Mind Your Surroundings: Arrow, The Flash, Supergirl, Legends of Tomorrow and Other Superhero Universes

[Morrigan2575]

Perhaps I misunderstood but I thought the article was saying that the Tv Show and Movie Universes would be separate. So the movie could have The Flash and Green Arrow but it won't be Grant G or Stephen Amell. The Movie characters wouldn't have any connection to the show (different actors, personalities, origin stories/back stories. ..etc)

[Sakura12]

At this point if the Flash is popular and an the Arrow writers can tighten up their storytelling, DC might as well let them be part of the movie universe. Since it's basically like this right now.

 

 

And Marvel will just keep running past them. The fact that almost all the Marvel movies and tv shows are connected enhances the viewing experience. People have gotten to know Stephen Amell's, Arrow and will get to know GG's, Flash, why not put them in the movies it's not like DC is going for the greatest actors in the world.

Edited July 20, 2014 by Sakura12

[slayer2]

Agreed. The DC Universe really needs to get it together. I think their only success filmwise lately has been Batman. Everything else has fizzled before it even began including a Wonder Woman TV show AND movie. I mean.... they'd only be doing themselves a solid jumping on the Arrow/Flash bandwagon.

Edited July 21, 2014 by slayer2

[writersblock51]

I think they're adding Green Lantern, not Green Arrow, to the movie.

 

If Green Arrow is shown - as opposed to mentioned - in the JL movie, then I cannot understand why it would be anyone else in the role but Stephen Amell.

 

Whereas with The Flash, the movie could decide they want Wally West instead of Barry Allen so that would be one way to get around having to keep Movie!Flash and TV!Flash completely in sync.

 

I think DC's movies are good (and Nolan's Dark Knight and the recent Man of Steel are favorites of mine) but the TV offerings are standing out.  Gotham already looks like I will enjoy it immensely.  Whereas Marvel's movies are nearly guaranteed fun (not too sure about the new Fantastic Four) while TV, so far, has been very spotty.  I'm very curious as to how the Marvel-Netflix shows will turn out.  I'm optimistic enough to want to give them a shot - Marvel has earned the benefit of the doubt from me.

 

I think Marvel's done an excellent job blending and connecting their movies, while keeping the individual characters' intact.  And I think they are planned out to 2028, or something ridiculous like that.  I don't know if DC has been able to plan more than 2 years ahead - or felt confident enough to announce their plans publicly.   DC has waffled, for decades, on Wonder Woman.  Marvel is jumping, head first, into Crazy Town with "Guardians of the Galaxy" (Groot is described as a houseplant, for pete's sake). When Marvel commits, they are all in.  DC is too careful.

 

Circling back to connecting the TV shows and the movies - why would they even hesitate to do so?  It makes no sense to me.

Edited July 21, 2014 by writersblock51

[wingster55]

It's possible that they would want to be more in line with comics continuity. In the comics Huntress and Oliver aren't the same age, etc.

[JayKay]

In my heart I "make mine Marvel," but DC doesn't have that Mickey Mouse money being thrown at them. They can afford a few stinkers and still wind up on top. DC doesn't have the resources to blow money on giving third-string characters their own tv shows that earn disappointing ratings yet get renewed (on a Disney-owned network) or make movies that feature anthropomorphic raccoons. They are actually afraid of giving their most powerful and arguably the most famous female superhero ever her own movie because the purse-strings are so tight and paralyzed with fear.

 

I'd guess the lack of integration and organization on DC's part is mostly due to financing and the absence of a legendary, global sequel-milking conglomerate backing their every move.

 

Personally, I'm glad that the Green Lantern movie failed and that DC isn't as bold and outlandish as Marvel is sometimes. It means I'll probably never have to see Dex-Starr, the Red Lantern cat's backstory in live-action and cry and cry.

[BkWurm1]

I'd guess the lack of integration and organization on DC's part is mostly due to financing and the absence of a legendary, global sequel-milking conglomerate backing their every move.

 

Except that Marvel had already proved its worth on a shoe string first with Iron Man and Thor and Iron Man 2 and had lots more in the works.  Disney didn't come in until after Marvel was a sure thing.  It doesn't cost much to dream and plan and DC has not been able to come up with a cohesive story to tell.  They have had their big guns Supes and Bats and just didn't try hard enough.  I think Marvel had to think outside the box since its biggest names like Spiderman and the X-Men were not under their creative control.  They went back to the roots of movie making, coming up with a good story to tell.  Suddenly the B squad are A-listers.  It's a pretty amazing trick IMO.

