Is the 'Marvel Cinematic Universe' franchise the best CBM franchise?

[Silver Nemesis]

But I'm curious Silver Nemesis, are you not a fan of the Burton Batman films?  I asked The Dark Knight the same question.   But I notice that you don't even refer to them in your post.

I love the Burton films, but I don't think they're a good series in terms of overarching narrative and continuity. Superman II and Spider-Man II both continue themes and character arcs that were established in the preceding films. Batman Returns doesn't. As standalone movies, Batman 89 and Batman Returns are both good. But truth be told, I wish Burton had gone with Hamm's Batman II script. If he had done, I think we would have got a more satisfying and cohesive series of true sequels to the 89 film. And Batman/Bruce would have remained the central character throughout that series, instead of playing second fiddle to the villains. But even so, I think Batman Returns is one of the most unique, textured, beautiful and sadly misunderstood interpretations of the Batman mythos. It's kind of like 'The White Album' of Batman movies. Which would make Batman and Robin the 'Smell the Glove' of Batman movies.

Objectively speaking, I think The Dark Knight is the best Batman film to date. It's not my personal favourite, and it isn't the most faithful to the comics. But it's the tightest overall and the one which comes closest to being perfect. Of course it's not perfect, but then none of the Batman films are. Subjectively speaking, my personal favourite Batman films are Batman: The Movie, Batman 89 and Mask of the Phantasm.

[BatmanFanatic93]

I love the Burton films, but I don't think they're a good series in terms of overarching narrative and continuity. Superman II and Spider-Man II both continue themes and character arcs that were established in the preceding films. Batman Returns doesn't. As standalone movies, Batman 89 and Batman Returns are both good. But truth be told, I wish Burton had gone with Hamm's Batman II script. If he had done, I think we would have got a more satisfying and cohesive series of true sequels to the 89 film. And Batman/Bruce would have remained the central character throughout that series, instead of playing second fiddle to the villains.

This right here pretty much explains my feelings for the burton films as well nice to know i wasn't the only one silver.

[The Laughing Fish]

I think Marvel has done a terrific job of not only combining different franchises together as one cohesive universe, but they consistently continue to make entertaining movies. The only movie of theirs I really didn't like at all was Iron Man 2, because it barely had a plot and nothing was at stake, but otherwise I've admired all of their films. So yeah, I think they are the premiere comic book film franchise.

The Spider-Man films I'd have to say would come second. Even though I thought Spider-Man 3 was mediocre because of too many subplots and villains, I thought the films have been good and none of them came close to being terrible.

Of course, I'll always have a soft spot for the Batman films - specifically Burton's take. Not perfect, but I admire the acting, the Art Deco cinematography, and its influence for The Animated Series in the 1990s - which is the best media adaptation of Batman.

Superman, apart from Donner's first film and yes even Man of Steel, I'm sadly become indifferent or grown to dislike all the films that came in-between those two. I love Reeve's portrayal, but unfortunately none of the sequels come close to matching his first film. Including Superman II.

But I'm curious Silver Nemesis, are you not a fan of the Burton Batman films?  I asked The Dark Knight the same question.   But I notice that you don't even refer to them in your post.

I love the Burton films, but I don't think they're a good series in terms of overarching narrative and continuity. Superman II and Spider-Man II both continue themes and character arcs that were established in the preceding films. Batman Returns doesn't. As standalone movies, Batman 89 and Batman Returns are both good. But truth be told, I wish Burton had gone with Hamm's Batman II script. If he had done, I think we would have got a more satisfying and cohesive series of true sequels to the 89 film. And Batman/Bruce would have remained the central character throughout that series, instead of playing second fiddle to the villains. But even so, I think Batman Returns is one of the most unique, textured, beautiful and sadly misunderstood interpretations of the Batman mythos. It's kind of like 'The White Album' of Batman movies. Which would make Batman and Robin the 'Smell the Glove' of Batman movies.

