No. It doesn't apply "equally" to the Ant-Man 3 and Citizen Kane.
I’ve shown quite a few people citizen Kane and, aside from a musing discomfort at the parallels of post modern trump like media manipulation (FRAUD), it really doesn’t resonate with people nearly as much as, say, Parasite, despite them probably being culturally closer to Kane.
Tl;dr if you’re going to show someone a “life changing film” pick something new that is similarly ambitious. Classics require too much effort to enjoy. It often doesn’t work.
The day when the project would lose its luster was always coming - as anyone who knows the history of Hollywood westerns and action flicks and blaxploitation could tell you - and you may gloat now that it's arrived. However, for a shining moment, literally billions of people had something special to share, and no amount of elitist posturing can take away from it.
(Citizen Kane's cool, too, of course. Gave us that clap meme and a baller Simpson's episode.)
That's more of a parlor trick than art. "See how much simplistic comic book storytelling randomness I can fit in 30+ movies, and even live room for 70% of it be explosions and fight scenes".
>it was an unprecedented undertaking involving the hard work of tens (hundreds?) of thousands of talented artists and technicians across the globe
"Talented" is begging the question.
IMNSHO, not only is the writing, acting, and directing mediocre by-the-numbers blockbuster crap, but even what they supposedly do best (the special effects and fights and such) are shodilly made.
There are movies made from comics that are worth a damn cinematically (Logan, Sin City, Watchmen, Constantine) but 99% of MCU is not in that set.
Neil Gaiman does decently well in the adaptations that involve him, I must say.
The legacy of the films—technical achievements, continuity and coherence of narrative, ambition, etc.—are laudatory in some respects. Obviously, they made an enormous amount of money. But it's worth examining their "critical" success. Putting my personal opinions aside, do any of these films hold up to the standard bearers of early 90s and 00s blockbusters? I'm not convinced.
The MCU films are inherently derivative works with little dramatic tension; we already know the characters and that they will win. The narrative and dialogue is paint-by-numbers, and the action sequences are exhausting, low-stakes, and sterile.
That's fine for a theme park ride—get some thrills if that's your cup of tea—but it's not enough for a critically good blockbuster film. That's fine for teen boys and young adults, but it's not enough for a more diverse, discerning audience. Does anyone think any of these films, let alone their entirety, hold a candle to Jurassic Park, The Matrix, or The Pirates of the Caribbean? They're equally blockbusters, but they will be remembered long after the MCU films are forgotten.
Just like with music, "the best" is often the things you experience in your mid-teens to mid-twenties. And when you grow up you'll develop some more critical thinking and may appreciate older or newer things.
> And when you grow up you'll develop some more critical thinking and may appreciate older or newer things.
Your argumentation is just as childish as your taste.
Not all summer blockbusters are created equal.
Just imagine what those artists could have accomplished working in the service of an artistic vision instead of churning out corporate slop.
Live action super hero dramas started with Superman and reached maturity in Sam Raimi's Spiderman movies. Highlights are Robocop and Unbreakable (throw a Batman adaptation in there, probably The Dark Knight). By the time the MCU rolled around, the genre was well past middle age. Despite billions of dollars of life support, it will be remembered as the last tortured breaths of a somewhat embarrassing cultural episode.
That said, good films don't need high budget.
I don't agree with your last take, either; the MCU was when the superhero movie formula was perfected. We're now in a post-MCU phase where what is being produced just can't reach the same appeal anymore. Morbius and Madame Web are outright flops. They seem to be rebooting Fantastic Four for the 4th time. Any sequel to established MCU characters seem to be independent / standalone films, sometimes a bit gimmicky like Sam Raimi's Doctor Strange horror crossover episode or Thor's 80's glam rock direction.
As far as the rest of your comment, I'll just repeat my view that Sam Raimi's Spiderman movies are far better than MCU. And Robocop/Unbreakable are the best the genre produced.
It feels like it's getting harder to do something new.
And my answer is: not exactly, it applies best to movies that are not "mainstream blockbuster trash".
I'm pretty sure we can find some people for which some of the 200 movies in the Avengers franchize resonated with them and changed their life. Especially since billions saw them (and unprobable events will tend to happen as the sample size grows). After all, Hallmark movies also resonate with many people. And in the right conditions, say our dog just died, they can make even the more cynical of us cry.
But generally, better movies have that quality more. This is what makes the better in the first place: touching on some essential aspect of humanity in a non-trite way. Doesn't have to be classics as in "old movies favored by critics", just generally movies made with more vision, integrity, and core message than "look 2 hours of explosions and fancy effects mixed with reshased cookie cutter dialog", or "look at these two cute young people fall in love, have a falling out, and getting back again") will tend to resonate with people more deeply and in more nuanced ways.
I prefer to be a little more provocative than going with the conventional wisdom and just saying: "well, more power to them".
They need to put in the work to get that increased power :)
You should show more respect for the people you depend upon to maintain your sense or intellectual and moral superiority. Where would you be without them?
The pseudo-egalitarian idea that there is no difference in value when it comes to what people consume depends on the nasty, unspoken idea that the masses are just too stupid to want to do anything seriously challenging.
That's not what I meant originally.
It's okay if the mailman wants to watch the newest Marvel movie to relax and unwind after work. Or maybe the mailman grew up reading the comics and the Marvel movies are a dream come true, despite their flaws.
Why is it not okay for the mailman to have pursuits that aren't some way related to improving oneself or related to intellectual curiosity? Maybe they read the Iliad some other day or when they have more time or are in the mood for it, no judgement there.
I think people are talking past my original comment's point. If anything its an elitist view that the mailman is wasting their time if they aren't doing something productive. That was my original point at least.
Isn't a better question: where would they be with access to better education and more opportunities to cultivate their taste?
Or is that only for people with "intellectual and moral superiority", and they should be content with their blockbusters and Billboard Top 100?
Nothing about watching a dumb movie to escape the world and relax for two hours is unhealthy; probably improves mental well being. How is that related to unhealthy food?
Again, not everyone wants power. You might want to try being more proactive in your compassion.
Taste needs to be cultivated.
Even if two people with cultivated tastes don't agree on everything (or anything), their opinions on say movies or music are worth more than some guy's who just "likes what he likes" and never really got into exploring that space any deeper.