 

Superman Returns was a wasted effort not IMO due to any of the actors but with the story being told.  Lex Luthor's scheme was recycled and dated and Lois's  oops I how did I get pregnant and Clark's deadbeat dad status was just unpleasant.  I understood what was trying to be accomplished and perhaps if that movie had directly followed Superman II it would have had a better reception (assuming another movie tied up the loose ends) but it was a mistake to try to go back and reboot in the middle of another franchise.  Audiences IMO were now more sophisticated and now found that version of Lex Luthor clownish and too cartoonish to really be a worthy adversary.  

 

Smallville sucked at a lot of things but the tone of their Lex was absolutely the right direction.  He was the villain but he thought he was saving mankind.  So much better than he wanted to make a killing off a real estate deal.  Sigh.

 

But back on topic, I am happy to keep the TV DC universe and the movie DC universe apart.  The projects are at this time just not complementary and as much as I admire Agents of SHEILD for being in universe, they started that way.  Arrow can't and shouldn't bend over backwards to align to a world that would make Arrow a vastly different place. Arrow is Oliver's story, not Bats or Supes or Wonder Woman.  I'm glad they are staying our of the sandbox. 

[tv echo]

I think they're keeping the DC movies and DC tv shows separate mainly for logistical reasons.  As Marvel's Agents of SHIELD has shown, it's too difficult to keep the TV show's timeline tied into the movies' timeline (esp. when you have different producers and directors) - movie production schedules and release dates change, but tv schedules are set.  It also hampers the tv show's story from flowing organically if it's too dependent upon what happens in the movies.  For example, the collapse of SHIELD could be shown on the tv show only after Captain America 2 was released.  (Marvel's Agent Carter will be different because it takes place completely in the past.)  At the same time, I would think that they wouldn't want to confuse younger fans - so if they could keep Green Arrow and The Flash out of the movies completely for now, they'd do that.  

 

However, the article did say that the Flash is a core member of the Justice League and that there's also a potential new movie teaming the Flash with Green Lantern.  So I suppose it's possible that they're going to just have parallel universes with different actors playing the same superheroes in movies and on TV.  That means perhaps that they either lack confidence in Grant Gustin's big screen persona or want to cast a bigger name star for the Flash in the movies.

Edited July 21, 2014 by tv echo

[wingster55]

Iron Man was an anomaly though. It wasn't projected to do well but word of mouth helped. 

[writersblock51]

 

Except that Marvel had already proved its worth on a shoe string first with Iron Man and Thor and Iron Man 2 and had lots more in the works.  Disney didn't come in until after Marvel was a sure thing.

This.  And this:

 

 

 

Iron Man was an anomaly though. It wasn't projected to do well but word of mouth helped.

 

I remember at the time that there was some well deserved concern about if Robert Downey Jr. could handle the role, the potential media focus and so on.  Now he's the center of that franchaise and appears to have been Tony Stark all along, hahaha

 

There were also negative reactions, published here and in Europe, about the casting of Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston in "Thor" - they were relatively unknown. 

 

Spider-man and Ant-man were founders of the Avengers in the comics and have not been mentioned at all in the movies.  Studio ownership has created gaps that the movies pretty much avoiding any discussion of, which I think is the only way to handle it.  Or - they can both share Quicksilver and just go with it.

 

DC should have been pretty flush & confident after "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight" - I don't think Marvel's success is solely based on how much financing they have compared to DC. 

 

As for "Arrow" - the show's budget was reduced for Season 2 and they STILL put together a solid season with top notch stunt crew, effects and props.  Money doesn't always equate quality. 

 

I think DC's confidence in 'the Flash' isn't very high right now.  hence the number of crossovers with Arrow.  that's just my take on it, at least.  I would much rather have had 'The Flash' get going on its own merit before puling in Oliver and Felicity.  There are crossovers and then there are distractions.

[dtissagirl]

I think Marvel also hit bull's eye when they decided the entire Cinematic Universe would have that clear tone of Family Movies For The Age Of The Geek. The movies are FUN before they're anything else. It's like they're making movies for the generation who grew up on Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Goonies, Back to the Future, etc, who are all in their 30s and 40s now, and who all have kids they wanna take to the movies so the next gen can experience that feeling of the '80s matinee Summer blockbusters. And it WORKS.

 

It also helps that they're managing to keep the movies connected. It feels like going to the movies to watch the next episode of a mega-sized TV show. Not to mention they're totally having fun with adding extra sub-genres to superhero movies -- Iron Man 3 is a Christmas movie about a dude with so much self-doubt he thinks the machine he created has all but replaced him. Thor 2 is pretty much Shakespeare in Space -- reluctant hero, jealous brother, unbearable father, sacrificing mother, it's all there. Captain America: Winter Soldier is a legit spy movie first and foremost. The superpowers and explosions and whacky villains work for the kids, the subtext/sub-genre works even better for the adults.

