A new Supergirl cast for The Flash movie

[Metallo]

www.darkhorizons.com/sasha-calle-is-dc-films-new-supergirl/

Sasha Calle Is DC Films’ New Supergirl

By Garth Franklin
Friday, February 19th 2021 11:03 am

Daytime Emmy nominee Sasha Calle (“Young and the Restless”) has beaten out over 400 other actresses to score the role of Supergirl in the new “The Flash” feature film at Warner Bros. Pictures and DC Films.

“The Flash” director Andy Muschietti watched all the auditions and were said to be blown away by Calle who also did a chemistry read with actor Ezra Miller who is reprising his role of Barry Allen/The Flash for the currently in production feature.

has scored the feature role of DC Universe’s new Supergirl. The Boston born-Columbian actress is also the first Latina Supergirl ever in DC. Calle will join the production shortly.

Helen Slater played the role in the 1984 film, whilst Melissa Benoist has starred as Supergirl for CBS and The CW.

Source: Deadline

Well that came out of nowhere. Rumors have been going around for a while that WB wanted to launch a new Supergirl movie but is this how they’re going to do it? There wasn’t even a hint that Supergirl was IN the Flash movie. Sounds like the film is going to be much more packed than I thought.

Wonder if this had anything to do with WB, CW, and the Supergirl tv producers deciding to cancel the show now? There was a good chance it was going to happen anyway with ratings declining and Benoist having a baby and her contract being up soon but did this contribute in any way?

Oddly enough The Flash and Supergirl showed great chemistry on their respective tv shows. Did that influence putting her in The Flash film?

[crazy_asian_man]

WB/DC is so all over the place, I don't even try to figure them out anymore.... my bar keeps going lower and lower for them (not because of this announcement, but in general) as Marvel's goes higher and higher.

Hopefully Kevin Feige lives a LONGGGG healthy life. He's like Stan Lee of the movie universe, and maybe even more it seems now.

[Metallo]

I don’t mind supergirl being introduced to the DCEU but it seems a bit soon since they don’t even have a handle on what they’re going to do with Superman going forward. The Flash film is already packed. Maybe too packed. It just feels like that might lead to a lot of problems just like other times they’ve tried to rush things like BvS, Suicide Squad, etc.

The Supergirl tv series got away with introducing her first instead of Superman and making the character work because the Arrowverse was pretty well established and up and running by then. They knew what they were doing with her and it had a clear line to Superman. The DCEU doesn’t appear to have a single clear direction just yet. They don’t know what they’re doing with Superman and I don’t see a clear line to Supergirl.

I also wonder how big her role is. Is it minor or is it a significant supporting role? The suit director Andy Muschietti showed on the zoom call was similar to the Cavill MOS costume.



Is something like that officially what they’re going with or was it just a stand in used in a dramatic way to announce that she’d gotten the role? Is she taking Cyborgs role in the film now had Ray Fisher isn’t being used? That’s a whole cannot worms itself.

Despite a few cool things they’re doing with it I’m just wary of the Flash movie in general. It’s had setback after setback and change after change. It wasn’t even originally supposed to be based on Flashpoint.

[crazy_asian_man]

It could be a one-line cameo.

When it comes to the DCEU, unless they do a clean sweep and start all over from the ground up..... low expectations.

[Metallo]

Considering how frustrating these movies have been I don’t disagree with you.

[crazy_asian_man]

Feb 21, 2021 13:25:55 GMT -5 Metallo said:

Considering how frustrating these movies have been I don’t disagree with you.

I just don't get that there's anyone super-passionate overseeing the whole thing. Feige's results on the MCU (overall, I'm still smarting on Iron Man 2 & Thor 2) speak for themselves.

As bad as Lucas' prequels were, it had one passionate voice behind it overseeing it.

[Metallo]

I think Walter Hamada has done an ok job with trying to get better quality out of the films but I don’t think they want someone passionate. I think they want someone who can bring the kind of objectivity they want because they see it as more of a business. Sadly I’m not sure there is anyone else out there like Feige that could be hired. Some have the fan knowledge and some have the film world experience but not both.

[crazy_asian_man]

Feb 23, 2021 14:02:34 GMT -5 Metallo said:

I think Walter Hamada has done an ok job with trying to get better quality out of the films but I don’t think they want someone passionate. I think they want someone who can bring the kind of objectivity they want because they see it as more of a business. Sadly I’m not sure there is anyone else out there like Feige that could be hired. Some have the fan knowledge and some have the film world experience but not both.

I think that's the thing that'll keep the DCEU from being as great as it could be, sadly.

One day, (if we survive that long), once Feige is completely done with Marvel,(how many phases does he want will be interesting) it'll be interesting to see if he's approached to reboot the DC universe...

[Metallo]

I’d love to see it happen since you know he has a love for DC characters too but Disney would be crazy to let him go. He’s been laying them nothing but golden eggs for years. People can quibble about creative success but commercially the guys been untouchable. Even WandaVision was rated the most popular show in the world recently. Disney Plus has been crashing for some people because of so many people trying to get on at once.

[crazy_asian_man]

Feb 28, 2021 12:32:23 GMT -5 Metallo said:

I’d love to see it happen since you know he has a love for DC characters too but Disney would be crazy to let him go. He’s been laying them nothing but golden eggs for years. People can quibble about creative success but commercially the guys been untouchable. Even WandaVision was rated the most popular show in the world recently. Disney Plus has been crashing for some people because of so many people trying to get on at once.

One thing I have mixed feelings on is having something taken over that has had so many reboots not too long ago- I love the new Tom HOlland Spiderman.... but the Sam Raimi is the 'canon' one for me, as it went closest to the original comics and got to what was the best about them. (For the most part)

I understand why Feige updated a lot of things - and changed them, given how fast the reboot was right after the Raimi version... but I have a hunch that with so many different Superman versions so close in time to one another, it'd be highly unlikely for them to go back to the originals and just be further and further removed from the classic comics going forward... even if Feige were attached, given how his Spiderman was done (again, extremely well done but almost like a checklist was made to do the 'opposite' of anything done before).

[Metallo]

Mar 1, 2021 18:59:24 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Feb 28, 2021 12:32:23 GMT -5 Metallo said:

I’d love to see it happen since you know he has a love for DC characters too but Disney would be crazy to let him go. He’s been laying them nothing but golden eggs for years. People can quibble about creative success but commercially the guys been untouchable. Even WandaVision was rated the most popular show in the world recently. Disney Plus has been crashing for some people because of so many people trying to get on at once.

