Marvel movies are fun. Fun. Lots of fun. Boy, they are fun. If you go see a Marvel movie, you can expect a fun time. Fun, fun, fun. If you look up "fun" in the dictionary, you'll find a picture of Kevin Feige, probably laughing while watching one of the MCU movies. Which, in case it wasn't already established, are fun. We are young. They're so fun that it wouldn't be surprising if the final Infinity Stone is changed to be the Fun Stone.
And, frankly, "fun" just isn't enough.
There really isn't a single word more synonymous with the Marvel Cinematic Universe at this point than the f-word: it's literally impossible to find a review of any new outing that doesn't use it at least once (two of the three 2017 releases have it at the center of their Rotten Tomatoes' summary), which is echoed by fans of all degrees across social media; when deflecting the common criticisms against the MCU of similar feeling movies, studio head Feige said "if what they have in common is they're all really enjoyable and fun to watch, then I'll take it"; and in the SDCC trailer for Avengers: Infinity War, Thanos announces his entrance by proclaiming, "Fun isn't really something one considers when balancing the universe, but this does put a smile on my face."
That's right - the big bad of the entire franchise thus far in the movie described as the first part of the epic culmination of its first 22-movie arc begins his conquest by saying how much of a gleefully good time he's going to be having. Grand epic? Nah, it's just fun. And that's the problem - the MCU has become so hooked on fun, it can't be anything else.
What We Mean When We Say Fun (This Page)
What We Mean When We Say Fun
Let's not mince words. The Marvel Cinematic Universe is not bad. In fact, it's really, really good. Across its 17 movies and an ever-growing number of TV shows, there's some of the best the superhero genre has to offer; when it comes to the big screen even the weakest offerings are still at worst average. Fun really is an apt descriptive phrase too. The movies are big, blockbuster entertainment for the 21st Century, with a foot in the real world without the fear of going to crazy places, and a strong understanding of the balance between character and brand. It should be stated, in no uncertain terms, that the movies discussed in this article are good.
Read More: Thor: Ragnarok Post-Credits Scenes Explained in Detail
That now said, it's important to clarify what we really mean when we say Marvel movies are fun. As a word, "fun" isn't some grand declarative. Just below that picture of a gleeful Feige in your dictionary is probably something about "amusing", "lighthearted" or "pleasant". When it comes to criticism, it's thus almost as versatile a phrase as "interesting", and just as empty by itself (hat-tip Captain Fantastic). On the scale of engagement, it sits just above "interested" but a couple of rungs below the fully-fledged "entertained". It's OK to use, but when "fun" is the baseline summary of a full work, then it's an indication of modest goals averagely met: fun is enjoyability in the absence of everything else; to be fun is to be fine but frivolous.
And that's what people genuinely seem to mean when they say Marvel movies are fun. It is the greatest praise that can be given to something that at its best is good - they are enough to keep us consistently engaged for two-and-a-bit hours but not to warrant a stronger word - and the MCU should be more than that.
Thor: Ragnarok Is Fun, But Not Much More (Like Marvel's Other Recent Outings)
Let's try and show what we mean and look at Marvel fun in action with its latest outing, the film where the fun talk went into overdrive: Thor: Ragnarok. It's one of the most purely funny films in the mega-franchise (although it's worth noting both Iron Man 3 and Ant-Man were straight-up comedies before it) that manages to inject energy into the moribund Thor sub-series. However, it's a very superficial film; there's a greater meaning to Thor's MCU journey, the prophecy of Ragnarok and true identity, but that's all trappings to the action and yuks.
Read More: What The Ending of Thor: Ragnarok Really Means
Director Taika Waititi's previous films, especially direct predecessor Hunt for the Wilderpeople, were personified by a perfect grasp of "happy-sad" (hat-tip Sing Street); there was unbridled absurdist humor, but it was always framed alongside incredibly dour emotional turns, with perhaps his greatest skill being the ability to contrast risque black comedy and heartstring-pulling drama in the same beat. Yet even though his MCU movie is a comedy that sees the destruction of the hero's home - i.e. classic Waititi - there's none of that, just jokes. It has a lot of personality - its music and production design are the best in the series - yet underneath that is the same machinery. Plainly, Ragnarok feels like a Marvel movie with some Taika Waititi inflections tacked on, rather than a Taika Waititi movie in the MCU.