 

DC and Warner Bros' idea of cohesive tone is GRITTY GRIMY ANGSTY movies with muted colors and no humor [except for Green Lantern, which was just plain goofy, but it was also the wrong kind of goofy]. No idea if that's blatantly to be THE OPPOSITE of Marvel, or because of Nolan and Goyer's influence -- both of whom are adamant on this specific kind of superhero movie that feels like it's embarrassed of being a superhero movie, and so they go out of their way to be über-realistic white dude dramas instead. [Which: snore.] So it feels like they're still making movies for the 18-49 adult male demo, while Marvel is making movies for everyone.

 

I think Arrow actually started exactly like that -- angsty white dude who doesn't know how to crack a smile and with a REVENGE! list of people to kill -- but since TV shows organically evolve, the tone evolved as S1 progressed, with some added warmth, and humor, and HEART to the story. They hit the perfect tone stride in 201-209, even. The Flash pilot has that same kind of *heart* to it, which I guess is something the Marvel movies got in spades, but Nolan's Batmans and Goyer/Snyder's Supes almost completely lack.

[writersblock51]

I think Marvel also hit bull's eye when they decided the entire Cinematic Universe would have that clear tone of Family Movies For The Age Of The Geek. The movies are FUN before they're anything else. It's like they're making movies for the generation who grew up on Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Goonies, Back to the Future, etc, who are all in their 30s and 40s now, and who all have kids they wanna take to the movies so the next gen can experience that feeling of the '80s matinee Summer blockbusters. And it WORKS.

 

...

 

I think Arrow actually started exactly like that -- angsty white dude who doesn't know how to crack a smile and with a REVENGE! list of people to kill -- but since TV shows organically evolve, the tone evolved as S1 progressed, with some added warmth, and humor, and HEART to the story. They hit the perfect tone stride in 201-209, even. The Flash pilot has that same kind of *heart* to it, which I guess is something the Marvel movies got in spades, but Nolan's Batmans and Goyer/Snyder's Supes almost completely lack.

 

Excellent anaylsis. !   The part in bold is an on-target description of my husband & me, too.  I will add that my siblings and I grew up having our very happy & enthusiastic parents take us to those movies, too.  So, now, Marvel is an automatic 'fun movie' to see for 3 generations of my family.  I have no idea how typical we are, or not, but I think Marvel's appeal definitely works for more than just a single targeted audience.

 

I think the entire Spider-man franchise falls into that same category, too. 

 

I got the sense that "Man of Steel" tried to hit those notes, too.

 

Back to Arrow and the Flash, I talked about these shows with my parents this weekend.  They are fans of S.H.I.E.L.D, especially once it started gelling with Captain America: Winter Soldier (a movie that they also loved, more so than the Avengers).  They've tried "Arrow" in Season 1 and just didn't like it much.  We may have convinced them to give it another try and skip a few, specific episodes.  The same thing with my brother and his kids.

 

But my folks are already looking forward to "The Flash" because he's a more familiar character to them.  they were surprised when I explained it was a spin off of 'Arrow.'  So now they are more likely to go back to "Arrow" for that connection, too.  They have Netflix...

 

This weekend was my son's birthday & "Guardians of the Galaxy" themed.  Only 1 kid (a cousin) knew about the movie, out of 13.  Only a few adults knew about it.  The previews look 'weird,' and the comments were along the lines of 'is that really Andy from Parks & Recreation?', 'Zoe Saldana loves being green, doesn't she?' and 'Why is there a raccoon with a machine gun?'   We had put together a guide for everyone.  People seemed to appreciate it BUT the real 'Aha!' interest came when they read about the connection to Thor and the Battle of New York.

 

And just like that, we've convinced at least 25 people to go see the movie.

 

And THAT is why Marvel is working out so well right now.

 

DC may get that buzz eventually with Superman Vs Batman.  I don't know if Aquaman, Wonder Woman, a new Green Lantern and the Flash will be enough to have DC go toe-to-toe with Marvel on the big screen. 

 

The more I think about it, the more I think "Arrow" is better off doing it's thing on TV.... I do wish it was on a different network, though, so that it could be recognized for the excellent stunt work.