I disagree about Sam Hamm's original Batman II script. I thought it was completely rubbish that dragged on, it had an anticlimactic ending and would've had even LESS Batman screentime than he had for Returns. For what it's worth, I didn't think Bruce Wayne was that developed either; I felt the script emphasized to much on the Penguin's treasure hunt if anything. The second film we ended up getting maybe imperfect, and I'd be lying if I said I didn't wish to see more of Batman, but I thought it was a far better alternative to Hamm's script. At least it had characters that relate to the character. I mean, Hamm's take on Catwoman was just an evil cat-burglar who slashed people to death and, unlike Burton/Waters' take, wasn't even a reflection to Batman at all. I didn't like the Robin subplot either.

Objectively speaking, I think The Dark Knight is the best Batman film to date. It's not my personal favourite, and it isn't the most faithful to the comics. But it's the tightest overall and the one which comes closest to being perfect.

Please don't take this as a personal attack or anything, but I strongly disagree with you. I do make some negative comments on Nolan's films here and there, but the most resentment I have for out of all of his films would have to be The Dark Knight. I thought it was extremely poorly written for a film that became so highly regarded by fans and critics alike. Honestly, this movie as well as Batman & Robin, are the worst I've ever seen in the Batman franchise; they're just bad for different reasons.

TDK is full of logic gaps and holes that completely undermined its approach to staying 'realistic' and laughable attempt at character development. Harvey Dent's transition to Two-Face was so incredibly poorly done, and Batman's character is sidelined to take the fall for Dent at all costs. Batman never learns from his mistakes or recognises his own hypocrisy, and he is constantly outsmarted by the villains. The inconsistent characterization, such as Batman killing Two-Face in the end despite spending the entire film proving to be 'incorruptible' by not killing the Joker, which is especially reprehensible since he killed ninjas and Ra's al Ghul in the previous film.  But Superman killing a genocidal maniac is bad, right?  Say what you want about Batman trying to stop Catwoman from killing Schreck in Returns, but Nolan's take constantly breaks his moral code whenever he finds it convenient (Ra's al Ghul, Two-Face, Talia). TDK, as well as the first and third movies, made me really hate Batman for his hypocrisy. But really, Batman was sidelined because of Nolan's desire to make a convoluted plot, without a regard for consistent characterization.

The contradictory messages on human behaviour throughout the film drove me nuts i.e. people panic violently and try to murder Coleman Reese when Joker threatens to blow up a hospital...but convicts on a boat refuse to blow up another boat full of people?! Give me a break! Yeah sure, Batman is right when he says that some good exists in even among the most wicked, especially the way they defied Bane when he exposed the Dent cover-up...oh wait! The dialogue, just like in Begins, spells the themes out over and over again, and yet it comes across as so shallow, because the messages on human behaviour are contradicted throughout the film.

And again, too many things about this film that contradict its 'realistic' approach, like Batman works with the police despite his reckless approach to human life - at least the Arrow in the CW tv show is viewed as an outlaw, and the police do whatever they can to bring him down. And Two-Face's deadly disfigurement that nobody in the real world could ever survive from. Yeah, Batman can't be a detective and Joker can't look like a clown because it's unrealistic...but you can still have one side of your face completely charred and still talk properly, let alone you can survive from!

I could go on and on, but I'd take up another two pages. People here criticise TDKR, as they should, but I say that Dark Knight is just as idiotic. Apologies for the long rant, but for a film that everyone talks about as 'elevating' the genre, it has serious flaws that not even Batman & Robin suffers from. While Batman & Robin was bad because of its poor attempt at humour and inappropriate sexual references, The Dark Knight sucks because of its ridiculously convoluted, pretentious plot where nothing even makes sense, the characters' motivations are all over the place, and it has shallow dialogue and themes that actually have no business being in the film at all.

[johnnygobbs]

I think Marvel has done a terrific job of not only combining different franchises together as one cohesive universe, but they consistently continue to make entertaining movies. The only movie of theirs I really didn't like at all was Iron Man 2, because it barely had a plot and nothing was at stake, but otherwise I've admired all of their films. So yeah, I think they are the premiere comic book film franchise.

I agree that there was less at stake in 'Iron Man 2' but I kind of like that element.  I liked that it was simply an Iron Man story rather than another overblown 'the world is at stake' extravaganza.  I think too many comic-book movies feel the need to be bigger than the last film but occasionally a smaller-scale threat can be quite refreshing.