One thing I have mixed feelings on is having something taken over that has had so many reboots not too long ago- I love the new Tom HOlland Spiderman.... but the Sam Raimi is the 'canon' one for me, as it went closest to the original comics and got to what was the best about them. (For the most part)

I understand why Feige updated a lot of things - and changed them, given how fast the reboot was right after the Raimi version... but I have a hunch that with so many different Superman versions so close in time to one another, it'd be highly unlikely for them to go back to the originals and just be further and further removed from the classic comics going forward... even if Feige were attached, given how his Spiderman was done (again, extremely well done but almost like a checklist was made to do the 'opposite' of anything done before).

Well remember Sony themselves rebooted the Spider-man movies first not Marvel. Marvel Studios wasn’t really left with much choice if they wanted clean history to work with. The previous two iterations of the character would never work with the MCU continuity and timeline and even if they could it would be awkward because which one would they pick? The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was awful so it made sense not to follow that wreck and the Raimi series was almost 15 years old by that point.

Plus while The Raimi/Maguire movies were faithful to the Ditko era in a lot of ways in others they weren’t. MJ wasn’t his first love back then so that wasn’t faithful. Peter didn’t have organic webshooters in the 60s comics so that wasn’t faithful. And they retconned Sandman into being Ben Parker’s killer. Stupid.

Raimi kept some things from that era and was clearly made to draw from other eras as well. Just like all the Spidey movies have. Heck I’d argue Garfield’s second costume was far more faithful to the Ditko design than anything Maguire wore AND his leading lady was Gwen not MJ. The Holland movies proved that IF a reboot is done the right way and very good a lot of people (not all but more than enough) will not only accept it but embrace it even if it’s just a couple of years later.

If Feige was in charge he’d definitely go with classic Superman influences but updated. Of all the versions of Superman we’ve had in the last 20 years none of them were truly set in stone faithful to anything most people consider “classic” Superman so staying away from that wouldn’t be an issue.

The Spider-Man character has been updated and modernized with every new version over the last 20 years but you could say the same things been done with Superman over the last 40 years. The current movie Aunt May is nothing like the original comics but she’s been getting younger and more modern with every reboot. The same thing has been done with the Superman story. The Kent’s have been getting younger and more trendy with almost every reboot.

Compare Phylis Thaxter, K Callan, Annette O’Toole, and Diane Lane. The only one even close to the “traditional” depiction of Ma Kent was Thaxter. Callan wasn’t even close to the Byrne version of Martha despite the show being heavily based on Byrnes comic book reboot. The Lois & Clark series made her a granola crunching, organic drink sipping, nude posing, yoga doing older woman of the 90s. It’s been a long time since even Superman has been purely “classic.”

[crazy_asian_man]

True-
The thing that I think drove me crazy after STM came out, was the excitement and anticipation of the floodgates all opening at that time for something like the MCU the last few years...

So-
That adds to my frustration with Lester, I really feel that he was the cause of the wiping out of that kind of comic book movie explosion at the time with parts of Superman II and Superman III.

If Superman II and III had exploded creatively and box office wise, I could see the Batman series being greenlit MUCH faster- and then possibly the idea of a "Superman & Batman" movie- and then the JLA soon after, if that succeeded.

If those had all happened during THAT timeframe- Marvel movies might have started sooner- and most of the comics I grew up with probably would be closer to what have been used to adapt.

BUT--
With such a slow move in Hollywood to get to Marvel Studios, a lot of the comics I grew up with are decades & decades OLD and I get why movies are going to be further and further removed from the bronze age comics.

Oh well...

[Metallo]

Mar 2, 2021 19:39:01 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

True-
The thing that I think drove me crazy after STM came out, was the excitement and anticipation of the floodgates all opening at that time for something like the MCU the last few years...

So-
That adds to my frustration with Lester, I really feel that he was the cause of the wiping out of that kind of comic book movie explosion at the time with parts of Superman II and Superman III.

If Superman II and III had exploded creatively and box office wise, I could see the Batman series being greenlit MUCH faster- and then possibly the idea of a "Superman & Batman" movie- and then the JLA soon after, if that succeeded.

If those had all happened during THAT timeframe- Marvel movies might have started sooner- and most of the comics I grew up with probably would be closer to what have been used to adapt.

BUT--
With such a slow move in Hollywood to get to Marvel Studios, a lot of the comics I grew up with are decades & decades OLD and I get why movies are going to be further and further removed from the bronze age comics.

Oh well...

STM was at least 20 years ahead of its time in a lot of ways. No one within Hollywood really knew what it was or how to replicate it. It wasn’t studio insiders or executives that had the drive to even make those early films it was outsiders. That’s why after it hit they tried to turn pulps and serials and comic strips into movies. Same with Batman in the 80s. To them Superman was in the vein of Popeye or Flash Gordon.

They had no clue of the potential of a “superhero” genre of films. They didn’t get it...just that it was colorful characters. Even after Batman hit it big we didn’t see WB pushing tons of DC superheroes onto the big screen. What we saw was other studios trying to capitalize on its success with cheaper outdated characters they could get their hands on line The Phantom or The Shadow or D!ck Tracy. Not the popular characters of the day.

It took the generation that grew up on STM to really understand what it was and why it worked which is why we finally started to see these things become more consistently good by 2008. They understood the appeal and the good filmmakers were drawn to make them unlike the generation before where most of the good filmmakers didn’t take the material seriously.

[atp]

Mar 3, 2021 7:56:40 GMT -5 Metallo said:

Mar 2, 2021 19:39:01 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

True-
The thing that I think drove me crazy after STM came out, was the excitement and anticipation of the floodgates all opening at that time for something like the MCU the last few years...

So-
That adds to my frustration with Lester, I really feel that he was the cause of the wiping out of that kind of comic book movie explosion at the time with parts of Superman II and Superman III.

If Superman II and III had exploded creatively and box office wise, I could see the Batman series being greenlit MUCH faster- and then possibly the idea of a "Superman & Batman" movie- and then the JLA soon after, if that succeeded.

If those had all happened during THAT timeframe- Marvel movies might have started sooner- and most of the comics I grew up with probably would be closer to what have been used to adapt.

BUT--
With such a slow move in Hollywood to get to Marvel Studios, a lot of the comics I grew up with are decades & decades OLD and I get why movies are going to be further and further removed from the bronze age comics.

Oh well...

STM was at least 20 years ahead of its time in a lot of ways. No one within Hollywood really knew what it was or how to replicate it. It wasn’t studio insiders or executives that had the drive to even make those early films it was outsiders. That’s why after it hit they tried to turn pulps and serials and comic strips into movies. Same with Batman in the 80s. To them Superman was in the vein of Popeye or Flash Gordon.