[slayer2]

dancingnancy, Very enlightening post and all so very true. It certainly does harken back to that time and there's probably something to be said for the state of the world and the need to have feel-good movies like that as well. I don't know that the Batman franchise would do as well if it were released today given the imminent darkness surrounding it and the controversy only made it worse (Heath Ledger passing away, the movie theatre shooting). I definitely agree that Arrow lightening up second half of season one and that they had to, I don't know that they would have lasted if they didn't. I don't think now is the time for entirely dismal shows about revenge and such, so it makes sense that his arc went from out and out murder to working with the police to have them arrested.

 

ETA I'm also peeved about the disrespect that naturally follows CW/WB shows. They really do deserve better.

Edited July 21, 2014 by slayer2

[apinknightmare]

I think DC's confidence in 'the Flash' isn't very high right now.  hence the number of crossovers with Arrow.  that's just my take on it, at least.  I would much rather have had 'The Flash' get going on its own merit before puling in Oliver and Felicity.  There are crossovers and then there are distractions.

 

I don't know if they don't have confidence, but having watched The Flash's pilot, it's very light and doesn't have that dark, gritty feel DC loves so much. They might be confident in the quality (which is high, I enjoyed it), but given the other products they've put out, maybe they're just not sure their typical target audience will tune in and enjoy.

[slayer2]

So, um...where did you watch the Flash premiere? (asking for a friend).

Edited July 21, 2014 by slayer2

[apinknightmare]

So, um...where did you watch the Flash premiere? (asking for a friend).

 

Haha, I clicked on a link that was posted on a site - it's loooooong since been removed.

[Sakura12]

I loved the Flash pilot because it was more light hearted. I'll probably be giving up on Arrow and watching Flash for that reason. Hopefully they don't introduce an original character only to replace them with the comic person, that has never gone over well for me being that I'm a Chloe and Sara fan. 

Edited July 22, 2014 by Sakura12

[tv echo]

The movie Batman Begins aired recently on TV and, watching it, I was struck again by how it "inspired" Arrow.  Though Katie Holmes was panned by critics, I actually liked her as Rachel Dawes.  I thought that she came across as a compassionate, passionate and sometimes vulnerable lawyer and that she had chemistry with Christian Bale.  I also thought, 'this is what Laurel was supposed to be' -- the hero's childhood sweetheart who became a warm, compassionate lawyer who fights for justice and someone who knows the hero down to his bones - enough to know that his Bruce Wayne persona is now the mask and his costumed alter ego is now the real him, and who hopes that someday he will return to being the boy she loved before he went away.  The problem, of course, is that Laurel never came across that way and the two actors had zero chemistry, and so the Arrow TPTB had to struggle to change her character to fit the actress' strengths.

[icandigit]

Do I need to watch the first Captain American movie to enjoy the second one? I want to just dive into the second one.

[dtissagirl]

@icandigit -- I don't think you HAVE to because they do recap the important stuff in Cap 2, but they're pretty related, yes.

[Starfish35]

Yeah, I second what dancingnancy said.

I really enjoyed both movies actually. But Winter Soldier was just incredible. :)

[JayKay]

In a couple of scenes the emotional beats and twists of the movie lean kind of heavy on some of the things that happened in Cap 1, though it shouldn't be hard to get the gist of it. But on the plus side, you probably won't cry during a certain scene, so that saves some embarrassment.

[Starfish35]

Ha

is that the scene with Peggy?

How would you all (those of you that have seen them) rank the MCU movies, from worst to best? (Or best to worst if you prefer - lol)

Edited August 1, 2014 by Starfish35

[dtissagirl]

How would you all (those of you that have seen them) rank the MCU movies, from worst to best? (Or best to worst if you prefer - lol)

 

Oh, man, this question kills me. I have this thing where I think Cap 2 is the best of the movies BY FAR, but I have this crazy unreasonable emotional attachment to Iron Man 3, so that one is my favorite? And then I go into this crazy downward spiral of best movie vs. favorite movie. Hee.

 

I'm also the only person I know that likes Iron Man 2 better than either Thor 1 or Hulk. And I don't think IM2 is good at all, but I had FUN with it [and mocking it], whereas the other two I barely even remember the plot.

[Sakura12]

I just saw Guardians of the Galaxy, I loved it too. Not as much as Winter Solider, but with a 2 hour running time I wasn't bored at all. I think the humor played a big part in that. 

 

I liked Dollhouse, it wasn't the greatest, I enjoyed it. But I also wasn't upset when it got cancelled. Tatiana Maslany raised the bar in playing multiple characters, no one is in her league right now. 