[johnnygobbs]

I love the Burton films, but I don't think they're a good series in terms of overarching narrative and continuity. Superman II and Spider-Man II both continue themes and character arcs that were established in the preceding films. Batman Returns doesn't. As standalone movies, Batman 89 and Batman Returns are both good. But truth be told, I wish Burton had gone with Hamm's Batman II script. If he had done, I think we would have got a more satisfying and cohesive series of true sequels to the 89 film. And Batman/Bruce would have remained the central character throughout that series, instead of playing second fiddle to the villains. But even so, I think Batman Returns is one of the most unique, textured, beautiful and sadly misunderstood interpretations of the Batman mythos. It's kind of like 'The White Album' of Batman movies. Which would make Batman and Robin the 'Smell the Glove' of Batman movies.

Objectively speaking, I think The Dark Knight is the best Batman film to date. It's not my personal favourite, and it isn't the most faithful to the comics. But it's the tightest overall and the one which comes closest to being perfect. Of course it's not perfect, but then none of the Batman films are. Subjectively speaking, my personal favourite Batman films are Batman: The Movie, Batman 89 and Mask of the Phantasm.

Subjectively-speaking my favourite Batman films are 'Batman '89' and 'MOTP'.  And I know what you mean about 'The Dark Knight' being an 'objectively' superior Batman film, although I do think 'Batman '89' is unfairly written-off in terms of tight-storytelling (the first-act is textbook tight storytelling IMHO in terms of setting up the 'birth of the Joker' and doesn't betray the fact that it was conceived during a writers' strike).  However, what I do respect about 'TDK' is that it combines great storytelling with relative faithfulness to the comic-books, particularly in terms of characterisation.

I have roughly similar feelings to you about 'Batman Returns' versus Sam Hamm's hypothetical 'Batman 2'.  As a standard sequel and franchise-builder 'Batman 2' would have been an ideal sequel (it's also an arguably much tighter and more coherent piece of storytelling than 'Batman Returns').  However, I like that 'Batman' and 'Batman Returns' are almost standalone films, and great ones at that.  They each express a unique sensibility and work perfectly well on their own terms (and as much as I adore the MCU franchise, it helps to get the best out of each separate instalment to watch them in the context of the films that bookend them).  I don't think 'Batman Returns' would have been regarded as the first (and possibly only) 'art-house summer blockbuster' (a description I interpret in vastly positive terms) if it had been a more traditional sequel.

And 'Batman & Robin' as the 'Smell the Glove' of Batman movies? 

[johnnygobbs]

I love the Burton films, but I don't think they're a good series in terms of overarching narrative and continuity. Superman II and Spider-Man II both continue themes and character arcs that were established in the preceding films. Batman Returns doesn't. As standalone movies, Batman 89 and Batman Returns are both good. But truth be told, I wish Burton had gone with Hamm's Batman II script. If he had done, I think we would have got a more satisfying and cohesive series of true sequels to the 89 film. And Batman/Bruce would have remained the central character throughout that series, instead of playing second fiddle to the villains.

This right here pretty much explains my feelings for the burton films as well nice to know i wasn't the only one silver.

Well that at least makes three of us BurtonFanatic93. 

[BatmanFanatic93]

I love the Burton films, but I don't think they're a good series in terms of overarching narrative and continuity. Superman II and Spider-Man II both continue themes and character arcs that were established in the preceding films. Batman Returns doesn't. As standalone movies, Batman 89 and Batman Returns are both good. But truth be told, I wish Burton had gone with Hamm's Batman II script. If he had done, I think we would have got a more satisfying and cohesive series of true sequels to the 89 film. And Batman/Bruce would have remained the central character throughout that series, instead of playing second fiddle to the villains.

This right here pretty much explains my feelings for the burton films as well nice to know i wasn't the only one silver.

Well that at least makes three of us BurtonFanatic93. 

[The Dark Knight]

Apologies for the long rant, but for a film that everyone talks about as 'elevating' the genre, it has serious flaws that not even Batman & Robin suffers from.

That's it, right there. Marvel Studios aren't ashamed to make comic book films.

