The Giant Marvel Ciematic Universe Debate Thread, Mark XVII

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

Dark World was okay, but I actually thought the first one was far better.  I do appreciate both the Dark Elves and the setup for the Infinity Gauntlet though.

[Talavar]

Thor 1 IS the one I called obligatory for THE AVENGERS so each hero would have its own movie,well except Black Widow and Hawkeye. Dark World was much better than the first movie.

That's something we're agreed on then.

[BentonGrey]

Ohh Cat, you've got to be kidding me!  Dark World was FANTASTIC!  It was one of the best of the Marvel films!  I enjoyed Thor I, and it was a great adaptation of a character who is very difficult to adapt...but Dark World just brought it to the next level. 

So, this thread has exploded while I've been busy, apparently.  I've read most of the previous page, but I'm coming in so late to the game that the conversation has evolved a bit.  Let me offer just a few thoughts on the topics already discussed:

I don't understand all the hatred for Iron Man 2.  It had some flaws, but it is still one of the better Marvel movies, and that is an impressive pile to be at the top of.  The plot holes surrounding Tony's chest piece and his father's secret element were odd (I wonder if the director's commentary explains any of that), but the villain was interesting, and the final showdown was fantastic.  The central story of Tony struggling to come to grips with his mortality and his responsibilities was really excellent.  I'll take Iron Man 2 over Iron Man 3 any day of the week.

Speaking of which, any defense of the stupid switcheroo in IM 3 strikes me as ultimately futile.  It was a weak-sauce attempt to shock the fans, and it didn't add anything particularly worthwhile to the story.  All it did was waste Iron Man's greatest enemy.  Even the non-fans I saw the movie with found the concept extremely lame.  Kilian and his generic thugs were a fairly uninspiring foe for a comic film, and the whole thing left a bad taste in my mouth.

Tal, I would hardly hold IM 3 up as an example of good storytelling.  It has its moments, but it's too uneven and ham-handed to be particularly powerful or subtle.  Kilian's motivation was really weak, and the confusing grab-bag of powers he and his henchmen had made no narrative sense.  The interplay between Tony and Pepper was the only really strong point in the flim, other than the special effects, obviously.

Let's face it.  People don't go to see an Iron Man movie to NOT see Iron Man.  Just like people don't go to see a Superman movie to NOT see Superman, hence two common complaints about both films.  While I liked seeing Tony be clever and prove he's more than the suit, the whole thing just got tired, and, as someone pointed out, the treatment of his armor, in previous films, amazing pieces of unstoppable technology, just made it seem disposable and weak.

I didn't hate Iron Man 3, but it was certainly the weakest of the IM films.  It was still very entertaining, and it was not at all a bad movie.  It left me frustrated, though, because it should have been a great movie.

We've talked before about the Mandarin, but I see many of the same erroneous points being made about the character in this discussion. 

First, a character is more than its beginnings.  Because an idea has its origins in an unsavory setting, that doesn't stain it forevermore.  Look at Luke Cage, Black Lightning, The Falcon, and dozens more.  They started out, to one degree or another, as pretty racist characters.  Heck, The Falcon was retconned early on into being a pimp and gangster from the ghetto.  Yet, they've all risen above their humble beginnings to turn into worthwhile concepts.  The same is true of the Mandarin.  Yes, originally he was just another Fu-Manchu 'Yellow Menace' type character, but he's evolved into something better and more interesting over the decades since his introduction.  There was always a kernel of something more interesting in his concept, and it eventually grew into a character that deserves his spot as Iron Man's nemesis.  In fact....