 

My ranking from best to worst would probably be The Avengers/Winter Solider (they tie for first with me), Iron Man 1, Guardians of the Galaxy, Captain America 1,  Iron Man 3, Thor 1, Iron Man 2, Thor 2, then I guess the Hulk movies (though I don't know if those really count that much towards the current MCU)

Edited August 1, 2014 by Sakura12

[JayKay]

Yeees T-T

 

1. Winter Soldier

2. The Avengers

3. Iron Man

4. Captain America

5. Thor 2

6: Iron Man 2

7: Thor

8. Iron Man 3

[#s]

[more #s]

[sony and Fox films that aren't even in the MCU]

[Action figures of MCU characters]

37. The Incredible Hulk. Never ever liked the character until The Avengers.

 

Haven't seen Guardians yet but hopefully it will rank just below The Avengers. It would have to be pretty great to beat #2, but I do have massive love for Chris Pratt.

[catrox14]

I far preferred Dollhouse to Firefly. In fact, I don't like Firefly but I thought Serenity was great. 

[Starfish35]

Yeees T-T

1. Winter Soldier

2. The Avengers

3. Iron Man

4. Captain America

5. Thor 2

6: Iron Man 2

7: Thor

8. Iron Man 3

[#s]

[more #s]

[sony and Fox films that aren't even in the MCU]

[Action figures of MCU characters]

37. The Incredible Hulk. Never ever liked the character until The Avengers.

Haven't seen Guardians yet but hopefully it will rank just below The Avengers. It would have to be pretty great to beat #2, but I do have massive love for Chris Pratt.

Knew it!

Haha love your list. I think it's mostly how mine would be, except I would switch Thor and Iron Man 2. And I'm not sure where I'd put the Sony and Fox movies. Hmm will have to think about that?

Here's another question (since you mentioned the Sony movies) - Tobey Maguire or Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker?

[manbearpig]

Avengers

The Winter Soldier

 

And, uh...I don't care about the rest of the movies enough to rank them. I did enjoy most of them, though. They're all fun movies. Haven't seen Guardians of the Galaxy yet. Pumped for Age of Ultron.

 

I liked Dollhouse, it wasn't the greatest, I enjoyed it. But I also wasn't upset when it got cancelled. Tatiana Maslany raised the bar in playing multiple characters, no one is in her league right now.

 

I prefer Dollhouse to Orphan Black. Orphan Black is a good show. It's a lot of fun, but I know I wouldn't be watching if it wasn't for Maslany.

[JayKay]

Here's another question (since you mentioned the Sony movies) - Tobey Maguire or Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker?

Oh no. Maaan. See, I think they could have cast a better Peter than Tobey but I also think they could have made a better Amazing Spider-Man movie starring Andrew as Peter. So Tobey. Just barely. Who is your pick?

 

(I actually did switch Thor and Iron Man 2 around right before I posted it. It was a tough choice!)

 

@Sakura12, if TM had played Echo, Dollhouse might still be on the air.

[Starfish35]

Hahaha sorry. I'm asking all the annoying questions today. :)

I prefer Andrew. And Emma Stone to Kirsten Dunst. I haven't actually seen ASM2 yet though, although I've been spoiled for what happens. I just really enjoyed him as Peter in the first one though, even though in many respects I wouldn't argue that the Raimi movies weren't better. (Double negative alert)

[Sakura12]

I'm in the same boat, I like Andrew Garfield better as Peter Parker but I liked the Tobey Maguire movies better. I definitely prefer Emma Stone to Kirsten Dunst. I also preferred Gwen Stacy to Mary Jane as LI. 

[JayKay]

Yeah, Emma Stone was a huge get for those movies. I haven't seen ASM 2 either but at least the third one probably won't devolve into a surreal musical.

[BkWurm1]

For me Tobey McGuire and his movies (at least the first two) are the better ones but yeah, I hated Kirsten Dunst and her Mary Jane.  Emma Stone is wonderful but I haven't been eager to see the second movie since I'm spoiled. 

 

1. The Avengers

2. Iron Man

3. Winter Soldier

4.  Thor

5. Iron Man 3

6: Iron Man 2

7: Thor 2

8.  Captain America

 

It's actually a tough list to make since I enjoyed all of the movies.  Thor is pretty high on my list because, well, shallow reasons.  In many ways Thor 2 was IMO a better movie but first loves and all that.  I think Iron Man 2 was a much better movie than it gets credit for.  It's highly rewatchable.  Captain America has to stay on the bottom simply because of the ending.  I know they had to drop him in the ice but it was a weak plot point plus I'm still mad about the lost romance and I hold a grudge. 

[Sakura12]

People aren't watching Spiderman 2 because of the ending? They just followed the comics so I expected it and I always thought Gwen Stacy was a better match for Peter. 

