The best superhero films were made before the Marvel Cinematic Universe existed, and the reason is simple: they were made by people who were allowed to have opinions.
Between 2000 and 2008 the genre was established by Bryan Singer, Sam Raimi, Christopher Nolan and Guillermo del Toro, and you can tell their films apart by looking at any thirty seconds of them. That stopped being true around 2012, and it hasn’t been true since.
What the Directors Brought
Raimi’s Spider-Man films are made by the man who made Evil Dead: the camera swoops, the villains are horror characters, and Doctor Octopus’s operating theatre sequence is a monster movie. Nolan’s Batman films are crime dramas that happen to have a man in a cape, built on Heat and on the procedural. Del Toro’s Hellboy films are fairy tales with a monster who reads tabloids. Singer’s X-Men opened in a concentration camp.
None of those choices came from a committee. They came from a director with a taste, and the studio let them have it because nobody yet knew what a superhero film was supposed to look like.
What Standardization Bought
Marvel worked out the formula, and the formula is genuinely impressive. The films are competent, they come out on time, they connect, and the floor is high: even the weak ones are watchable. For ten years that consistency built the biggest franchise in film history, and it deserves credit for it.
The cost is that the ceiling came down with the floor. A house style means the interesting choices get sanded off before they reach the screen. The colour grade is the same. The banter rhythm is the same. The third act is the same.
The Directors Who Escaped
The exceptions prove it. James Gunn’s Guardians films look and sound like him, and they’re among the best in the series. Ryan Coogler’s Black Panther has an argument in it about colonialism and responsibility that no other Marvel film would attempt. Taika Waititi’s Thor: Ragnarok is a comedy by a specific comedian.
Every one of those is a case of a director with a voice strong enough to survive the process. The tell is how few there are out of more than thirty films.
What Was Lost
Risk, mainly. The 2000s films could fail, and some did badly: Daredevil, Elektra, Ghost Rider, the Fantastic Four pictures. That failure was the price of the successes, and the successes went further because nobody was protecting them.
The second loss is endings. A 2000s superhero film ended. Spider-Man 2 finishes with Peter accepting what his life costs him. The Dark Knight finishes with Batman taking the blame. Franchise films can’t end, because the next one starts in six months, so the emotional payoffs are always deferred.
The Counter-Case
To be fair to the machine: the 2000s produced far more bad superhero films than good ones, and the good ones were accidents of who happened to be hired. Marvel’s system made competence reliable, and reliability is why the genre survived long enough to become the default.
The argument isn’t that the old way was better managed. It’s that the best films came out of it, and the best films are what a genre is remembered for.
Craft Note
Craft Note
A house style protects the floor and lowers the ceiling. Consistency is worth having when the alternative is chaos, and it costs you the outlier that people remember.
If you’re building a series, decide which parts must be uniform and which parts must be allowed to be strange. The strange parts are why anyone comes back.
So were the 2000s films better?
The best of them were, by a wide margin, and that’s the measure that matters. Spider-Man 2, The Dark Knight, X2 and Hellboy II all have more personality than anything Marvel has released since Black Panther. What the MCU won was reliability, and reliability doesn’t get remembered.
Frequently Asked Questions
This film appears on one of my film lists