Second, yes, the Mandarin IS Iron Man's nemesis, or at least, as close as Iron Man has to one.  In pure numbers, the Mandarin out-appears pretty much every other IM villain, both in Tony's book and in the Marvel U.  In the latter, he's roughly 100 above the nearest contender.  In the Iron Man book itself, he's usually double the other foes in number of appearances.  He's also the character that inevitably makes his way into every incarnation of Iron Man.  Even this movie, in its own backhanded way, owned this fact.  He's part of the Iron Man mythos, and hes' part of the Marvel U.  Outside of Batman, Spider-Man, and the Flash, most characters don't have fantastic rogue's galleries, but at the top of the list for IM is the Mandarin.  To ignore the character would be like adapting Aquaman and ignoring Black Manta.

On the topic of the Hulk and his actors:  I LOVED Norton as Banner.  He was fantastic, and The Incredible Hulk is still one of the best of the Marvel movies.  A lot of that awesomeness is thanks to Norton.  Like a lot of us, I was hugely disappointed when Marvel didn't bring him back for more movies.  To be fair, Marvel said it wasn't about money, Norton said it was about money, so I don't think it's quite as clear-cut a matter as some folks indicated. 

That being said, I agree, Ruffalo did a good job.  Yet, perhaps the best I can honestly say about him is that he didn't hurt the movie.  I still think it would have been better with Norton, but I really can't complain.  The Avengers was just about a perfect film, and Ruffalo did a good job with the part.  It's hard to imagine it being otherwise at this point, and if the worst thing you can say about a film is that it cast an actor who did a really good job rather than one who might have done a great job, you're being too picky.

[Tomato]

Eh, my only issue with Norton is and was that I feel like his ego would have hurt Avengers. You could tell in interviews that Downey wasn't thrilled with how his part had been scaled back(and as one of my coworkers says, Avengers was still basically IM 2.5 even with those changes), can you imagine how much worse it would have been if he and Norton had been feeding off each other? Putting aside the fact that I don't think Norton and Downey would have gotten along well enough to make the Stark/Banner bromance work, Avengers had to balance so many different elements that I feel like having Norton in there would have done nothing but throw everything off.

[Talavar]

Not going to quote you Benton, because it was a long post.  I think Iron Man 3 is head and shoulders above Iron Man 2 for a few reasons, mainly to do with storytelling.  Killian has more than one motivation - he wants to make boatloads of money, have the power of directly influencing the new president of the US, AND get back at Tony Stark.  Anton Vanko has one motivation - revenge on Tony for what Tony's father supposedly did to his father.  It's weak - not only is it one dimensional, it's not even about Tony personally. 

Iron Man 2 has the palladium poisoning sub-plot, something that showed off some of Tony's self-destructive tendencies, but then gets solved out of left field by Nick Fury and Tony's dad.  The first Captain America film did a bit to soften the blow by developing Howard Stark and giving some insight into unusual energy sources, but it's still a pretty lazy deus ex machina.

In Iron Man 2, the climactic scene involving the massive fight between War Machine, Iron Man and an army of drones is quite entertaining, but it all goes downhill once Vanko himself joins the fight.  The first Iron Man had already done the power armour vs. power armour battle finale battle, and we'd had some more in Iron Man 2 with Stark vs. Rhodey, and both are more entertaining.  Vanko whips them both a bit, then entangles them.  Instead of taking that opportunity to both shoot him in the face now that he can no longer block with his whips, they shoot each other's beams for the explosion effect that is in no way more effective than just shooting him. 

I quite liked the change in Iron Man 3 of not fighting another guy in an armoured suit.  The extremis soldiers were strong, fast, regenerating and fiery, which is admittedly, a bit of a grab bag.  But the fights with them were more interesting than watching Tony fight yet another metal doppelganger.

Overall, I think Iron Man 2 is probably the weakest Marvel film.  The resolution for Tony's personal character arc largely comes out of nowhere, the villain lacks motivation or much of an interesting story arc of his own, and in a lot of the smaller details it felt like what it was - rushed.  The time between Iron Man and Iron Man 2 is the shortest of any of the Marvel films and their sequels, and I think it shows.