They had no clue of the potential of a “superhero” genre of films. They didn’t get it...just that it was colorful characters. Even after Batman hit it big we didn’t see WB pushing tons of DC superheroes onto the big screen. What we saw was other studios trying to capitalize on its success with cheaper outdated characters they could get their hands on line The Phantom or The Shadow or vagina Tracy. Not the popular characters of the day.

It took the generation that grew up on STM to really understand what it was and why it worked which is why we finally started to see these things become more consistently good by 2008. They understood the appeal and the good filmmakers were drawn to make them unlike the generation before where most of the good filmmakers didn’t take the material seriously.

I really don't think any superhero movies can come close to STM. There was something magical about it. Even though it's "dated", it also somehow feels timeless to me.

The Marvel movies - Iron Man, Spiderman, Avengers, Thor etc - aren't bad movies, but I still wouldn't say they are even in the same league as STM.

I don't think anyone could ever recapture the magic of STM. Everything just came together.

[crazy_asian_man]

Mar 3, 2021 22:58:47 GMT -5 atp said:

Mar 3, 2021 7:56:40 GMT -5 Metallo said:

STM was at least 20 years ahead of its time in a lot of ways. No one within Hollywood really knew what it was or how to replicate it. It wasn’t studio insiders or executives that had the drive to even make those early films it was outsiders. That’s why after it hit they tried to turn pulps and serials and comic strips into movies. Same with Batman in the 80s. To them Superman was in the vein of Popeye or Flash Gordon.

They had no clue of the potential of a “superhero” genre of films. They didn’t get it...just that it was colorful characters. Even after Batman hit it big we didn’t see WB pushing tons of DC superheroes onto the big screen. What we saw was other studios trying to capitalize on its success with cheaper outdated characters they could get their hands on line The Phantom or The Shadow or vagina Tracy. Not the popular characters of the day.

It took the generation that grew up on STM to really understand what it was and why it worked which is why we finally started to see these things become more consistently good by 2008. They understood the appeal and the good filmmakers were drawn to make them unlike the generation before where most of the good filmmakers didn’t take the material seriously.

I really don't think any superhero movies can come close to STM. There was something magical about it. Even though it's "dated", it also somehow feels timeless to me.

The Marvel movies - Iron Man, Spiderman, Avengers, Thor etc - aren't bad movies, but I still wouldn't say they are even in the same league as STM.

I don't think anyone could ever recapture the magic of STM. Everything just came together.

I think Donner's deliberate choice to have different flavors to the two films and not be a slave to 'realism' or 'darkness' help make the film timeless.

Krypton seems like something that's in the same universe as other 70's scifi like Zardoz to me- it's interesting that Ilya Salkind said he told WIlliams that he wanted something that evoked 2001: A space odyssey (though I am confused as to how much input was put in and how a composer would react to two different bosses).

Pa and Ma Kent feel like they represented the Depression era-

Smallville High reminded me of Norman Rockwell images evoking the 50's-

Metropolis reminded me of what seemed like a 'modern' 70's romantic comedy at the time

Lex, Otis, and Teschmacher seemed like they were in their own wacky out-there comedy- as a perfect contrast to-

The ORIGINAL design of the three villains who looked both cool, scary, and dangerous- as if they wouldn't have been too out of place in a horror film-

Donner had different phases in his career, but with STM and a couple of the Lethal Weapon films, arguably those characters and scripts were most closely aligned to his personality and what he loved. You could feel the joy (as well as the craft) drip out of those films!

[dejan]

atp

The strength of the Marvel stuff has been the mixed universe flicks....and in particular the flair of the Russo bros.
Everything else is variable.

But lets compare apples with apples.

The stand alone Marvel flicks vary in quality and are mostly  pretty average IMHO:

The below represent my own personal opinions(and others may disagree strongly!):

Iron Man 1 was pretty cool---2 and 3 were average or poor.
Thor 1 was interesting(but I still found it a touch bland)--2 and 3 were awful.
Spiderman 1(Homecoming) was nice / average. Spidey 2 is the same---nothing that really stands out to me.
Hulk(2008) started off with promise and then degenerated into an almost Snyder like CG poopfest!
Cap America 1 was ok-again a bit bland for me but respectable-Winter Soldier was exceptional. Cap 3(Civil War) was not a stand alone movie---no way!(still pretty good though).
Black Panther was good but again(aside from the social contexts was nothing new when it comes to ground breaking fantasy entertainment)
Cap Marvel is rubbish!
Guardians Of The Galaxy 1 & 2 are simply "meh" for me.

STM is f***ing exceptional and well above anything that Marvel has ever released(be it stand alone or mixed).Period.And I am saying that within the  2021 context.
In terms of sitting in a theater in 1978(ok I did not see it until 1981--but it's still the same era cinematically!)---I would take that experience over sitting in a cinema to watch any of the Marvel flicks(2008 to 2019).

I will still take Lester's SII over any of the Marvel stand alones anytime(I know that sounds controversial).
Allow me to elaborate.
Sitting in a theater in 1981, SII was unique(sure you had Raiders but that was a different kind of spectacle).
And as I said before, there was Clash Of The Titans, Dragon Slayer, Outland and Excalibur which are no where near SII in technical or artistic proficiency.
Indeed the only other thing that matched(or surpassed) SII for technical fantasy was STM(in the context of 1981).

Fast forward to 2014

That year  I watched(in no particular order):
Transformers(Extinction)----yeah I know it's the biggest sack of crap ever! 
Hobbit 5 armies.
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1
The Planet of the Apes
The Amazing Spider-Man 2.
Captain America: The Winter Soldier.

X-Men: Days of Future Past.
Guardians of the Galaxy. 
Interstellar

ect ect

So whilst the Winter Soldier stood out compared to the other Marvel movies that came before....it did not stand out from a technical standpoint in 2014(compared to other stuff that was around) like SII did in 1981. 

The same goes for SIII to a degree(that will sound controversial!).

The real elephant is SIV which quite frankly should not even count as a movie.
Having said that if I were to hypothetically strip out or water down the CG from most of the Marvel movies(......you may be surprised that even SIV could look quite good in comparison!).  
 
All my opinions of course

P.S

I was too young to watch Excalibur in 1981(it had a 15 certificate here in the UK)......but I remember seeing it's trailer in between STM and SII in that double bill. 

[Metallo]

Mar 5, 2021 10:16:36 GMT -5 dejan said:

atp

The strength of the Marvel stuff has been the mixed universe flicks....and in particular the flair of the Russo bros.
Everything else is variable.

But lets compare apples with apples.