Joss Whedon: "Every time people say, 'You've transcended the genre,' I'm like: No! I believe in genre."

[Edd Grayson]

I'd say it is the best for the way they've managed to connect all the films in the franchise and for the entertainment and quality of all the films.

There's not a film from this franchise I can say I didn't like compared to the other CBM franchises.

I like Burton's Batman films best and the 1966 film and Schumacher's to a lesser extent. I don't think Nolan's films are bad but certainly not that great or the best CBM films ever. I agree with The Laughing Fish's analysis of TDK. Although not perfect either, I'd take the Burton films over the Nolan films any day.

I like the first two Superman films and I think Man of Steel was not bad at all, but the rest of the films were disappointing.

I'm not a huge fan of Raimi's Spider-Man because I think they got Spider-Man's character wrong but I still like the films, especially the first two. I liked TASM too but its sequel isn't looking good.

I only saw the first two Blade films and I thought they were good but I'm just not a big fan of the character.

I thought the X-Men films were decent efforts and I really enjoyed the last one (XMFC) but I wouldn't say the franchise is better than the MCU, not even close.

Marvel Studios aren't ashamed to make comic book films.

Joss Whedon: "Every time people say, 'You've transcended the genre,' I'm like: No! I believe in genre."

I like that! 

[Silver Nemesis]

it had an anticlimactic ending

Burton had the ending of Hamm's 89 script rewritten several times. I expect the ending for Batman II would have been similarly reworked. But as a starting point, I thought Hamm's first draft was superior to Waters' in almost every respect.

and would've had even LESS Batman screentime than he had for Returns.

I think Batman would have had about the same amount of screen time as in Waters' script. Bruce Wayne would have had a lot more and would have been the film's central protagonist. Bruce was involved in numerous plot strands in Hamm's script:

•   Using his public persona to combat social injustice in Gotham (which Vicki was documenting through her photojournalism)
•   Battling the Penguin and Catwoman
•   Investigating the murders of the heads of the Five Families, and in turn reinvestigating his parents' murder and uncovering Napier's true motives in killing them
•   The love triangle between himself, Selina and Vicki
•   His relationship with Robin

In Waters' script Batman/Bruce has two storylines:

•   Reacting to the Penguin and his goons
•   Trying to save Selina

There's no dramatic impetus driving his actions throughout the movie. Not until the very end when he has a personal stake in rescuing Selina. Other than that, he's just reacting to the problems the villains create without having any deeper personal interest in them.

Hamm's script kept Batman as the main character and also gave substantial roles to Gordon and Alfred. In Hamm's script, Gordon is shown investigating crimes in Gotham, interrogating suspects in holding cells (just like he does in Nolan's films), visiting Bruce at Wayne Manor, and interacting with Harvey Bullock (yes, Bullock was in Hamm's script too). In Waters' script Gordon has four lines of dialogue, all of which could have been spoken by any other generic policeman.

I honestly don't see how anyone can claim that Waters' portrayal of Bruce, Gordon and Alfred was better than Hamm's. I like the portrayal of Batman in BR, but that's because I like Keaton's performance, the costume and the way Burton presented him on screen. But all of those strengths would have been present had they gone with Hamm's script, except they also would have had a compelling character arc to add dramatic impetus to his actions. In fairness to Waters, he did give Batman more lines in his original script. But they were largely cheesy one-liners similar to those spoken by Clooney in Batman and Robin. Thankfully Keaton – who clearly had a better understanding of the character than Waters – removed these lines from the script. The only one that made it into the finished film was the "Eat floor – high fibre" line.

Another advantage to Hamm's script is that I think Keaton would have liked it more. As things stand, he's expressed a degree of dissatisfaction with his role in Batman Returns. If they'd used Hamm's script I suspect he would have been more enthusiastic about doing the third film.

For what it's worth, I didn't think Bruce Wayne was that developed either; I felt the script emphasized to much on the Penguin's treasure hunt if anything.

But the treasure hunt storyline tied directly into Bruce's personal narrative (he possess one of the statues, the treasure is buried under Wayne Manor, and he discovers his parents' deaths were connected to the treasure). The election storyline in Waters' script doesn't involve Bruce in any meaningful way. He has one conversation with Shreck about it and that's all.