[BentonGrey]

Eh, my only issue with Norton is and was that I feel like his ego would have hurt Avengers. You could tell in interviews that Downey wasn't thrilled with how his part had been scaled back(and as one of my coworkers says, Avengers was still basically IM 2.5 even with those changes), can you imagine how much worse it would have been if he and Norton had been feeding off each other? Putting aside the fact that I don't think Norton and Downey would have gotten along well enough to make the Stark/Banner bromance work, Avengers had to balance so many different elements that I feel like having Norton in there would have done nothing but throw everything off.

Like I said, I can't really complain about the finished product.  I don't know that much about the actors themselves, so I can't comment on egos or interaction.  Still, I can't imagine a better Bruce Banner than Norton.

Tal, ehh, I don't think you can really hold Killian up as being more fleshed out than Vanko.  His motivation was pretty weak, and his plan was more than a little murky.  He wants to make money, but that's the only thing that really comes through clearly, that and the fact that he can't take a joke!  At the end of the film, we sat around and tried to figure out what he was actually trying to do.  It took a while to hash it out.  I didn't find him a terribly interesting or compelling character, despite the fact that Guy Pearce chewed up every inch of the scenery every time he was on screen.  Vanko, on the other hand, had fixated on Tony as a symbol of everything that had gone wrong in his own life.  That makes sense.  His father was ruined by Stark, which in turn led to the son's own ruin.  He gets out of prison, and what does he see?  The young prince, living the life that Vanko felt was his.  It should have been developed better, but it was there in the film. 

Neither of them was a terribly compelling villain.  It wasn't like we had Loki to carry the film, after all. 

Yeah, like I said, the deus ex machina of IM 2 is its biggest weakness. 

Ehh, yeah, Vanko's time in the suit was woefully lacking.  He should have had a better showing, but I can forgive it since his role was a matter of degrees.  He had the first fight with Tony on the track, he sicced the drones on him, and then finally met him armor-to-armor.  As for it being the same as the first one, that's true, but that's more of a function of IM's rogue's gallery than anything else, methinks.  Upon watching the scene again just now, it seems like Vanko is trying to burn through their armor with the whips when he holds them.  He doesn't seem to have any guns on his suit, relying on the whips instead.  As for the repulsor thing, if Vanko didn't have his helmet open, that would have made more sense.  None of their weapons were denting his armor, but yeah, if he had his helmet open, they really could have just shot him in the face.  It does seem as if the repulsor explosion is more powerful than just a straight repulsor beam, though.  As I've said before, though, if you have to no-prize an explanation, the film failed in some way, and I certainly won't deny that IM 2 has plenty of flaws.

The Extremis soldiers made for some okay fights, but I'd have liked something more coherent in terms of theme from them.  Plus, the fact that Iron Man effectively slaughters tons of people who may very well have been coerced into fighting for Killian is sorta' glossed over in the asinine fireworks show at the end.  I'd have liked to see some magic vs. technology fights, personally.

That's funny, Tal, pretty much everything you say in your final thought there could be applied to IM3.  Tony's arc is resolved without any rhyme or reason.  He's got panic attacks, and then he doesn't.  The villain has shaky motivations and a murky plan.   

[Talavar]

I thought Killian's plan was pretty clear in IM3, Benton: he's got a method to produce super-humans.  They're strong, fast and regenerate, but they sometimes also go to hot and explode.  The formula is essentially flawed, but he uses those explosions (and the Fake Mandarin) to create a terror plot, driving up demand for the very super-soldiers he's making.  He also intends to get the vice-president (come president after he carries out his plan) in his pocket.  Revenge on Tony is just a sideline, along with some desire to blackmail him into fixing the extremis formula. 

The extremis soldiers all getting killed is something that was touched on - the first soldier that detonated wouldn't go along with AIM's plan.  I think it was suggested he was given a deliberate overdose.  The others seem to have been pretty on board with the plan to kill the US president, so I don't think we can feel too badly about them.

