I read those things but you never state that they are actually subpar. You point out how they could be better but not that they're actually bad. You might not like quips but the comic books are full of quips, many of them pretty bad. Staying in line with the source material makes the presence of quips a positive, not a negative.
I understand quips are a part of comics and I'm not saying they are in and of themselves bad. Spiderman's mid-fight quips are a consistent part of his character and it adds to his fight scenes. However, I think the way most Marvel movies use quips are ineffective most of the time in that they rarely add to a scene or sometimes detract from it.
Some are good for sure, like Captain America's "I get that reference". Its quip that only makes sense if you know Cap's character and back story.. Can't remember any specific ones right now but there are also some good quips directed at the Hulk and again they're good because they make references to the character.
Iron Man threatening to donate his AI fire extinguisher to a city college if it doused him again unnecessarily is also good because that line adds to the scene in that it gives you a sense of how long he was working on that specific project(long enough to have been doused numerous times unnecessarily).
But "I don't see how that's a party" is cringe worthy and its not the only one.
That the action sequences don't rise to the level of Tarantino doesn't mean they're bad. Not great doesn't mean bad. That would be a very binary approach to judging film.
But that's not what I said, I simply said the video contrasted the action in Marvel films with that of Tarantino and I mentioned that because Tarantino is a box office star who gets it right so you can't just lay the blame for the poor quality of action scenes on the fact that its a big budget blockbuster.
They're bad in their own right though. Their editing makes them hardly intelligible. They're a mess of slopy edits and bad sound design.
The standardization of the score, cinematography, color palette etc. are solid devices to maintain consistency across the films. Similar to how WalMart uses the same store layout whether you go to WalMArt in California or Nebraska. The visual consistency helps maintain the cohesiveness of the overall franchises across multiple films over multiple years where the audience might not see every single one of the films. In this regard, the comic books are another decent parallel. Comics try not to change artists or colors for similar reasons. The buyer knows what to expect. It would be too jarring for one film/comic book to present a set of visual cues only for the next stage in the story to use different ones.
I mentioned that already and I specifically said its this need to keep consistency that is partly to blame for the quality of their films. I understand it but it doesn't mean I have to like it. You cite Walmart, just because they have an efficient and consistent business model doesn't mean I necessarily have to like their business model. Certainly I don't frequent WalMart myself very often.
Also many of your complaints seem to be about the repetitive nature of these things as opposed to the individual films. Let's say Thor 3 wasn't the 3rd film of the Thor franchise and the 15th film in the MCU, would you have the same critique if there were no predecessors or successor films?
No, the films are individually not technically impressive and this is because they are part of a franchise as we talked about earlier. In fact its the opposite of what you claim, like I said earlier I was impressed by
The Avengers not because its a technically interesting film in its own right but for the fact that it strung together heroes from multiple different films into one.
So yeah I would have the same critique.