The stand alone Marvel flicks vary in quality and are mostly  pretty average IMHO:

The below represent my own personal opinions(and others may disagree strongly!):

Iron Man 1 was pretty cool---2 and 3 were average or poor.
Thor 1 was interesting(but I still found it a touch bland)--2 and 3 were awful.
Spiderman 1(Homecoming) was nice / average. Spidey 2 is the same---nothing that really stands out to me.
Hulk(2008) started off with promise and then degenerated into an almost Snyder like CG poopfest!
Cap America 1 was ok-again a bit bland for me but respectable-Winter Soldier was exceptional. Cap 3(Civil War) was not a stand alone movie---no way!(still pretty good though).
Black Panther was good but again(aside from the social contexts was nothing new when it comes to ground breaking fantasy entertainment)
Cap Marvel is rubbish!
Guardians Of The Galaxy 1 & 2 are simply "meh" for me.

STM is f***ing exceptional and well above anything that Marvel has ever released(be it stand alone or mixed).Period.And I am saying that within the  2021 context.
In terms of sitting in a theater in 1978(ok I did not see it until 1981--but it's still the same era cinematically!)---I would take that experience over sitting in a cinema to watch any of the Marvel flicks(2008 to 2019).

I will still take Lester's SII over any of the Marvel stand alones anytime(I know that sounds controversial).
Allow me to elaborate.
Sitting in a theater in 1981, SII was unique(sure you had Raiders but that was a different kind of spectacle).
And as I said before, there was Clash Of The Titans, Dragon Slayer, Outland and Excalibur which are no where near SII in technical or artistic proficiency.
Indeed the only other thing that matched(or surpassed) SII for technical fantasy was STM(in the context of 1981).

Fast forward to 2014

That year  I watched(in no particular order):
Transformers(Extinction)----yeah I know it's the biggest sack of crap ever! 
Hobbit 5 armies.
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1
The Planet of the Apes
The Amazing Spider-Man 2.
Captain America: The Winter Soldier.

X-Men: Days of Future Past.
Guardians of the Galaxy. 
Interstellar

ect ect

So whilst the Winter Soldier stood out compared to the other Marvel movies that came before....it did not stand out from a technical standpoint in 2014(compared to other stuff that was around) like SII did in 1981. 

The same goes for SIII to a degree(that will sound controversial!).

The real elephant is SIV which quite frankly should not even count as a movie.
Having said that if I were to hypothetically strip out or water down the CG from most of the Marvel movies(......you may be surprised that even SIV could look quite good in comparison!).  
 
All my opinions of course

P.S

I was too young to watch Excalibur in 1981(it had a 15 certificate here in the UK)......but I remember seeing it's trailer in between STM and SII in that double bill. 

The thing that makes Superman the movie stand out is it’s not following a superhero movie formula because at the time one didn’t really exist. They created the formula. It’s drawing from genre films and blockbusters from the era. It’s not necessarily one of the greatest films ever or flawless but it has its own identity. The first Burton Batman movie falls into a similar category. It’s got plenty of flaws but there was nothing like it at the time. Visually it was overwhelming.

While today’s superhero movies are more polished and more consistent than either one of them and the quality is more Consistent across the comic book/superhero genre most are following some kind of template or formula laid out by other superhero movies. Even Wonder Woman, which is widely considered the best DCEU film after being influenced by STM, fell apart once it started to rehash the third act of every big budget cgi laden comic book/superhero film.

As more and more films come out most of them feel more homogenized. The same is true of most Blockbusters today compared to those from decades past though. Even the first few Spider-Man films, as good as they were were drawing somewhat from the Superman formula. But it was still so early in the history of the genre that they were innovating and making up a lot of things themselves.

The comic book films that stand out are the ones drawing from outside the genre like The Dark Knight, First Class, Deadpool, Joker, Logan, Guardians, and Winter Soldier. Winter soldier is drawing from political Thrillers just as Logan draws from Westerns. Guardians is drawing from space opera. They’re mixing and machine genres. That’s what’s going to keep the genre fresh. Today’s films are truer to the source material but I miss some of the risk taking and artistic innovation. Flash Gordon may have been a failure in 1980 but it was a fun and interesting failure.

The sum that all up STM may have its warts but they’re interesting warts that were part of the genres growing pains. Just like a person with physical flaws or blemishes they give character. You could do the same comparison with the leading men of today with those from 40 years ago. It’s like I told ATP a while back most of today’s leads look too plastic and airbrushed.

[dejan]

Nice points Metallo

Personally, I just regard STM as being a great movie first and foremost(and IMHO one of the greatest ever made)......and then, the greatest comic book movie ever.

You are absolutely right that it's not perfect(what movie is!) but there is a heart that comes through it all.
And you can see the struggle to make the film practically oozes out of every frame.....and in doing so ...elevates it to another level entirely.
Star Wars has exactly that same thing going on.

These guys really pushed the boundaries of what was possible.

Cinema itself  is a perpetually evolving art form..........and there was that one moment in time(late 70s/early 80s) when technology, artistry, storytelling and acting personalities converged to create a unique moment regarding cinematic fantasy that can never be repeated.
Either you were there to experience it or you were not(be it as film makers or the audience).

In some ways the current generation of filmmakers are constantly trying to recreate that moment and they simply can't.
Even guys who were instrumental in that period ------like Lucas(the prequels), Spielberg(Minority Report, AI, Crystal Skull, Ready Player One) and Scott(Prometheus, Covenant) have found that recreating that magic is next to impossible. 

And maybe we as audience members are also looking for a recreation of that moment......but it can never be.

And with regards to the Winter Soldier-it's definitely got 3 Days Of A Condor(one of my personal favorites) influence written all over it----I think the Russos bagged Redford just because of that reference!

And you are not wrong abut the wax and buffing with regards to todays actors....quite literally!-----The eradication of Cavill's mustache would not have been possible in the pre-CG era.

It is the main reason why Nolan espouses the photochemical era of filmmaking-----it's level of reality is only now being appreciated precisely because it has been eradicated.

But at the time it existed ---it was simply par for the course. 
 

[Metallo]

Mar 5, 2021 12:03:52 GMT -5 dejan said:

Nice points Metallo

Personally, I just regard STM as being a great movie first and foremost(and IMHO one of the greatest ever made)......and then, the greatest comic book movie ever.

You are absolutely right that it's not perfect(what movie is!) but there is a heart that comes through it all.
And you can see the struggle to make the film practically oozes out of every frame.....and in doing so ...elevates it to another level entirely. Star Wars has exactly that same thing going on.

These guys really pushed the boundaries of what was possible.

Cinema itself  is a perpetually evolving art form..........and there was that one moment in time(late 70s/early 80s) when technology, artistry, storytelling and acting personalities converged to create a unique moment regarding cinematic fantasy that can never be repeated.
Either you were there to experience it or you were not(be it as film makers or the audience).