Tony's PTSD in Iron Man 3 doesn't just go away though, or get resolved by a random Nick Fury delivery - he starts freaking out for the last time in the film when he realizes his armour isn't ready, and in discussion with the kid (whose name I forget) he realizes it's not the suit that saves him, it's his ability to create.  He ad libs a bunch of weapons and storms the compound.  The panic attacks are about a loss of control, and Tony manages to retake it even without his armour.  It culminates in him getting surgery to no longer need the arc reactor in his chest.  Where he goes from there remains to be seen, but his final line is about still being Iron Man, but no longer needing the crutch.

[HarryTrotter]

Killian wants revenge on Tony because he stood him up ONE time.thats kinda petty.

@T:
How do you think they will work Guardians of Galaxy into this universe?Are they the ones who will bring Thanos down or what?
IMO This would have been WAY cooler if they opted for Galactus instead.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

1.  I'm pretty sure Galactus got licensed away with the Fantastic 4.

2.  Galactus has been done to death in adaptations.  I'd rather see the Infinity Guantlet.  Besides, once you beat an almighty space god, there's not that much more you can do with it.  An alien conqueror who wants to control all of the cosmos has much more future potential.

[HarryTrotter]

1.  I'm pretty sure Galactus got licensed away with the Fantastic 4.

2.  Galactus has been done to death in adaptations.  I'd rather see the Infinity Guantlet.  Besides, once you beat an almighty space god, there's not that much more you can do with it.  An alien conqueror who wants to control all of the cosmos has much more future potential.

Since Marvel apparently sold everything that was worth,we are left with Star Trek rejects.

[thalaw2]

The Thanos reveal was pretty awesome.  However, I think it would be cramming too much to try to put Infinity Gauntlet into a 90 minute movie and still tell a story.  The entire movie would have to focused on that gauntlet and taking Thanos out.  Would there be time to introduce Adam Warlock?  I hope they come up with a better way to take down Thanos than that actually. 

I would rather see Avengers vs. X-men which was one of my favorite stories when I was a boy.  It's a shame that won't happen for a long long time.

[bat1987]

While I didn't hate IM3, it's imo the weakest of the 3 Iron Man films.

Didn't like the main villain or the Mandarin plot twist. Had some cool Tony Stark moments though. As for the Mandarin, I definitely dislike how they handled him. While I agree that some aspects of Mandarin would have to be changed in order for him to work on the big screen, not a fan of how they chose to do it. Iron Man doesn't have a rich rogues gallery, I think his most reccuring foe, at least, deserves a better adaptation.
I did like Norton in Incredible Hulk. Would've been cool to have him on avengers as well, but what can you do. Ruffalo was a good replacement.
Thanos reveal at the end of Avengers was awesome, he's one the first foes that comes to mind when thinking of Avengers' villains.

[Starman]

Iron Man 2 and 3 just had uninspiring villains and too much corny, backslapping humour and pacing problems. The Mandarin twist in IM3 tried way too hard to be clever and hinged on some extremely blunt exposition from Killian. Both films overestimate the popularity of Gwyneth Paltrow. Comic book fans don't necessarily read Goop.

Thor: The Dark World suffered from too many corny moments when compared to the first Thor and had a strangely televisual style at times. Anthony Hopkins was also on autopilot without Kenneth Branagh to impress.

The Incredible Hulk simply wasn't that incredible. Once again, fairly boring villains (nasty government guy, bad version of Hulk).

The Avengers was ok, but once again corny humour and Loki as the chief villain was a misfire for me. He should be a manipulative baddie, not a guy who dukes it out with everyone. Plenty of other Marvel villains could have played the "tough guy", but they just used Loki to bring Thor into the fray. Also, Captain America, Black Widow and Hawkeye really got short-changed ... the character balance felt off.

Captain America has been quite good so far, with two really tonally different films so far, and I'm looking forward to the third film.