 

I found the Thor movies really boring, the best part of both movies imo was Kat Dennings. I only liked Thor in the Avengers. I also don't get the big fuss about Loki. I liked him as the villain, but people seem to be obsessed with him. Also Natalie Portman is completely wrong for the part. 

 

Since were talking about Marvel movies, what does everyone think of the X-Men movies?

[Starfish35]

People aren't watching Spiderman 2 because of the ending? They just followed the comics so I expected it and I always thought Gwen Stacy was a better match for Peter.

No that's not why I haven't seen it. I just rarely ever see movies in the theater (I'm talking maybe four or five in the last ten years rarely). Winter Soldier was the last movie I went to this year. Everything else that's come out I'll probably end up waiting for it to come out on video. So that means ASM2, X-Men:DOFP, and a few others. Probably GOTG - we'll see.

I found the Thor movies really boring, the best part of both movies imo was Kat Dennings. I only liked Thor in the Avengers. I also don't get the big fuss about Loki. I liked him as the villain, but people seem to be obsessed with him. Also Natalie Portman is completely wrong for the part.

I don't get the Loki obsession either. He's a fun villain, and I enjoy the complicated relationship that he and Thor have, but nothing beyond that. I like Thor and Jane, but I haven't read the comics, so I don't know how she compares to comics!Jane.

Since were talking about Marvel movies, what does everyone think of the X-Men movies?

I enjoy them. Haven't seen DOFP yet, but I'm looking forward to it. X2 is probably my favorite, and I pretend Last Stand doesn't exist. The others...probably like this.

1. X2

2. X-Men

3. X-Men: First Class

4. The Wolverine

.

.

.

.

5. X-Men Origins: Wolverine

Edited - changed my mind about the order of 3 and 4.

Edited August 2, 2014 by Starfish35

[BkWurm1]

People aren't watching Spiderman 2 because of the ending? They just followed the comics so I expected it and I always thought Gwen Stacy was a better match for Peter.

 

Yeah, I expected it to but that's one reason why I never was enthused about the reboot.  I don't like unhappy endings and I definitely don't want an unhappy ending in my big blockbuster comic book movie.  I'll watch it eventually but I hate being given something only for it to be taken away. 

 

I also don't get the big fuss about Loki. I liked him as the villain, but people seem to be obsessed with him.

 

I don't obsess but yeah, I love Loki.  He's the bad guy and yet he's still family...its a weird dynamic but fascinating to watch IMO. 

[NumberCruncher]

I found the Thor movies really boring, the best part of both movies imo was Kat Dennings. I only liked Thor in the Avengers. I also don't get the big fuss about Loki. I liked him as the villain, but people seem to be obsessed with him. Also Natalie Portman is completely wrong for the part.

I don't think the obsession has as much to do with the character as it does with the actor playing him. Hiddleston is basically a Tumblr fangirl's dream because he engaged the fans and media so thoroughly. Because of that, I think the love of him manifested into the current obsession with Loki the character.

I'll throw my rankings of the Marvel movies in while I'm at it:

1. The Avengers

2. Captain America: The Winter Soldier

3. Guardians of the Galaxy

4. Iron Man

5. Thor: The Dark World

6. Thor

7. Iron Man 3

8. Captain America

9. Iron Man 2

Haven't seen any of the Hulk movies as I had little interest in the character or any of the actors portraying Bruce Banner (except Ruffalo--if he ends up with a solo movie I'll reconsider).

[Starfish35]

I've seen both of the Hulk movies, but yeah, they're not the best. I liked Incredible Hulk a little more than Hulk. I liked both of the Bettys though. I'd like to see her again in the MCU. I wonder if they would still have Liv Tyler play her or if they would recast like they did Bruce (excellent choice on that one btw).

Edited August 2, 2014 by Starfish35

[FurryFury]

Thor movies are probably my favorite in the MCU basically because they aren't in a superhero genre, more like space opera. Actually, I found Thor 2 to be very "Doctor Who" in tone, and I love DW... well, loved, before Moffat took over. Jane is the only weak link for me.

 

I don't care about Captain America as a character, but I had to force-feed myself his first move to see Winter Soldier, because I needed to know the backstory. It wasn't as bad as I expected, but mostly pretty meh. I'm waiting for DVD release of WS, but I hope to enjoy it more because of SHIELD angle (also, I love Natasha).

 

I don't care about Iron Man much, he's OK as a part of an ensemble and RDJ has lots of charisma, but I guess I don't care enough about him as a lead. I did like Pepper, but not anyone else.