In some ways the current generation of filmmakers are constantly trying to recreate that moment and they simply can't.
Even guys who were instrumental in that period ------like Lucas(the prequels), Spielberg(Minority Report, AI, Crystal Skull, Ready Player One) and Scott(Prometheus, Covenant) have found that recreating that magic is next to impossible. 

And maybe we as audience members are also looking for a recreation of that moment......but it can never be.

And with regards to the Winter Soldier-it's definitely got 3 Days Of A Condor(one of my personal favorites) influence written all over it----I think the Russos bagged Redford just because of that reference!

And you are not wrong abut the wax and buffing with regards to todays actors....quite literally!-----The eradication of Cavill's mustache would not have been possible in the pre-CG era.

It is the main reason why Nolan espouses the photochemical era of filmmaking-----it's level of reality is only now being appreciated precisely because it has been eradicated.

But at the time it existed ---it was simply par for the course. 
 

That generation of filmmakers that came of age in the 70s and 80s grew up fans of cinema and different genres but they also went through the fire that you had to go through to just get into the business. More of the best who had natural love and talent made it and got opportunities. They could make any kind of film.

We’re in an age now where people are getting into the entertainment industry far more easily (some would say too easily) and with far less talent. The industry wants drones not artists because it’s producing so much to be devoured. That’s why they aren’t innovating but are simply rehashing what they grew up on that was made by previous generations. Sure you could say the studios are less risk averse and aren’t giving them opportunities to try new things but at a certain we have to stop putting all the blame on the studios.

Some for these guys are getting the clout to do what they want and instead of doing great new things they simply continue to rehash old stuff and do it poorly. JJ Abrams is the textbook example of this. All the power he has and he continues to do safe lazy crap. It’s because he’s in it for the money and never had any real vision of his own. Then you’ve got guys like Zack Snyder who do think they’re artists but again they don’t have the pure talent or aptitude nor were they put through the wringer to force them to improve. We need more Chris Nolan’s and fewer JJ Abrams. Nolan’s stuff might be dry and clinical but at least he’s taking that power he got from the Batman films and is making his own stories.

[crazy_asian_man]

Mar 5, 2021 10:16:36 GMT -5 dejan said:

atp

The strength of the Marvel stuff has been the mixed universe flicks....and in particular the flair of the Russo bros.
Everything else is variable.

But lets compare apples with apples.

The stand alone Marvel flicks vary in quality and are mostly  pretty average IMHO:

The below represent my own personal opinions(and others may disagree strongly!):

Iron Man 1 was pretty cool---2 and 3 were average or poor.
Thor 1 was interesting(but I still found it a touch bland)--2 and 3 were awful.
Spiderman 1(Homecoming) was nice / average. Spidey 2 is the same---nothing that really stands out to me.
Hulk(2008) started off with promise and then degenerated into an almost Snyder like CG poopfest!
Cap America 1 was ok-again a bit bland for me but respectable-Winter Soldier was exceptional. Cap 3(Civil War) was not a stand alone movie---no way!(still pretty good though).
Black Panther was good but again(aside from the social contexts was nothing new when it comes to ground breaking fantasy entertainment)
Cap Marvel is rubbish!
Guardians Of The Galaxy 1 & 2 are simply "meh" for me.

STM is f***ing exceptional and well above anything that Marvel has ever released(be it stand alone or mixed).Period.And I am saying that within the  2021 context.
In terms of sitting in a theater in 1978(ok I did not see it until 1981--but it's still the same era cinematically!)---I would take that experience over sitting in a cinema to watch any of the Marvel flicks(2008 to 2019).

I will still take Lester's SII over any of the Marvel stand alones anytime(I know that sounds controversial).
Allow me to elaborate.
Sitting in a theater in 1981, SII was unique(sure you had Raiders but that was a different kind of spectacle).
And as I said before, there was Clash Of The Titans, Dragon Slayer, Outland and Excalibur which are no where near SII in technical or artistic proficiency.
Indeed the only other thing that matched(or surpassed) SII for technical fantasy was STM(in the context of 1981).

Fast forward to 2014

That year  I watched(in no particular order):
Transformers(Extinction)----yeah I know it's the biggest sack of crap ever! 
Hobbit 5 armies.
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1
The Planet of the Apes
The Amazing Spider-Man 2.
Captain America: The Winter Soldier.

X-Men: Days of Future Past.
Guardians of the Galaxy. 
Interstellar

ect ect

So whilst the Winter Soldier stood out compared to the other Marvel movies that came before....it did not stand out from a technical standpoint in 2014(compared to other stuff that was around) like SII did in 1981. 

The same goes for SIII to a degree(that will sound controversial!).

The real elephant is SIV which quite frankly should not even count as a movie.
Having said that if I were to hypothetically strip out or water down the CG from most of the Marvel movies(......you may be surprised that even SIV could look quite good in comparison!).  
 
All my opinions of course

P.S

I was too young to watch Excalibur in 1981(it had a 15 certificate here in the UK)......but I remember seeing it's trailer in between STM and SII in that double bill. 

From the frame of reference of suffering through all the live action superhero adaptations that had next to NO resemblance to the comic source material for MANY years...

Marvel- in that regard - was a godsend.

Three things imo make Marvel shine:
Yes, I agree that the movies have been average overall, with a growing percentage of 'really good' and 'great' ones...

But to me here's why I love/admire Marvel's long game:

#1: Even the imperfect origin films capture with ENOUGH accuracy the spirit of the Marvel comic source material. (What's close enough being subjective of course, though, I know)
- Thor, Iron Man, Captain America, Black Widow, Hawkeye, Vision, and Scarlet Witch feel fairly close, compared to what's come before the MCU!

#2: The ambitions and committment to the long games. Avengers was a novelty never done before in that way. Infinity War and Endgame upped that game even more.

#3: While Snyder might 'love' the material, I don't feel he gets it. Feige overall gets it.... a lot of the joys I had as a comic reader for Marvel I see translated into the live action franchise, stuff that I imagine isn't that easy to coordinate behind the scenes.... or.... the motivation isn't there. (A similar admiration was for the Crisis on Infinite Earths in tv, after hearing how crossovers behind the scenes weren't that easy to do on a tiny level, let alone a large one.)

[crazy_asian_man]

Mar 5, 2021 10:16:36 GMT -5 dejan said:

atp

The strength of the Marvel stuff has been the mixed universe flicks....and in particular the flair of the Russo bros.
Everything else is variable.

But lets compare apples with apples.

