I'm not disagreeing that some of the quips are bad. I'm disagreeing that the presence of bad quips means the movie is bad. The comics have bad quips. It's a quantity over quality standard.
Oh I know that some bad quips don't ruin a movie but notice in that post I pointed to more than just bad quips. The quips are just one element that drag the films down. Toby Maguire was not the best at delivering his Spidey quips but I still love Spiderman 2.
That strikes me as more opinion than fact. I'm sure some people dislike them and some people find them just fine. But that brings me back to my previous statement - not great doesn't mean bad.
I suppose on some level its an opinion but I'm talking about specific practices which seem to only detract from the quality of an action scene. If its less intelligible then that seems to me as close to an objective marker of poor quality as you can get with film since the point of film is to communicate what is happening on camera. Action scenes in the Marvel franchise just don't do that very well for the most part and even when you can tell what's happening the choreography leaves much to be desired.
Sure, you might not like WalMart or their business model but their success shows that their model is positively embraced by a large number of people.
The success of the Marvel films suggests that their consistency is a reflection of their quality. You don't have to like it, that's true. But not you not liking it doesn't mean it's a technical failing. I found War and Peace boring, I don't think I like anything from Shakespeare except Macbeth. That doesn't mean Shakespeare was a hack or that Tolstoy's work is deficient. I don't like them but they are successful enough to suggest that my impression is a minority one.
Kimbo Slice was an incredibly popular fighter, does his popularity suggest he was a quality fighter? I think not.
Also, I'm not arguing that its a technical failing because I don't like it, that's flipping my argument around. I don't like these films because they are technically unimpressive on multiple levels. I'm sure there are technically impressive films that I don't like out there and in those cases my objection would be different.
I like
The Revenant and its a technical masterpiece but its also very slow and at times even I got bored. In that case, my issue wasn't with technical simplicity but rather the pacing which was deliberately slow but bored me at time regardless.
Again, you refer to a high standard of technical skill, "impressive". You appear to leave no room for the possibility that a good film can be technically mediocre.
This reminds me of the older UFC days when people would argue that X fighter isn't technically sound and the counter argument was "So what, he wins fights. So his technique might not be picture perfect but it's effective and that's what matters."
I guess it depends what you mean by "good". "Good" as in it does well at the box office? Sure, technically unimpressive films can be box office this as the Marvel franchise shows.
"Good" as in entertaining? I agree, I enjoyed Jurassic World and its basically not too different from the modern Marvel blockbusters but with dinosaurs instead of superheroes and I love dinosaurs. In that case though the film appealed to my personal preference for dinosaurs just like these capeshit films appeal to people's preference for superheroes. However, that doesn't mean they're "good" on a technical level and that goes for Jurassic World as well. It was most fun the first time, the more I rewatch it the less impressive it becomes. After a while the main thing worth rewatching it for is Bryce Dallas Howard in a pencil skirt with a bob cut.
She was quite the specimen in that film.