[tv echo]

I have not seen Guardians of the Galaxy or any of the Hulk movies, so here's my Marvel rankings:

 

1. The Avengers

2. Iron Man

3. Captain America: The Winter Soldier

4. Captain America: The First Avenger

5. Iron Man 3

6. Thor

7. Thor: The Dark World

8. Iron Man 2

 

I don't necessarily think The Avengers was the best movie, but I loved having all of the superheroes in one movie and thought the director did a great job of juggling all the stars' screen times.  I have an affection for the first Iron Man movie because its success started the whole franchise ball rolling.

Edited August 2, 2014 by tv echo

[poetgirl925]

1. Winter Soldier and The Avengers (tie)

2. Iron Man

3. Captain America: The First Avenger

I actually saw them out of order since I get busy and don't often go to the movies (plus no movie theater where I'm living right now.) I think it went like Iron Man 1 and 2, The Avengers, Captain America 1 and 2, Iron Man 3, and then the Thor movies. What I liked about the four I picked is that we got solid character development along with a great origin story and great action sequences. I suppose there was less character development in The Avengers but I liked how they made the team come together and the writing and dialogue were so on point. They also get props for making me care about The Hulk/Bruce Banner. I have never, ever liked that character but I did in Avengers.

Thor would just be at the bottom of the list. I'm not a particular fan of the lead actor, so maybe that's part of it. I like Natalie Portnan but felt her character wasn't particularly well written and a lot of the character development felt really rushed. Maybe I never would have felt that way until seeing the care that went into character development in the CA movies but it's a huge contrast watching them all one after another. Loki was the best thing about the Thor movies (for me anyway.) Most of the time I was just waiting for it to be over.

I remember Dollhouse but I never made it past the first season. I just didn't find that to be Dushku's best work, and that subject matter needed careful handling and execution IMO.

[icandigit]

Really loved winter Soilder. Really amazing. I like Capn America ok  but I'm more of a Hawkeye and Natasha fan. The falcon was so frickin adorable. Glad I watched but still not enough excitement to make me watch Agents of Shield.

[statsgirl]

My view of Guardians of the Galaxy is tainted by the guy who does We Minored in Film pointing out that Marvel will do a superhero movie featuring a raccoon and a tree before they will do one with a female superhero starring.

 

I liked Dollhouse but the idea that they would force these people into doing things that they wouldn't do in if they had independence of action was pretty awful.

I'm a Loki fangirl because as a character, he just seems more interesting than Thor, or any of the other Marvel heroes except maybe Tony Stark and Bruce Banner when they're snarking at the lack of knowledge of the other characters.  There's also that whole "Shakespearian trained" thing because when  you listen to Hiddleston talk about his roles, there's so much depth and interest to what he has to say.

Hiddleston did Coriolanus this spring for the National Theatre and they released some videos of him prepping for the part -- quite a lot a physical working out and stair climbing to get in shape to do it.

[Sakura12]

It's not like DC is eager to make a movie around a female hero either. So I don't believe it's just a Marvel thing. In the Woman who Kick Ass panel, Natalie Dormer pointed out that Katniss Everdeen is an anomaly. Actresses looking for a complex female action role in film will be looking for a very long time. 

 

However, Guardians of The Galaxy was co-written by a woman, Nicole Perlman, I met her at my cousins wedding last year. Right now she is working on screenplay for Black Widow, whether it'll ever make it to screen is still another thing.

Edited August 2, 2014 by Sakura12

[willpwr]

To be fair, both Marvel and DC tried before and Elektra and Catwoman were disappointing. TV-wise Birds of Prey wasn't very good either. I have heard about the possibility of a Black Widow movie as well. I think the way Agent Carter is received will definitely affect if we get a BoP show as well as movies about female superheroes. IMO it's definitely time they try again, though. They just need to be smarter in regards to scripts. I love seeing strong women kick ass, they need to make good casting choices, not just go for who's hot at the moment.

[writersblock51]

Just saw GotG last night - the whole family loved it, even my skeptical husband ("a raccoon, really?").  In fact, my husband laughed longer and harder than the rest of us.
 
ANYWAY...
 
My rankings (and I've seen them all):
 
1. Captain America 2/The Winter Soldier
2. The Avengers
3. Guardians of the Galaxy
4. Captain America
5. Iron Man 1
6. Thor 1
7. Thor 2
7. Iron Man 3
9. Iron Man 2
 
I've been a Captain America fan since I was a little kid, and I think Chris Evans is perfect in the role. 
 
I think Marvel has done a fantastic job with all of the casting of the movies, too.  It started with Robert Downey, Jr as Iron Man (and I remember the noisy concern about any studio putting him at the helm of anything) and now Chris Pratt & Co. with GotG - so well done from start to now.
 
