With a few stints in prison where he was routinely picked on by thugs). Or Peter Parker who despite his powers and high level of intelligence is clearly the epitome of a guy who is trying to get by financially. It's what makes Spiderman a good character). Also, if we are being totally honest, although not one of the main ideas of the movie, Batman Begins approaches Greed a hell of a lot better as well. Bruce's reckless spending to use as part of his playboy cover identity caries over into the other two films into that trilogy, and his time as a criminal makes him realize just how good he had it, and made him learn to not take his money for granted(even though the irony was that he was stealing from his own company).
Iron Man is a good movie. Avengers had a much larger impact on comic book movies(particuarly the MCU) and in entertainment in general.
Also, fuck you Avengers for the shitty Dark Universe by Universal. I blame you for this
you made a lot of good points above... just wanna say though that the dark universe looks dead on arrival thankfully
and obviously the marvel movies depend on the source material but id say its a bit naive to think that following the plot beats of original comics doesnt take good writing - in fact id say its harder to create a screen hero who adheres to the source material but still feels real and the audience can buy in - as introductions go id say iron man and thor were really well written films and the evidence for how closely following the comics doesnt necessarily make writing easier is the first avenger which was an awfully written movie
SepticeyePoe
Hall of Famer
So Tom Holland leaked the Infinity War poster on a live stream. I thought the video was funny. I'll try to find a link when I have more time.
haha that was really well done