>>98922573you stated in your previous post that they perfected the serial adventure film, which amounts to the formula everyone is always referring to, yet fail to realise what I meant?
>they don't "shit" out movieswhen it comes to superhero movies (which I was clearly talking about), they clearly release the most movies a year that take place in the same franchise. at the same time, all of these movies follow the same formula, ergo people get used to the mediocre quality
>Fox, WB>Good production values>Anon, please.there are a couple of instances where both Fox and WB are superior to MCU movies like character development, CGI, and cinematography. MCU movies are good at being solid, yet almost none of them are actually memorable. they do succeed in being comedies and thus making people remember the movies for being funny but that's it. If Disney had continued making movies in the way they made Phase 1 (letting the directors do their shit), the entire franchise would be a lot better. this way, you have directors not following continuity (Thor and Loki being quipsters in Ragnarok) and CGI being a thousand times worse than in the first movie of the MCU
I'm not counting on you trying to be objective because you clearly aren't but that's the way it is. there are some exceptions like Homecoming because those movies are clearly intended to be comedies but even then, some very negative aspects (bad CGI) are always very prominent. This is the "generic" aspect I was talking about. low effort, maximum gains
