Why are these films so much better than the dozen+ Marvel Cinematic

They aren't

>one good movie out of three
>KINO TRILOGY BRING BACK RAIMI

plz stop

>>85891242
Good balance of serious tone and goofy shit. CGI isn't abused, casting is pretty good.

>>85891242
Because Sam Raimi is an artist with a vision who loves the character and not some corporate hack trying to make a quick buck.

>>85891242
>there are still people on this board who doesn't know spiderman 2 is the greatest superhero film of all time

File: The Avengers.jpg (126KB, 619x377px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 619x377px

They're less formulaic and have character moments that aren't made like they were written for a sit-com.

3 is pretty bad, but could have been good if it was split into two films.

>>85891388
>and not some corporate hack trying to make a quick buck
Doesn't really describe Feige though does it? Getting the characters right is in large part the reason the MCU has done as well as it has.

File: spid.png (205KB, 772x421px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 772x421px

>>85891375
>CGI isn't abused
Did you even see the fucking movies? Not only is there CGI everywhere, it's really bad too.

>>85891574
>getting the characters right
If only that was the only problem with Disney's cash-cow franchises.

>>85891630
I get that you've got problems with the MCU. Doesn't change the fact that Marvel knows it's characters and it's mostly why they keep hitting homeruns.

it was one guy's vision, not a product in which every aspect of the development is highly scrutinized by a bunch of businessmen in order to appeal to as many retards as possible

I had never really thought about it til recently, but yes these movies were pretty special.

I'm not quite sure why, but it happened right around the time spider-man was announced to join the mcu, what a funny coincidence.

logan
also, the spiderman movies are for mediocre teenagers

>on set promotional image
>screencap from youtube

>>85892079
>Promotional photo vs. youtube screencap
yaas meme

>>85892156
they were shit. even the first one which is the herald of bland soulless mediocrity that the genre is host to

>>85891403
The Dark Knight is objectively better than Spider-Man 2. It's still a fantastic movie though, I'll give you that.

>>85892665
>objectively better
"No!"

>>85892009
No it's because Marvel knows its audience-pleasers and test-audiences so that's mostly why they keep hitting homeruns.

>>85892079
Fuck off witht his facebook-tier shit
I say that as a raimifag

>>85891242
Does anyone know if Spider-man 3.1 has been uploaded anywhere?

Fucking Sony took it down from amazon after it was only up for like a day.