When will the Marvel bubble burst?

probably went from writer to write to writer to writer to writer, like a public 100 million dollar game of telephone.

Yep. Consequently, all of my non-comic book-reading friends adore MCU flicks while I find it tiresome just to sit through them once.

I think DC knocked it out of the park with Nolan's Batman films, but it is just that: Batman. Batman alone is in no way shape or form an extended DC universe. They decided not to make an opportunity to crossover with Singer's "Superman Returns" (I didn't like the movie, but a BvS with those 2 may have been good, or great.) GL sucked and the "Dark Knight Returns" elements that showed up in "The Dark Knight Rises" again chose to stick with Batman characters only.

That's because Catwoman was based on Batman Returns and not the actual comic.

Here's an earlier post I made that lists some of the risks that the MCU took. And even though this is an incomplete list, this is already way more than DC ever risked with their movies:

"Fortunately, the MCU keeps changing what it's doing. Though the overall tone and feel of the movies are pretty consistent, if you paid any attention to the movies you'd see that each phase changes the overall theme and structure of the movies.



Phase 1 was about investing movies in B/C list characters whom they had to change quite a bit to fit the movies. Ironman was never such a wisecracking smart mouth as they made him to be. They cast an older, washed-up actor for the role. They cast an unknown for Thor and changed Thor's origin story (no more Donald Blake) and changed Thor and his world (smaller frost giants, rainbow bridge became a portal, Jane Foster a scientist) to fit in the movie verse. These are both creative and commercial risks. Then assembling them into the Avengers was something never been done before, never been tried. Definitely a creative risk.



Phase 2 saw SHIELD becoming Hydra, showed Captain America becoming a fugitive. Made Mandarin into a joke. Changed the origin and attitude of Ultron. Cast a talking raccoon and a walking tree into a movie. You've got to be retarded to not consider those creative risks.



Phase 3 kicked off with a movie that made Captain America completely go rogue, while Tony Stark became the law-abiding hero. That's a 180 degree turn of personality for both. It starred a movie where the main protagonists and antagonists were heroes from the same team, and the only villain relegated to just an enabler. I don't recall any other movie ever doing that before. And from the looks of things, Phase 3 will only continue to get more creative. Taking the Planet Hulk storyline and changing it to a Thor movie? The massive Infinity Wars movie?



There are a few safer movies from the MCU here and there. Ant-man, Thor TDW, CATFA, even Dr. Strange. Note that I said "safer" and not "safe", since these movies still did take risks, just not as much as the others I mentioned above. But other than that, you'd have to be blind, deaf and dumb to actually think the MCU don't take risks, both creative and commercial."

Batman Returns did not have anything to do with Egypt specifically. It was actually based upon the Catwoman graphic novel "Her Sister's Keeper". Catwoman, the 2004 film, is not based upon any comic books that I am aware of.

That's right. Egypt is exclusive to the 2004 film.

How? What is so "Non-Risk" about the MCU?

This is starting to sound like the whole "formula" thing again. MCU is accused of having a formula...and no one can describe it.

The MCU makes successful movies, and to haters that's the "formula". Doesn't matter that each movie has differences from the rest, the fact that they're all fun, enjoyable and successful must mean they follow the same formula.