I'm also looking forward to Guardians of the Galaxy because I'm a fan of James Gunn and I was looking forward to Ant-Man because of Edgar Wright. Without him on board or a director of a similar calibre, I have zero interest in the film.

I think the Netflix series are part of the MCU ... Daredevil with Steven DeKnight of "Spartacus" fame should be great.

[Talavar]

1.  I'm pretty sure Galactus got licensed away with the Fantastic 4.

2.  Galactus has been done to death in adaptations.  I'd rather see the Infinity Guantlet.  Besides, once you beat an almighty space god, there's not that much more you can do with it.  An alien conqueror who wants to control all of the cosmos has much more future potential.

Since Marvel apparently sold everything that was worth,we are left with Star Trek rejects.

Galactus isn't worth much.  He's in what - one good storyline?  He can't be fought, he can't be reasoned with, his only motivation is his hunger.  Having the Avengers actually fight Avenger villains is a lot more satisfying.

Also, no one like Thanos has ever been on Star Trek.  Super-powers are in pretty short supply there.

[HarryTrotter]

1.  I'm pretty sure Galactus got licensed away with the Fantastic 4.

2.  Galactus has been done to death in adaptations.  I'd rather see the Infinity Guantlet.  Besides, once you beat an almighty space god, there's not that much more you can do with it.  An alien conqueror who wants to control all of the cosmos has much more future potential.

Since Marvel apparently sold everything that was worth,we are left with Star Trek rejects.

Galactus isn't worth much.  He's in what - one good storyline?  He can't be fought, he can't be reasoned with, his only motivation is his hunger.  Having the Avengers actually fight Avenger villains is a lot more satisfying.

Also, no one like Thanos has ever been on Star Trek.  Super-powers are in pretty short supply there.

His rubber face alien look would fit right in.

[XStream]

Thanks Tal for clearing that up. I knew there was some reason he was running around without a gold suit, but IM3 is one of the few Marvel movies that I do not own yet. And at this point it has been a while since I have watched it.

I also hated Fury swooping in to solve the problem in IM2. I also hated Rhodey stealing the Mark II suit. I didn't have any problems with Vanko until he pulled a Stane and suited up. In my opinion IM2 is the weakest Marvel movie, still good, but the weakest.

IM3 suffered from a drastic change in storytelling that I feel Cap2 accomplished well. I liked that there was not another villain in a suit. I liked that we didn't have an invincible Ironman. Sure the extremis soldiers were kind of out there but that is the type of villain it takes to dent Ironman.

One thing I loved about Incredible Hulk was watching that first battle on the college campus and thinking, "That is totally what Captain America would look like fighting on film." I did enjoy that movie, and there were no Hulk dogs or abusive fathers masquerading as janitors.

Never read a Thor comic mad thought it would never work on screen, so I didn't see Thor in theaters. When I did finally see it on DVD I was blown away. I might have watched it as much as Avengers.

[HarryTrotter]

This article sumes pretty accuratly why Marvels movies suck http://ryandanielsmith.hubpages.com/hub/DC-vs-Marvel-The-Dark-Knight-Rises-vs-The-Avengers

But let me just quote some parts:
The Punisher movies, which have been "re-booted" three times and never get off the ground, the incredibly corny Tobey Macguire Spidermans, and don't forget the horribly cheesy Fantastic four movies, highlighted only by the waning beauty of Jessica Alba, ya know, when she wasn't turning invisible.
And then there's the casting.
But no, its cool we'll just put a bunch of so-so actors into one CGI machine and see what we can churn out, that'll show em! We've got Robert Downey Jr, who can't play anything other than the sarcastic jackass that we all know and love, Mark Ruffalo, who... is Mark Ruffalo, Samuel Jackson, who would probably sign up for Batman (If they were that desperate), and the mildly talented Chris Evans. That's fantastic, the movie relied on special effects and quirky one liners so bad, I'm surprised it wasn't directed by Michael Bay.
Since 1951, DC movies have been nominated for 19 oscars, winning 3.
How many Oscars have Marvel Movies won in 70 years?
Zero. Nada boys and girls. Never even nominated, never even nominated for a special effects award.

