MovieChat Forums > Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) Discussion > Is Joss Whedon to blame for sitcom tone ...

Is Joss Whedon to blame for sitcom tone of all new MCU product?


I remember Iron Man having humorous elements, but that was mostly because Robert Downey Jr. brings that persona in most of his projects. I don't think their Thor or Ed Norton Hulk was very funny, from what I remember. Captain America: The First Avenger had more of a nostalgic feel about it, and it isn't what I would call "fast-paced."

Honestly, I don't think until the Avengers came out, did every Marvel movie have to be this nightmare of endless self-referencing and one-liner after one-liner after one-liner. Guardians of the Galaxy sort of perfected this irreverent tone, and was hugely successful. Now, every Marvel movie is virtually a sitcom with superheroes.

It's entertaining and has obviously worked well for Marvel and Disney, but it really is the definition of disposable. No way they will ever abandon this recipe unless box office receipts begin to dwindle.

reply

Guardians of the Galaxy are comedies first, and space operas second. The tone works for them. Spider-Man tends to be a jokey character so, again, he needs a great deal of humor.

As for the other MCU movies, it varies. Dr Strange and the last two Cap movies were pretty serious. I think a jokier tone for Ant-Man worked for the character's powerset. Shrinking powers are often considered cheesy, so I think Marvel wanted to have a good blend of humor in it. I thought Iron Man 3 had the same tone as the first two Iron Man movies: they let RDJ improvise jokes but for the most part, they were serious. I think Dark World over did it with the jokes and I think both Avengers movies could've used a more serious tone (Whedon can't blend comedy and superheroics very well, imo).

reply

Marvel was a real thing, and then it got bought by Disney. You're talking about Disney, not Whedon. Disney sucks. Cause you're a grown up.

reply

As a grown man I can see that without Disney we probably wouldn't have the MCU and even then it wouldn't be as big as it is.

reply

burrrrrrnnn.

reply

Yeah, I think it is Whedon's fault. He's such a hack.

I'm in the minority in that I thought both of his Avengers movies were mediocre. Even back in 2012 when I first saw Avengers I didn't like it and yet everyone was saying that it was the greatest superhero movie of all time.

The MCU was pretty good up until the end of phase 2. It peaked with Guardians of the Galaxy and Winter Soldier. Since Phase 3 their movies have been too bloated with characters and one liners. They're starting to become really cheesy. They're still good movies overall, but they're losing their individuality and their critic scores are starting to decline. I think their first real failure (if you don't count Iron Man 2 or Thor 2) is coming up pretty soon.

reply

Is he to blame for arguably perfecting this comedic tone that Stan Lee himself always knew resonated with Marvel fans? You know, one that has worked for many of the Marvel characters we've seen in the MCU since way back? Then the answer is, yes.

While I can get SOME people's frustration with this - not of those who label Marvel as kiddie stuff because they're not 100% grim and lifeless and are actually fun - bottom line is this formula has worked wonderfully for Marvel. And not just from a financial standpoint. The Captain America films? They contain some light humor that is appreciated in what is otherwise a... serious trilogy. Doctor Strange? Some joking here and there, but again, a more serious tone overall. Thor? His delightfully jokey ways have been there since before The Avengers. Tony Stark? You can barely notice a difference in his persona compared to a decade ago. In fact, the only real change I detect is he's acted more mature in his last few appearances than he ever has before.

So anyway, until the day comes when most MCU fans demand this to stop because it no longer connects with or entertains them, then maybe Marvel/Disney will have to rethink what they're doing and change things up a bit. (And though the format is different in more ways than one, it's funny how they also know what they're doing with much darker characters like Daredevil, The Punisher, Jessica Jones). But for the most part, this tone has suited Marvel characters that are supposed to be bring humor; plus if it works for the majority of the audience, why stop? Oh, as for the upcoming Black Panther movie, no indication it's going to be "sitcomy" either.

reply

well, i guess i have bad news for you:

in the end, it is the audience that is "to blame", as you so disgustingly arrogant put it. they loved it, it made cash, they stuck with it.

on a lighter note, there are plenty of DC movies that have no intentional comedic aspect AT ALL. you would love them.

reply

I'm not saying they're the worst. Just that they mean nothing, absolutely nothing. It's like watching two-hour sitcoms with superpowered characters. Very blah. They refuse to take chances by being genuinely emotional in a meaningful way throughout the course of the storyline. It's like eating a Mcdonald's burger. Tasty enough while I'm eating it, but not memorable.

reply

what are they supposed to mean? no matter how you put it, this is light entertainment. not only the movies, but the comics as well. at least when the moore fanboys cry, they have some kind of a point. what do you e.g. want spiderman or even worse "captain america" to mean or explore on a deeply existential level?

"They refuse to take chances by being genuinely emotional in a meaningful way throughout the course of the storyline."
with spiderman???

"It's like eating a Mcdonald's burger."
a) it's a damn good burger
b) let someone taste it for the very first time, he will be blown away
c) you can replace all of that with the finest kobi meat and blue goat cheese all you want, it will never develop into a lobster dinner.

reply

Did you even watch the Raimi movies? The classic Spider-Man comics have much more tragedy than comedy. Peter is usually practically ready to kill himself or someone else because of how messed up his life is. He is rarely happy or in any kind of good mood. Spider-Man 2 understood the character 100% pitch-perfectly. Homecoming is a movie that refused to mention Uncle Ben because it would "bring the mood down." It was made by Hollywood hacks who despise everything that Spider-Man is, some of the same hacks who made Thor 2, the other worst MCU movie.

reply

yup. they were great. great popcorn cinema.

"Peter is usually practically ready to kill himself or someone else because of how messed up his life is. He is rarely happy or in any kind of good mood."

so?
1) doesn't make it any deeper
2) aren't there like 20 different universes in the marvel world, that have spidey in em? is he a moody fuck in every of them?

"Homecoming is a movie that refused to mention Uncle Ben because it would "bring the mood down.""
not sure if that's the officvial reason, but as far as i know the justification was that the origin story and the uncle ben events are
1) well known by know
2) already done in at least 2 incarnations of the series.

personally i don't want to watch that yet another time.

"some of the same hacks who made Thor 2, the other worst MCU movie."

while i find your childish attitude in a way adorable, this is strongly heading towards "what i like is good, everything else is crap".

reply

Spider-Man is rarely in a good mood? Granted, there have been a number of stories in which things were going terribly for him and it is a major part of the character to have the "old Parker luck" but to say he's rarely in a good mood is just not accurate. He's known for his sense of humor. That said, this movie is not without its angst, nor is Peter's life perfect.

reply


The Spidey I remember from the 80's and 90's was a wise-cracking guy who could give Deadpool a run for his mouth, so to speak. Always narrating himself, acting like he's in a movie and goofing around. I think Homecoming nailed the Spidey I remember.

reply