This is a story we've seen already in 2017. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 had a strong throughline of parental themes of all stripes, yet James Gunn was married to a structure that left it with a gaping narrative hole in its center (there's little actual plot to the film, with the half-hour stretch after meeting Ego completely devoid of any forward momentum). Spider-Man: Homecoming was a bit stronger, with clearer set and achieved targets, although its biggest flaw may be the most revealing: Jon Watts just wasn't aiming as high as he could have. Everything Homecoming wanted to do, it did; there just wasn't that much ambition to actually do more than put Peter Parker in the MCU.
Marvel's "Serious" Films Are Now The Outliers
Again, none of these are bad films (especially true with Homecoming) thanks to the franchise's recurrent trumpeting of character and propensity to wear its inspirations on its sleeve - the meta-textuality Marvel is playing with almost puts Stranger Things to shame - but likewise, it feels like the franchise confines see them all ultimately fall into that "fun" category. That we've had this three times in a year (and, frankly, Doctor Strange fits in the same pen) suggests Marvel is just happy making these light movies.
In print, Marvel would never stoop this low. They revolutionized comics in the 1960s when they grounded superheroes and later pushed boundaries with The Night Gwen Stacey Died, Demon in a Bottle and so much more. Whatever you think of the recent changes made by the All-New All-Different reboot, there's been a wealth of different, daring stories that use the characters in interesting ways and where style isn't beholden to type.
And it's perhaps no coincidence that out of the movies widely regarded as the best in the franchise, most of them are the ones that least fit the "fun" branding. The likes of the original Iron Man, Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Civil War are sure-fire entertainment, but their level of success really comes from endeavoring to be something more - to explore an idea with these characters and present a bigger experience of it to the audience. The best-regard film in the canon that's purely "fun" is The Avengers, and that was an industry-redefining event whose importance is so self-aware it'd hard to dismiss as frivolous.
But how can you blame them? The movies we just mentioned that went further were rolls of the dice - everyone loves to say unproven brands are Marvel's biggest gambles, but it's really stories that don't follow their own defined norms - and are much less likely creative successes than something that's knockabout. They're a risk; fun unquestionably works.
Why Being Fun Is Better For Marvel Than Being Great
The MCU is a series without a single Rotten rating on Rotten Tomatoes, with all but two movies Certified Fresh. The only other franchises that can claim that and have released their entries in the site's history (older films skew positive) are Harry Potter and The Hunger Games, which are both shorter and based on clear source material. What Feige and co. have done is nothing short of incredible.
This is thus often used as the ultimate stamp of success - seen best with Ragnarok, which was called the best Marvel film sight unseen because it sat on 99% for so long. However, Rotten Tomatoes is hardly a fair barometer of actual quality, more broad opinion; its basic aggregation algorithm only categorizes reviews on a binary positive/negative scale, meaning a 3* shrug weighs the same as a 5* rave. But it doesn't matter - as much as people try to explain this, they still fall into the hype trap - probably because it is an extension of how people discuss movies anyway.
Read More: Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, IMDb & CinemaScore Explained
Whether Top Critic or non-contributing audience member, fun is going to hit that 3* threshold more often than not, and likewise is unlikely to cause many to be so incensed they give it a negative appraisal. The mood is shaped as positive. If they tried to do more daring films, they'd risk dividing people and with it souring the consensus, or at the very least have serious criticisms leveled against them - and with that the consistent financial take would be hurt. For a film like Blade Runner 2049 to meets its transcendent reputation for the average punter is nigh on impossible. When that bar is lowered to "you'll have a good time", things are easier. Being fun is safer and thus "better" for a studio.
Formula: Or Where All The Comedy Comes In
You may have noticed that so far we've avoided talking about Marvel comedy, and that's because of the common conflating of the films being fun and being funny. In truth, none of the MCU entries are fun purely because they've got jokes. What the humor is, really, is part of the formula. Now, Marvel formula is a well-covered topic, but the short version is that it's about character above all else. In theory, that's a fair idea: focus on your heroes and you have a strong heart. But that tunnel-vision leads to all the classic weaknesses: underdeveloped villains, basic plots and uniform technical elements (i.e. everything that's holding them back).