[spydermann93]

[img]Since 1951, DC movies have been nominated for 19 oscars, winning 3.
How many Oscars have Marvel Movies won in 70 years?
Zero. Nada boys and girls. Never even nominated, never even nominated for a special effects award.

While DC movies have won more Oscars than Marvel movies, it still won't change the fact that I enjoy Marvel movies more (especially Marvel Studios).

If I were to rank all of the Superhero movies that I've watched based on how much I enjoyed the movie upon my first viewing (Movies higher on the list are the ones that I enjoyed more), it would be this:

Spoiler

~Amazing Movies~
Avengers
Captain America: The Winter Soldier
Spider-Man 2
Thor 2

~Pretty Good~
Captain America
Batman: The Dark Knight
X-Men: First Class
Batman Begins
Spider-Man

~Good~
The Amazing Spider-Man 2
Thor
Man of Steel
X-Men
Iron Man

~Meh~
Iron Man 3
Batman: The Dark Knight Rises
Iron Man 2
Batman
Batman Returns
X2
The Incredible Hulk
Spider-Man 3

~Bad, but not hated~
Hulk (2002)
X-Men 3: The Last Stand
Superman Returns
Ghost Rider

~Don't Watch~
Daredevil
Batman and Robin
Ghost Rider 2: Spirit of Vengeance

[HarryTrotter]

[img]Since 1951, DC movies have been nominated for 19 oscars, winning 3.
How many Oscars have Marvel Movies won in 70 years?
Zero. Nada boys and girls. Never even nominated, never even nominated for a special effects award.

While DC movies have won more Oscars than Marvel movies, it still won't change the fact that I enjoy Marvel movies more (especially Marvel Studios).

If I were to rank all of the Superhero movies that I've watched based on how much I enjoyed the movie upon my first viewing (Movies higher on the list are the ones that I enjoyed more), it would be this:

Spoiler

~Amazing Movies~
Avengers
Captain America: The Winter Soldier
Spider-Man 2
Thor 2

~Pretty Good~
Captain America
Batman: The Dark Knight
X-Men: First Class
Batman Begins
Spider-Man

~Good~
The Amazing Spider-Man 2
Thor
Man of Steel
X-Men
Iron Man

~Meh~
Iron Man 3
Batman: The Dark Knight Rises
Iron Man 2
Batman
Batman Returns
X2
The Incredible Hulk
Spider-Man 3

~Bad, but not hated~
Hulk (2002)
X-Men 3: The Last Stand
Superman Returns
Ghost Rider

~Don't Watch~
Daredevil
Batman and Robin
Ghost Rider 2: Spirit of Vengeance

This describes you pretty good.As somebody with no taste. 

[Tomato]

Yeah... First, the Oscars haven't meant anything for close to a decade now. They've shown time after time after time that the people who vote on the oscars don't even bother to WATCH the movies they're voting on. So... don't bring up the oscars again, k thx.

Second, when it comes to TDK trilogy... Yes, the trilogy is a solid trilogy, with a cookie cutter three act story (first movie introduces Batman, second puts him in worst possible circumstances, third gives you the happy ending) that amateur film critics love to see over and over again. However, the universe Nolan built is so isolated that Batman himself barely fits within it. It tries so hard to be "realistic" that a good half of Batman's rogues gallery (IE: The best part of the Batman cartoons and comics) would have had to be entirely reworked to even fit in the universe. I LOVED The Dark Knight, but by the time we got to TDKR, I was ready for the Nolanverse to die.

