Oh, one "L", carry on.
I don't see it. Love and Thunder was nothing like Moon Knight, which was nothing like Ms. Marvel, which was nothing like Doctor Strange. Can you point out what you think was generic, or how Thor looks aesthetically the same as Doctor Strange?
I do think it's strange that phase 4 has more hours of content than phases 1-3 combined.
Of course the storyline was riddled with plotholes and was logically a bit messy and the movies ranged from great to not-so-great, but it delivered that incredible build-up-and-release that everyone was waiting for (I literally screamt, laughed, clapped and cried in that one movie alongside a packed theater)
But since that high, since that chapter closed beautifully, the new "phase" of Marvel needs a lot of the same world building from zero, but now, everything feels much more formulaic. Add to it, directors getting more freedom to be stylistically seperate (eg. the new Thor is more comedy, the new Strange had elements of horror) means that the fanbase has no coherent thread to hold onto.
Finally, just a reminder that most of us are now a decade older (and hopefully wiser ;)) and don't really want to follow movies + TV series which are now critical to even understand canon (eg. I had never watched any of the earlier MCU TV series, but never missed them, but I know if someone skipped Wandaverse, then the new Strange movie will be missing a lot of context)
At this point they're on such a conveyor belt that they do a bunch of the CG before shooting starts or they have a final script. But, again, that's not new, they've been operating that way for a while.
[EDIT] I write this as someone who's seen just about everything except a couple of the most recent films. To be clear, the overall project is pretty impressive, but part of why it's impressive is that they've managed to consistently be almost bad enough to be actually-bad, while still holding it together enough that they're not quite bad-bad, just... economical, profitable, and low-risk. And they do consistently manage to make entire films that hold together OK in terms of plotting, pacing, et c., which one might think wouldn't be impressive except... well, I'll refrain from mentioning my #1-with-a-bullet example of a high-budget recent-ish film (from Disney, even!) that completely fails at those basics to such a degree that it deserves to be studied in film class for its failures, for fear of veering into an offtopic flame war, but let's just say that's not a given so it's a bit impressive they've had essentially no complete face-plants over so many films.
Really? You needed this community to weigh in on pop-culture and movies? This needs to be flagged off asap.
Like what is this? Is this a karma ploy?
Loki was also very different and had a unique look.
Each one of these little series has been pretty enjoyable and different, and I found myself pleasantly surprised. The movies however are not my cup of tea and do seem repetitive and generic with some notable exceptions like Thor Ragnarok.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that some people here are simply feeling the vibe less right now -- it's likely because of the woman-centered vibe, and HN leans dudeward.
As a woman, I think this is great! :D But it also means that if that's not your thing (and it can be, blamelessly, not your thing!) the content is going to appear more "generic" (in the words of OP,) more self-similar, as we humans tend to notice variations and differences in things that appeal to us. Wines, clothes, cars, guns, teas, pens, whatever. If it fascinates you, it's gonna have depth.
But if it doesn't? You're gonna see an undifferentiated wash.
This is the mechanism behind why I can get hyper-technical in my kitchen -- I like food -- but cars, which one of my old boyfriends was obssessed with, all seem more or less interchangeable. Same-y. Cut-and-paste.
Because I wasn't into cars, I couldn't really tell them apart.
But since I'm into food, I see tiny details! I can ~go on~ about the specific differences in, say, grades of USA steak, they are so different lol
I watched Top Gun Maverick last week and it was so much better as an action/adventure film than the multitude of Superhero films released over the last 15 years. The ariel dogfights were a hundred times more exhilirating than anything in a Marvel film.
I’m getting bored, and this is coming from a former avid comic book fan (as a kid) who went f’ing ape shit went it became “real” via movies. First time I saw Iron Man I completely geeked out.
And that’s the problem. 15 years later, I’m bored. Other movies outside of the marvel universe continue to excite me. This very much feels like a stale relationship… it’s me, not Marvel? But then I saw this post and realized others may feel the same way.
I couldn’t even begin to suggest what they should try next.
So as long as the MCU can bring in 1.3 billion a shot (like the latest Spiderman) they would appear to have little incentive change what appears to be working.
(You probably noticed the 5D/Web5 discussions starting to tip finally ...)
What Marvel is releasing won't be what you're focused on as the adventure of life will be far more fantastic than anything we could ever put into a book.
And add a healthy dose of screaming in between each step.
At the end it's economics that dictate what goes out hand or not.
The Temporal Consistency Agency find it convenient that the concept be regarded risible.