Read More: Is Thor: Ragnarok Too Much Of A Comedy?
The humor is ostensibly there to keep people engaged alongside the character obsession. However, it can be at odds; whereas a well-written character is grounding, jokes are often superficial and at worst distracting. It's easier to go for an emotional beat then swerve at the last minute with a gag - those who want to find meaning can, while everyone else gets a yuk - but you don't get anywhere near the connection a fully earnest moment would. Is it really any surprise that the best moments of 2017's films are the ones that dropped the fun facade: Yondu's funeral, the Vulture twist, and the gladiator fight? In practice, humor is a cap, an ensuring of only fun, but it became dominant because of the realization that good beat the gamble of great, not the other way round.
Fun has become Marvel's shortcut to success, and as time's gone by a crux. One the MCU needs to get past.
Fun Is, Ultimately, A Defence Against Nothing
Fun is the infrastructure now. That's probably why we're seeing directors defending the phrase as it shifted from praise to criticism in some corners of the fanbase. But while they're right that it doesn't mean bad, the way we use fun is wrong.
Considering everything we've discussed, it feels like the reason the f-word is so used despite its mundane definition is because it's deemed a strong contrast. It's a word used to rally against the notion that superhero movies are all dour and drab exercises in pomposity. The problem is that the entire landscape is the opposite of that. The superhero films that reviews of every Marvel film say it shifts away from don't exist; how can Thor bring humor to the MCU when Spidey and Guardians and Doctor Strange and Ant-Man and Thor previously (oh yeah, remember that The Dark World was funny too) and The Avengers and Thor again and, back to the start, Iron Man did it already? Fun is decreed enough by pop culture because we believe this genre by-and-large is not that and so it's refreshing. But it is. It always has been. It's superhero movies.
Instead, the reason this is perpetuated is that fun isn't all that memorable, so by the time the next Marvel movie comes around the elation of watching the prior one is lost and this approach feels fresh again. Fun is - and if you take on lesson away from us today, let it be this - more of the same.
It's Unlikely The MCU Can Change Things Up
Change is always coming to the MCU. This next movie, that's the one that breaks it; this indie darling will crack the formula; the next villain won't be throwaway; this one does something new beyond the formula. But how much of this is a fallacy? We've already outlined how all this is the product of the fun, and because that works there's not much room for actual evolution.
A director comes in and has to make a Marvel movie. You end up with some personality - Thor is Branagh, The First Avenger is Johnston, Avengers is Whedon, Guardians is Gunn and, yes, Ragnarok is Waititi - but they're doing so in a pre-programmed machine that is so refined they don't have a say in some bigger steps; color and score are mostly linear throughout, and VFX-wise the scope is always going to be limited by a basic teaching lesson. Sure, the movies are getting marginally more confident in the "weirdness" department, but the steps are so slight and the most reductive take on what their comic inspiration is that it's still aggressively safe. This formula is pretty much essential from a production standpoint when you have three tentpoles a year, but caps the freedom and creativity.
Will Black Panther really be a Ryan Coogler blockbuster or simply another coming-of-origin story with lessened humor? Can Captain Marvel change things up with its pre-eyepatch Nick Fury and Skrulls or just alter the aesthetic? And will even Infinity War really challenge the heroes or just coast on witty banter? The best entries are the ones where a director accepts their restrictive place and grows within the franchise confines, but it is still franchise confines; as exemplified with Thor, it's always a fun MCU movie first.
Contrast all this to DC Films. While the future of the DCEU and its various Elseworlds is quite muddled, with more and more projects added to the docket monthly, the ethos is more evidently filmmaker-driven, allowing more variance. Even its bad (read: terrible) entries are true auteur projects that took gambles, and post-Justice League looks to be greatly diverging based on new filmmakers. While so far the Marvel vs. DC "wars" have been rather one-sided, in a few years there's every chance things could change.
-
As we've been saying throughout, whatever's said here, the MCU movies are still good. They're just not the monoliths they were once evolving into. This is why we get talk of superhero fatigue. It's not because they're bad, it's because they're homogenized to the point of mundanity. Unfortunately, that's not enough to hurt box office and in-the-moment critical appraisal, so we can't expect much to change.
And, while it may not be the best route, at least it'll be fun.