The article you posted goes to great lengths to talk about how the DC movies are "better" because they're more realistic and more thought provoking. I counter that A. Captain America was AT LEAST as politically charged as The Dark Knight, and B. Just because something is "realistic" does NOT make it better. Lord of the Ring, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Star Trek... these are brands that rely wholesale on the fantastic, many of which will still be considered classics decades from now. TDK was a great film, but by the time TDKR came out, I think audiences started to realize that it really didn't live up to the hype it had built up around it.

Yeah, the Marvel movies are more "fantastic," but that's what comic book movies are SUPPOSED to be. You can have the deeper, more charged stories (like Captain America 2) but at the end of the day, the reason people read comics is to see heroes saving people and stopping bad guys. Saying something isn't good because it's simple and to the point is stupid... much like saying because something can't be enjoyed by adults because it appeals to children.

[HarryTrotter]

Captain...IN AMERICA is too much politicly charged.HE WEARS A FLAG ON HIS HEAD.
This isnt about last years Oscars but FROM 1950 TILL TODAY.
As much as we like Marvel comics,the movies sucked.The sooner you all admit that the better.
DC movie maybe arent all masterpieces but they have a way better cast,always.

[spydermann93]

This describes you pretty good.As somebody with no taste. 

Opinions are opinions.

No need to antagonize.

[HarryTrotter]

Sorry.But seeing somebody liked Thor over Dark Knight is just unbelivable.

[spydermann93]

Sorry.But seeing somebody liked Thor over Dark Knight is just unbelivable.

I tend to like the more "comic-y" movies than those grounded in "reality".

To me, it's not so weird.  Don't get me wrong: the Batman movies were pretty good (better than most cape movies), but they weren't exactly in my taste.

Much like how Captain America isn't in your taste, Batman isn't exactly in my taste.

Now, if only they made a really good Superman movie.  Man of Steel was getting close to the Superman film that I want to see, but it wasn't quite there.

[HarryTrotter]

Man of Steel was kinda too dark for my idea of Superman movie.
@T
DK had some story and stuff.Avengers had just a generica alien invasion.Thats far too much for my tastes.From so many cool villans they made up lame aliens and use a bad copy of Darkseid

[President Raygun]

When I think of the Dark Knight, I always think of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2yv8aT0UFc

[Tomato]

Umm... actually, it DOES matter that the Oscars have been garbage for the last decade or so, because Marvel Studios didn't start making movies until 2008's Iron Man. Prior to that, Marvel's movies were all licensed out to other studios, and even those really didn't start until 2001's X-men. It doesn't matter if you go all the way back to 50 years ago when Marvel hasn't even been in the running until the last decade and a half.

[bat1987]

I'm a huge Batman fan, prolly my favorite fictional character ever (Spidey being second). I liked Nolan's trilogy a lot. It was a different take on the mythos and all 3 movies have memorable scenes and characters. That being said I'd like the next big screen Batman to have more of a comic-y feel to it. Man of Steel was way too bleak for a Superman movie. Not a bad movie but not something I expect to see when I watch Superman.

Marvel overall, IMO ofc, did a better job of adapting their characters. They are very close to their comic book versions (except for Mandarin lol). I don't think any of the movies "sucked". But I definitely think IM3 and Thor 2 were their weakest entries so far. Loved The Avengers, it was beyond cool seeing all these characters together after all that build up.

[Talavar]

This article sumes pretty accuratly why Marvels movies suck http://ryandanielsmith.hubpages.com/hub/DC-vs-Marvel-The-Dark-Knight-Rises-vs-The-Avengers

But let me just quote some parts:
The Punisher movies, which have been "re-booted" three times and never get off the ground, the incredibly corny Tobey Macguire Spidermans, and don't forget the horribly cheesy Fantastic four movies, highlighted only by the waning beauty of Jessica Alba, ya know, when she wasn't turning invisible.
And then there's the casting.
But no, its cool we'll just put a bunch of so-so actors into one CGI machine and see what we can churn out, that'll show em! We've got Robert Downey Jr, who can't play anything other than the sarcastic jackass that we all know and love, Mark Ruffalo, who... is Mark Ruffalo, Samuel Jackson, who would probably sign up for Batman (If they were that desperate), and the mildly talented Chris Evans. That's fantastic, the movie relied on special effects and quirky one liners so bad, I'm surprised it wasn't directed by Michael Bay.
Since 1951, DC movies have been nominated for 19 oscars, winning 3.
How many Oscars have Marvel Movies won in 70 years?
Zero. Nada boys and girls. Never even nominated, never even nominated for a special effects award.