I didn't rank the 2 Hulk movies because they don't seem to fit in, necessarily, with the Phase 1 and Phase 2 thing that Marvel now has going.  I think Mark Ruffalo is a great fit for Banner/Hulk in the Avengers and post-Avengers landscape, too. That being said, I was very underwhelmed by the first Hulk but thought the 2nd one was a big improvement.  Had the studio gone with Ed Norton, I would have been more than fine with it.
 
I 2nd the comment that some of Loki's fan appeal stems from Tom Hiddleston - I happen to love how Loki was in the movies but I especially loved how the actor played him. And then when you see him in interviews (and his coming on stage in full Loki dress & persona at one of the SDCCs) well, that just about nails it for me.  He also is one of the few actors/actresses in the Marvel cinematic group who is extremely versed in the comic history of his character and the characters in that world.  As a fan of the comics going way back, I appreciate that he's a fan, too.
 
I did not grow up an X-Men fan but knew about Magneto and Wolverine through the Avengers and so on.  I've still seen the all of the movies, though I didn't enjoy all of them much.
 
So I'm only listing the ones I enjoyed:
 
1. X-Men First Class
2. The Wolverine
3. X-Men Days of the Future Past
4. X-Men
 
As for Spider-man, I enjoyed the first 2 Tobey Maguire ones because of him and, well, they were an absolute blast to watch.  My oldest loved them.  My youngest prefers the Andrew Garfield ones.
 
I think Andrew Garfield did a fantastic job, especially given that he was stepping into a very popular & successful franchise and had critics just waiting for him.  I think casting Emma Stone as Gwen. 

My son did NOT know what would happen to Gwen in the 2nd movie, I did. And I still cried.

  I also loved seeing more of Peter's father in the newest movies, plus Sally Field as Aunt May was wonderful.

To be fair, both Marvel and DC tried before and Elektra and Catwoman were disappointing. TV-wise Birds of Prey wasn't very good either. I have heard about the possibility of a Black Widow movie as well. I think the way Agent Carter is received will definitely affect if we get a BoP show as well as movies about female superheroes. IMO it's definitely time they try again, though. They just need to be smarter in regards to scripts. I love seeing strong women kick ass, they need to make good casting choices, not just go for who's hot at the moment.

 

I agree with all of this, too.

 

I also wonder if Marvel is watching how "Lucy" performs.  When the previews first came out, I saw the likelihood of a Black Widow movie drifting farther away.

[Sakura12]

Lucy barely qualifies as an action film, imo. Black Widow in the right hands could be an interesting movie and with the Guardians getting good reviews, I have confidence in the woman that's attempting to write it. 

Edited August 2, 2014 by Sakura12

[BkWurm1]

I thought they had locked down the Black Widow movie as a sure thing?  I hope they don't use Lucy as a test run since we are talking very different characters.  I'm already invested in Natasha.  I don't know or care about the clichéd Lucy.

 

Electra and Catwoman and even Birds of Prey - I have to say all of these were not well done.  Is there any movie more panned than Catwoman who isn't the Catwoman, just A Catwoman.  What the hell? 

 

I loved Jennifer Garner in Alias and thought her turn as Electra in Daredevil was an absolute highlight of the film.  But the movie Electra - the story was not only hard to connect to (cause she died in the Daredevil movie only to turn into an assassin- huh?) but poorly written. 

 

The Birds of Prey series had good points (Oracle and Huntress to a lesser extent) but found the casting of school age Dinah with weird mind powers off putting and out of place.  I could see a reboot of this doing really well today.  I think strong, ass kicking women are less intimidating now than even back when Bird's of Prey aired.  Three hot women with secret identities on the CW?  Yeah, it would be romance city but they could find a balance with the mystery and action and that would bring in an audience. Think a hard core Charmed minus the mystical and magical. 

 

I think the super powered female Superhero is the creature the is going to have a hard time ever getting her own franchise again.  It's the romance angle that I think stumps everyone.  Even in the TV version of Wonder Women, they never really figured out how to give her a love interest and I don't think writers know how to humanize an all powerful Superhero without adding a love interest. 

[Sakura12]

I thought they had locked down the Black Widow movie as a sure thing?

 

I don't consider anything a sure thing until they start filming it. 

 

I would watch a BoP show with Sara, Sin, Nyssa and I suppose Helena or Katana, if she's does well. All they would need is a good supporting cast and great writing and it could work. If they could get Barbara Gordon, that would be really great. But I don't think that would be possible. 

 

With the con that's coming here, I only have enough money for one so Sebastian Stan or Anthony Mackie? Choices, choices, I wish they were free like they used to be. 

Edited August 2, 2014 by Sakura12