The stand alone Marvel flicks vary in quality and are mostly  pretty average IMHO:

The below represent my own personal opinions(and others may disagree strongly!):

Iron Man 1 was pretty cool---2 and 3 were average or poor.
Thor 1 was interesting(but I still found it a touch bland)--2 and 3 were awful.
Spiderman 1(Homecoming) was nice / average. Spidey 2 is the same---nothing that really stands out to me.
Hulk(2008) started off with promise and then degenerated into an almost Snyder like CG poopfest!
Cap America 1 was ok-again a bit bland for me but respectable-Winter Soldier was exceptional. Cap 3(Civil War) was not a stand alone movie---no way!(still pretty good though).
Black Panther was good but again(aside from the social contexts was nothing new when it comes to ground breaking fantasy entertainment)
Cap Marvel is rubbish!
Guardians Of The Galaxy 1 & 2 are simply "meh" for me.

STM is f***ing exceptional and well above anything that Marvel has ever released(be it stand alone or mixed).Period.And I am saying that within the  2021 context.
In terms of sitting in a theater in 1978(ok I did not see it until 1981--but it's still the same era cinematically!)---I would take that experience over sitting in a cinema to watch any of the Marvel flicks(2008 to 2019).

I will still take Lester's SII over any of the Marvel stand alones anytime(I know that sounds controversial).
Allow me to elaborate.
Sitting in a theater in 1981, SII was unique(sure you had Raiders but that was a different kind of spectacle).
And as I said before, there was Clash Of The Titans, Dragon Slayer, Outland and Excalibur which are no where near SII in technical or artistic proficiency.
Indeed the only other thing that matched(or surpassed) SII for technical fantasy was STM(in the context of 1981).

Fast forward to 2014

That year  I watched(in no particular order):
Transformers(Extinction)----yeah I know it's the biggest sack of crap ever! 
Hobbit 5 armies.
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1
The Planet of the Apes
The Amazing Spider-Man 2.
Captain America: The Winter Soldier.

X-Men: Days of Future Past.
Guardians of the Galaxy. 
Interstellar

ect ect

So whilst the Winter Soldier stood out compared to the other Marvel movies that came before....it did not stand out from a technical standpoint in 2014(compared to other stuff that was around) like SII did in 1981. 

The same goes for SIII to a degree(that will sound controversial!).

The real elephant is SIV which quite frankly should not even count as a movie.
Having said that if I were to hypothetically strip out or water down the CG from most of the Marvel movies(......you may be surprised that even SIV could look quite good in comparison!).  
 
All my opinions of course

P.S

I was too young to watch Excalibur in 1981(it had a 15 certificate here in the UK)......but I remember seeing it's trailer in between STM and SII in that double bill. 

Fair enough-
My own opinions:

First, I remember (and still am aware of)- projects that seem to dawdle with musical chairs of directors or going into circles forever--- the development hecks of Superman series for years, Logan's Run's reboot (still in development heck), etc.... exciting projects that are looked never QUITE get the greenlight---

So, for Feige to say, "we're going to do an Iron Man movie, a Thor movie, a Captain America movie- and then tie it all together into an Avengers' movie'--- regardless of the quality of the movies, for it to reach THAT point from that perspective is AMAZING.

Then, to keep upping the game, learning along the way--- it's like orchestrating a giant novel with the separate movie productions with seperate casts and crews/etc.--- if Lucas was a genius for doing one trilogy, then from that pov, having multiple trilogies all around the same time.... with arguably different levels of quality- still, amazing as heck! (Plus, I'd argue that NO Marvel film ever was as bad as Phantom Menace or Attack of the Clones).

So, big props from that-

Should each one have had a higher standard? Sure, I'd love it if Thor had been modeled after Lord of the Rings, rather than a bad rom-com for the first two- but then when they decided to go full hog into bromance comedy --- Thor 3 on paper should not have worked, but I loved it for what it was and find it immensely re-watchable.

With Captain America, I was thrilled with how they were able to keep true to the spirit of Captain America and make his character interesting... although the Red Skull threat was incredibly flat and undermined that half of the film. The love story did work though and Cap's personality.

The following sequel for Cap was a giant bump up with the ROussos (agreed, they were perhaps the best directors tied with Taika Watiti- though his style is a whole other universe in itself)- for the subsequent films.

With Iron Man- 2 was a suprisingly misguided mess (The actor who played the villain has complained rightfully so how his character was pretty much meaningless, showing that even JOn Favreau can make a bad film or two)... Iron Man 3 had some interesting things that were derailed by Feige suprisingly, but I thought there were a lot of fresh elements that made it worth a watch or two... but IM 3 I did think regardless was better than IM 2....

Ant-man had that debacle with Edgar Wright, and I felt both #1 and #2 were INCREDIBLY mediocre in story and in direction. Very 'meh'.

Guardians of the Galaxy #1 I suprisingly loved as a new generation "Star Wars"- who knew? The second one I have a lot of problems with, but still overall entertaining...

Anyhow- a big tangent.

Superman the Movie is special not just for what it is-- but how they filmed it. I recently viewed "hecko Dolly!" with Barbara Streisand, and in a pre-cgi era, was blown away by the sheer amount of practical costumes and extras that were in every giant set piece. Not a big fan of musicals, but with cgi overload, big spectacles of the past that were shot practically stand out even more.

STM I think has many, many great parts- but the time reversal ending and the stray missile/ villains always reminds me that it was originally part of a two part story.

Obviously, I LLLLLOVE the film, but it's also about forgiving or overlooking a few significant story issues. The whole makes up for the cracks in the piece.

In an alternate universe, I would have loved it if Donner and Mank had tackled Batman and gave it the same treatment during that same time frame. Can you imagine how that might have turned out?

[crazy_asian_man]

Mar 5, 2021 11:12:36 GMT -5 Metallo said:

Mar 5, 2021 10:16:36 GMT -5 dejan said:

atp

The strength of the Marvel stuff has been the mixed universe flicks....and in particular the flair of the Russo bros.
Everything else is variable.

But lets compare apples with apples.

The stand alone Marvel flicks vary in quality and are mostly  pretty average IMHO:

The below represent my own personal opinions(and others may disagree strongly!):

Iron Man 1 was pretty cool---2 and 3 were average or poor.
Thor 1 was interesting(but I still found it a touch bland)--2 and 3 were awful.
Spiderman 1(Homecoming) was nice / average. Spidey 2 is the same---nothing that really stands out to me.
Hulk(2008) started off with promise and then degenerated into an almost Snyder like CG poopfest!
Cap America 1 was ok-again a bit bland for me but respectable-Winter Soldier was exceptional. Cap 3(Civil War) was not a stand alone movie---no way!(still pretty good though).
Black Panther was good but again(aside from the social contexts was nothing new when it comes to ground breaking fantasy entertainment)
Cap Marvel is rubbish!
Guardians Of The Galaxy 1 & 2 are simply "meh" for me.

