3 ms·
> Through Endgame, it was an unprecedented undertaking involving the hard work of tens (hundreds?) of thousands of talented artists and technicians across the g
by slibhb 3y ago
> Through Endgame, it was an unprecedented undertaking involving the hard work of tens (hundreds?) of thousands of talented artists and technicians across the globe, marshalling untold resources over the span of a decade
Just imagine what those artists could have accomplished working in the service of an artistic vision instead of churning out corporate slop.
Live action super hero dramas started with Superman and reached maturity in Sam Raimi's Spiderman movies. Highlights are Robocop and Unbreakable (throw a Batman adaptation in there, probably The Dark Knight). By the time the MCU rolled around, the genre was well past middle age. Despite billions of dollars of life support, it will be remembered as the last tortured breaths of a somewhat embarrassing cultural episode.
- Cthulhu_ 3y agoHigh budget artistic vision does not translate to financial success though; it's ultimately a tradeoff. That said, good films don't need high budget. I don't agree with your last take, either; the MCU was when the superhero movie formula was perfected. We're now in a post-MCU phase where what is being produced just can't reach the same appeal anymore. Morbius and Madame Web are outright flops. They seem to be rebooting Fantastic Four for the 4th time. Any sequel to established MCU characters seem to be independent / standalone films, sometimes a bit gimmicky like Sam Raimi's Doctor Strange horror crossover episode or Thor's 80's glam rock direction.
- slibhb 3y agoIt's not always a tradeoff. Americans made big budget, artistically accomplished, highly successful movies in the 60s and 70s. As far as the rest of your comment, I'll just repeat my view that Sam Raimi's Spiderman movies are far better than MCU. And Robocop/Unbreakable are the best the genre produced.