Let's have a dose of reality here: the first Spider-man was nominated for 2 Oscars: FX and sound.  Spider-man 2 was nominated for 3, and won for FX.  Iron Man was nominated for 2.  Iron Man 2 was nominated for 1.  Iron Man 3 was nominated for 1.  Avengers was nominated for 1.  That's 10 nominations, and 1 win, and a lot more than "never even nominated."  DC has an edge there, granted, which they should considering DC has had movies coming out since the 70s, but you're just flat out wrong.  Troll better next time.

Then there's your critique itself: does Avengers even have any one-liners?  I can't think of a single one.  Either you don't know what one liners are (think Arnold: "I'll be back."  "Stick around."  "See you at the party, Rictor!"  "Ice to see you."), or you're repeating the criticism of someone who doesn't know what they are.  Like it or not, it's nothing like a Michael Bay film.  Your shifting goal posts are also fun - whatever one thinks of the Sam Raimi Spider-man films, they were financial megahits, and if they're cheesy, let me introduce you to the cheddar of the original Superman films.  You argue against the quality of one Marvel film series, but against the financial success of another.  But let's compare all of DC's film output with Marvel's: DC has made 6 Superman films, 7 Batman films and 1 Green Lantern film.  Is anyone going to argue that Superman 2, 3, 4, or Superman Returns aren't greatly flawed films?  And a lot of people have complaints about Superman and the Man of Steel.  Superman 4 flopped; Superman 3, Returns and arguable Man of Steel all underperformed financially.  Half of the 6 Superman movies are rated 'rotten' on Rotten Tomatoes.  Batman fares a little better: only Batman Forever and Batman and Robin are rated as 'rotten,' but Batman Returns is no prize pig, and the '89 Batman has lost a lot of its lustre since then.  Batman Begins and the Dark Knight are both very strong films, but the Dark Knight Rises dropped the ball significantly, with poor scripting and poor use of characters.  So once again, about half the films are actually good.  Batman & Robin flopped, but the rest of the 2 Batman series have done well financially.  Green Lantern was a flop and critical failure.  The less said about it, the better.

Marvel on the other hand, has made 2 Captain America films, 3 Iron Man films, 2 Thor films, an Incredible Hulk, and an Avengers film.  All are critical and financial successes, with the lowest aggregate rating actually being Thor 2 (which surprised me).  Marvel's batting a thousand so far, to about .500 for DC.  If you include films based on all of Marvel's characters, you add 3 Blade films, 5 Spider-man films, and 2 Punisher films (the first Punisher was never released theatrically), the picture's not quite as rosy, but still critically and financially a stronger group of films, with 7 more financial successes, and a bunch more critical successes.  Overall, Marvel has had a far more successful run at the movies than DC.

But you know Spider-man, the Punisher and the Fantastic Four aren't made by Marvel, they just have Marvel characters - because you've complained about it at length.  The movies actually made by Marvel have all been financial and critical hits (though to varying degrees), and most people have praised them on how well cast they are.  Maybe you just missed the great casting from DC, like George Clooney or Val Kilmer as Batman, or Chris O'Donnel (remember him?) as Robin, Arnold Schwarzenegger as Mr. Freeze, Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy, or Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor.  If only the Marvel films had been cast that well, we might have a few flops like the ones from DC to complain about.

[BentonGrey]

The Avengers was only nominated for one Oscar?  That's a crime.