STM is f***ing exceptional and well above anything that Marvel has ever released(be it stand alone or mixed).Period.And I am saying that within the  2021 context.
In terms of sitting in a theater in 1978(ok I did not see it until 1981--but it's still the same era cinematically!)---I would take that experience over sitting in a cinema to watch any of the Marvel flicks(2008 to 2019).

I will still take Lester's SII over any of the Marvel stand alones anytime(I know that sounds controversial).
Allow me to elaborate.
Sitting in a theater in 1981, SII was unique(sure you had Raiders but that was a different kind of spectacle).
And as I said before, there was Clash Of The Titans, Dragon Slayer, Outland and Excalibur which are no where near SII in technical or artistic proficiency.
Indeed the only other thing that matched(or surpassed) SII for technical fantasy was STM(in the context of 1981).

Fast forward to 2014

That year  I watched(in no particular order):
Transformers(Extinction)----yeah I know it's the biggest sack of crap ever! 
Hobbit 5 armies.
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1
The Planet of the Apes
The Amazing Spider-Man 2.
Captain America: The Winter Soldier.

X-Men: Days of Future Past.
Guardians of the Galaxy. 
Interstellar

ect ect

So whilst the Winter Soldier stood out compared to the other Marvel movies that came before....it did not stand out from a technical standpoint in 2014(compared to other stuff that was around) like SII did in 1981. 

The same goes for SIII to a degree(that will sound controversial!).

The real elephant is SIV which quite frankly should not even count as a movie.
Having said that if I were to hypothetically strip out or water down the CG from most of the Marvel movies(......you may be surprised that even SIV could look quite good in comparison!).  
 
All my opinions of course

P.S

I was too young to watch Excalibur in 1981(it had a 15 certificate here in the UK)......but I remember seeing it's trailer in between STM and SII in that double bill. 

The thing that makes Superman the movie stand out is it’s not following a superhero movie formula because at the time one didn’t really exist. They created the formula. It’s drawing from genre films and blockbusters from the era. It’s not necessarily one of the greatest films ever or flawless but it has its own identity. The first Burton Batman movie falls into a similar category. It’s got plenty of flaws but there was nothing like it at the time. Visually it was overwhelming.

While today’s superhero movies are more polished and more consistent than either one of them and the quality is more Consistent across the comic book/superhero genre most are following some kind of template or formula laid out by other superhero movies. Even Wonder Woman, which is widely considered the best DCEU film after being influenced by STM, fell apart once it started to rehash the third act of every big budget cgi laden comic book/superhero film.

As more and more films come out most of them feel more homogenized. The same is true of most Blockbusters today compared to those from decades past though. Even the first few Spider-Man films, as good as they were were drawing somewhat from the Superman formula. But it was still so early in the history of the genre that they were innovating and making up a lot of things themselves.

The comic book films that stand out are the ones drawing from outside the genre like The Dark Knight, First Class, Deadpool, Joker, Logan, Guardians, and Winter Soldier. Winter soldier is drawing from political Thrillers just as Logan draws from Westerns. Guardians is drawing from space opera. They’re mixing and machine genres. That’s what’s going to keep the genre fresh. Today’s films are truer to the source material but I miss some of the risk taking and artistic innovation. Flash Gordon may have been a failure in 1980 but it was a fun and interesting failure.

The sum that all up STM may have its warts but they’re interesting warts that were part of the genres growing pains. Just like a person with physical flaws or blemishes they give character. You could do the same comparison with the leading men of today with those from 40 years ago. It’s like I told ATP a while back most of today’s leads look too plastic and airbrushed.

To me, in seeing the scripts to STM and SII back to back- plus what Donner shot - What's really impressive to me is how compressed many of the scenes were to make every scene 'special' --- even though it might have taken much longer to do a 'one-er' with- as an example--- (shown only in the extended tv version)- Lois & Clark getting into the cab to seeing Otis on the street walking about. Donner always chose a way that may not have been the most economical way to shoot something, but sought to find a way (along with Stuart Baird) to give it the most scale with multiple angles for coverage. (i.e. I still think of the 'birds eye view' of Supes talking to Lex and Otis in the underground lair over the floor map).

The rewrite by Mank really tightened it up to me versus the Newmans' version. But, that's another thread....

[crazy_asian_man]

Mar 5, 2021 13:25:53 GMT -5 Metallo said:

Mar 5, 2021 12:03:52 GMT -5 dejan said:

Nice points Metallo

Personally, I just regard STM as being a great movie first and foremost(and IMHO one of the greatest ever made)......and then, the greatest comic book movie ever.

You are absolutely right that it's not perfect(what movie is!) but there is a heart that comes through it all.
And you can see the struggle to make the film practically oozes out of every frame.....and in doing so ...elevates it to another level entirely. Star Wars has exactly that same thing going on.

These guys really pushed the boundaries of what was possible.

Cinema itself  is a perpetually evolving art form..........and there was that one moment in time(late 70s/early 80s) when technology, artistry, storytelling and acting personalities converged to create a unique moment regarding cinematic fantasy that can never be repeated.
Either you were there to experience it or you were not(be it as film makers or the audience).

In some ways the current generation of filmmakers are constantly trying to recreate that moment and they simply can't.
Even guys who were instrumental in that period ------like Lucas(the prequels), Spielberg(Minority Report, AI, Crystal Skull, Ready Player One) and Scott(Prometheus, Covenant) have found that recreating that magic is next to impossible. 

And maybe we as audience members are also looking for a recreation of that moment......but it can never be.

And with regards to the Winter Soldier-it's definitely got 3 Days Of A Condor(one of my personal favorites) influence written all over it----I think the Russos bagged Redford just because of that reference!

And you are not wrong abut the wax and buffing with regards to todays actors....quite literally!-----The eradication of Cavill's mustache would not have been possible in the pre-CG era.

It is the main reason why Nolan espouses the photochemical era of filmmaking-----it's level of reality is only now being appreciated precisely because it has been eradicated.

But at the time it existed ---it was simply par for the course. 
 

That generation of filmmakers that came of age in the 70s and 80s grew up fans of cinema and different genres but they also went through the fire that you had to go through to just get into the business. More of the best who had natural love and talent made it and got opportunities. They could make any kind of film.