In Waters' script Bruce is exactly the same person at the end of the film that he was at the beginning. But in Hamm's script he definitely developed over the course of the film, learning to use his public persona to help the disadvantaged and affect positive change in Gotham. His attraction to both Vicki and Selina added an element of emotional conflict to his story, and the scene where he discovers his family's connection to the stolen wealth upon which the city was founded was far more powerful than any of his scenes in the finished film (I also love the flashback scenes taking place in the 19th century - just imagine a Victorian version of Burton's Gotham!). And the guilt he feels over that, combined with his apprehension regarding the copycat vigilantes, leads him to question his existence as both Batman and Bruce.

As far as the Penguin goes, I'm fairly certain he got more of an emphasis in Waters' story than in Hamm's.

I mean, Hamm's take on Catwoman was just an evil cat-burglar who slashed people to death

This I agree with. The Catwoman in Hamm's script was very similar to the version from the syndicated newspaper strip that was in print at the time. But she wasn't very likable or sympathetic. Waters' Catwoman was more a mixture of the Golden Age and Pre-Zero Hour versions. Overall, I liked Waters' version more than Hamm's. I guess that's the trade off – if you go with Hamm's script you lose Waters' Catwoman. Still, I think Pfeiffer could have made the more villainous Catwoman interesting. And I'd rather have a great Batman film than a great Catwoman film.

unlike Burton/Waters' take, wasn't even a reflection to Batman at all

I think she was. She's even mistaken for Batman during a number of scenes, which results in her crimes being attributed to him. The Bruce/Selina parallels weren't as heavily emphasised in Hamm's script, but the Batman/Catwoman parallels were definitely there.

I didn't like the Robin subplot either.

I loved it. They actually had Dick Grayson as a kid instead of a twenty something. They stuck to his back story from the comics and managed to incorporate him into the narrative in a way that was believable and unobtrusive. IMO it was certainly better than Waters' mechanic version of the character.

Harvey Dent's transition to Two-Face was so incredibly poorly done,

I thought it was handled in a measured and evenly paced manner. Everything was foreshadowed earlier in the film. The only problem I have with it was that they omitted the split personality/'Big Bad Harv' aspect of the character, so what we ended up with was normal Harvey Dent turning into angry/insane Harvey Dent. But that was a creative decision on Nolan's part and I think it worked in the context of the film. Dent's moral and psychological corruption was the thematic backbone of the entire movie. It's a gradual process that's already underway, even before he gets scarred. He steps outside the law when he condones Batman going after Lau, when he steals the ambulance with the Joker's henchman inside to interrogate him, and when he lies to the public to take the rap for Batman's activities. He also shows subtle signs of anger problems in the first half of the film, particularly when he's interrogating the Joker's henchman. I thought Nolan set his transformation up quite effectively.

I'd certainly rank the Batman: The Animated Series version of Two-Face over Nolan's, but I still think Nolan did a decent job with the character.

Batman never learns from his mistakes or recognises his own hypocrisy

That criticism could just as easily apply to Batman Returns.

and he is constantly outsmarted by the villains

The Joker's godlike invincibility is a criticism I agree with. He claims to act on impulse – like the irrational, spontaneous Joker of the comics – and yet all of his actions are clearly premeditated and driven by a logical philosophical agenda: namely a desire to illustrate the innate corruptibility of the human spirit. Steve Englehart criticised the portrayal of the Joker for the same reasons, saying that he was far too rational to truly be the Joker. But it's an aspect of the characterisation that's essential to the narrative – like the Penguin's acquisition of the Batmobile blueprints in BR, or the way he suddenly has an army of heavily-armed penguin commandoes during the film's finale – and so I'm willing to overlook it.

The inconsistent characterization, such as Batman killing Two-Face in the end despite spending the entire film proving to be 'incorruptible' by not killing the Joker, which is especially reprehensible since he killed ninjas and Ra's al Ghul in the previous film.

