Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bagpuss" data-source="post: 8950727" data-attributes="member: 3987">I think the movies that have been set largely in recognisable places on Earth (even if it is the mythical Wakanda) are generally better than the ones set in almost entirely CGI creations. The Spiderman films for example seem to be better liked as they on the whole are set in the real world, even when he explores the idea of the Multiverse it is pulling characters from it into the "real world" not jumping through a CGI wonderscape like in Dr Strange.The recent Antman suffered from this CGI setting particularly, going into the Quantum realm also meant Paul Rudd didn't have Michael Peña to work with (absolutely criminal that he didn't even have an after credits scene). Worse they separated him from Michael Douglas during much of the movie, who has been a great straight man for him in the earlier films. So the whole film lacked a lot of the comedy of the first films. The quality and experience of the writers and directors of the phase 4 seems a step down as well, many of them having their big film debuts with the Marvel movies.Consider Ant Man - you have Edgar Wright as lead writer fresh off the Cornetto trilogy, with plenty of support from known comic writers, and Paul Rudd. Then Quantumania - you have Jeff Loveness his first film, and before that just a few episodes of cartoons and part of the team for Jimmy Kimmel. No other writers or support.</blockquote>