We’re in an age now where people are getting into the entertainment industry far more easily (some would say too easily) and with far less talent. The industry wants drones not artists because it’s producing so much to be devoured. That’s why they aren’t innovating but are simply rehashing what they grew up on that was made by previous generations. Sure you could say the studios are less risk averse and aren’t giving them opportunities to try new things but at a certain we have to stop putting all the blame on the studios.

Some for these guys are getting the clout to do what they want and instead of doing great new things they simply continue to rehash old stuff and do it poorly. JJ Abrams is the textbook example of this. All the power he has and he continues to do safe lazy crap. It’s because he’s in it for the money and never had any real vision of his own. Then you’ve got guys like Zack Snyder who do think they’re artists but again they don’t have the pure talent or aptitude nor were they put through the wringer to force them to improve. We need more Chris Nolan’s and fewer JJ Abrams. Nolan’s stuff might be dry and clinical but at least he’s taking that power he got from the Batman films and is making his own stories.

I think it's worth noting that both Speilberg and Donner had TONS of tv directing before graduating to film.... The Rousso brothers had also a history (though I don't know if it's as much as Speilberg or Donner)- of directing a lot of tv before hitting the big screen.

I haven't done a deep dive into film history, but I suspect the best films got made under studio situations where there was a strong leader that had clout and staying power. Years ago (it may be well outdated, though) I viewed a PBS special where it showed heads of studios having ONE year and a summer to prove themselves financially or they'd be out the front door.... hence, rush-rush-rush for the summer blockbuster to guarantee his job, then the artsy stuff.

Is that still true? Possibly... which would explain a lot if the time frame and stress is still the same....

[Metallo]

Not necessarily a year but there’s still a lot of turnover when you consider how far up some of these people are on the ladder. Look at how Sony and WB were shaken up over the last few years. The disappointment of the Spiderverse and DCEU weren’t the main reasons Pascal and Tsujihara were shown the door/left but they had to be factors. I still remember the days of Alan Horn and Lorenzo DiBonaventura being at the top when WB was struggling to get their DC movies off the ground in the late 90s and early 2000s.

[Metallo]

Mar 5, 2021 17:26:54 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Mar 5, 2021 10:16:36 GMT -5 dejan said:

atp

The strength of the Marvel stuff has been the mixed universe flicks....and in particular the flair of the Russo bros.
Everything else is variable.

But lets compare apples with apples.

The stand alone Marvel flicks vary in quality and are mostly  pretty average IMHO:

The below represent my own personal opinions(and others may disagree strongly!):

Iron Man 1 was pretty cool---2 and 3 were average or poor.
Thor 1 was interesting(but I still found it a touch bland)--2 and 3 were awful.
Spiderman 1(Homecoming) was nice / average. Spidey 2 is the same---nothing that really stands out to me.
Hulk(2008) started off with promise and then degenerated into an almost Snyder like CG poopfest!
Cap America 1 was ok-again a bit bland for me but respectable-Winter Soldier was exceptional. Cap 3(Civil War) was not a stand alone movie---no way!(still pretty good though).
Black Panther was good but again(aside from the social contexts was nothing new when it comes to ground breaking fantasy entertainment)
Cap Marvel is rubbish!
Guardians Of The Galaxy 1 & 2 are simply "meh" for me.

STM is f***ing exceptional and well above anything that Marvel has ever released(be it stand alone or mixed).Period.And I am saying that within the  2021 context.
In terms of sitting in a theater in 1978(ok I did not see it until 1981--but it's still the same era cinematically!)---I would take that experience over sitting in a cinema to watch any of the Marvel flicks(2008 to 2019).

I will still take Lester's SII over any of the Marvel stand alones anytime(I know that sounds controversial).
Allow me to elaborate.
Sitting in a theater in 1981, SII was unique(sure you had Raiders but that was a different kind of spectacle).
And as I said before, there was Clash Of The Titans, Dragon Slayer, Outland and Excalibur which are no where near SII in technical or artistic proficiency.
Indeed the only other thing that matched(or surpassed) SII for technical fantasy was STM(in the context of 1981).

Fast forward to 2014

That year  I watched(in no particular order):
Transformers(Extinction)----yeah I know it's the biggest sack of crap ever! 
Hobbit 5 armies.
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1
The Planet of the Apes
The Amazing Spider-Man 2.
Captain America: The Winter Soldier.

X-Men: Days of Future Past.
Guardians of the Galaxy. 
Interstellar

ect ect

So whilst the Winter Soldier stood out compared to the other Marvel movies that came before....it did not stand out from a technical standpoint in 2014(compared to other stuff that was around) like SII did in 1981. 

The same goes for SIII to a degree(that will sound controversial!).

The real elephant is SIV which quite frankly should not even count as a movie.
Having said that if I were to hypothetically strip out or water down the CG from most of the Marvel movies(......you may be surprised that even SIV could look quite good in comparison!).  
 
All my opinions of course

P.S

I was too young to watch Excalibur in 1981(it had a 15 certificate here in the UK)......but I remember seeing it's trailer in between STM and SII in that double bill. 

From the frame of reference of suffering through all the live action superhero adaptations that had next to NO resemblance to the comic source material for MANY years...

Marvel- in that regard - was a godsend.

Three things imo make Marvel shine:
Yes, I agree that the movies have been average overall, with a growing percentage of 'really good' and 'great' ones...

But to me here's why I love/admire Marvel's long game:

#1: Even the imperfect origin films capture with ENOUGH accuracy the spirit of the Marvel comic source material. (What's close enough being subjective of course, though, I know)
- Thor, Iron Man, Captain America, Black Widow, Hawkeye, Vision, and Scarlet Witch feel fairly close, compared to what's come before the MCU!

#2: The ambitions and committment to the long games. Avengers was a novelty never done before in that way. Infinity War and Endgame upped that game even more.

#3: While Snyder might 'love' the material, I don't feel he gets it. Feige overall gets it.... a lot of the joys I had as a comic reader for Marvel I see translated into the live action franchise, stuff that I imagine isn't that easy to coordinate behind the scenes.... or.... the motivation isn't there. (A similar admiration was for the Crisis on Infinite Earths in tv, after hearing how crossovers behind the scenes weren't that easy to do on a tiny level, let alone a large one.)

That’s a good point. No franchise in history has been able to pull off long form serialized storytelling the way Marvel studios has. Not even the greatest film franchises in history. At some point when they go that long with that many movies they’ve all turned in a massive series killing turkey. Superman may have been great but they couldn’t even keep it up for three straight films. Marvels best might be few and far between but they don’t have a Superman IV or X-men Origins on their resume either.

I give the Arrowverse producers credit for even attempting Crisis. It’s got to be one of the most ambitious tv crossovers in history. Even Star Trek with its massive shared universe never tried anything even close when you think they of all people would have.