Batman killing in Nolan's films is an interesting subject and one that really deserves its own thread. I think the point of having Batman kill Dent was to show that although Batman physically defeated the Joker, the Joker won the moral victory by forcing both Dent and Batman to become killers. If Batman hadn't killed Dent, it would make no sense for him to take the blame for the latter's actions; the symbolic value of Batman as a representation of hope would have been untainted. But since it was tainted – he did in fact kill Dent – then there was a logical reason for him to take the fall for both of them. In doing so he ensured that at least one symbol of hope remained for the people of Gotham to believe in.

The only problem with this is that earlier in the film Batman drove the Tumbler at full speed into a head-on collision with one of the Joker's trucks, pulverising the driver's cab and almost certainly killing the driver in the process. Which means he'd probably already killed at least one other person in TDK before he got to Dent...

but Nolan's take constantly breaks his moral code whenever he finds it convenient (Ra's al Ghul, Two-Face, Talia).

I can't argue with that.

Batman was sidelined because of Nolan's desire to make a convoluted plot, without a regard for consistent characterization.

Besides the inconsistency in Batman's moral code – and I agree with you, that is a problem – I didn't think the characterisation as a whole was problematic. Bruce changes and grows as a character throughout the three films, but the trajectory of his character development always felt natural and consistent to me. I think the only time his character arc progressed in a way that was inconsistent or illogical was the thing about him quitting (twice) in TDKR. But that's another big topic best saved for its own thread.

The contradictory messages on human behaviour throughout the film drove me nuts i.e. people panic violently and try to murder Coleman Reese when Joker threatens to blow up a hospital...but convicts on a boat refuse to blow up another boat full of people?!

But people are contradictory in real life. There are good people in the world, and there are bad people, and it's not always easy to make the distinction. Nolan used that uncertainty to create suspense throughout the film. We never knew if the characters – whether it was a major character like Dent, or minor characters like the people on the boat – where going to choose the right moral decisions or the wrong ones. TDK is a film that doesn't shy away from the complexity of human nature. That's one of the things I like about it.

And again, too many things about this film that contradict its 'realistic' approach,

The 'realism' angle has been overemphasised by the fans. Nolan's intention was to create a grounded adaptation that sustained a feeling of verisimilitude. He never said he was aiming for cinéma-vérité. At the end of the day, he was making a trilogy of fantasy films. And while he may have downplayed some of the more fanciful aspects of the mythology, he never said it was his intention to eliminate them entirely.

Batman works with the police despite his reckless approach to human life - at least the Arrow in the CW tv show is viewed as an outlaw, and the police do whatever they can to bring him down.

But Batman's actions weren't officially sanctioned in TDK. Yes, he was working with Gordon. But it was off the record. That's why the police were still investigating him at the beginning of the film, and why Gordon was being questioned about the light on top of police headquarters. He was still as much of a vigilante in TDK and he was in Batman Begins, only by this point the police had realised it was in their interests to cut him some slack.

And Two-Face's deadly disfigurement that nobody in the real world could ever survive from.

Two-Face's disfigurement is the fundamental aesthetic conceit of the character. Do away with it and you're left with... One-Face, I guess. I don't think it's fair to criticise Nolan for striving for realism, but to then also criticise him for making concessions to the fantastic nature of the source material. It's a difficult balance to strike, and for the most part I think he got it right.

Yeah, Batman can't be a detective

He was as much of a detective in TDK as he was in any of the other live action films. At least in TDK we got to see him profiling criminals and investigating a crime scene. But I agree that the detective angle is something that needs to be fixed in future films. None of the movies have done it justice so far (except perhaps the 1966 film).

the characters' motivations are all over the place

Again, this is a criticism that could apply to almost all of the Batman films. Especially Selina in Batman Returns.

Apologies for the long rant,

Don't apologise, it was an interesting post. You've obviously thought about it a lot, and the best discussions thrive on a diversity of viewpoints.

However, I like that 'Batman' and 'Batman Returns' are almost standalone films, and great ones at that.  They each express a unique sensibility and work perfectly well on their own terms (and as much as I adore the MCU franchise, it helps to get the best out of each separate instalment to watch them in the context of the films that bookend them).

Well said. Batman 89 and Batman Returns both function as self-contained standalone films in a way that most other superhero movies don't. They're both totally unique in terms of style and tone. I like to think Burton's third Batman film would have been something equally unique and original.