(for real, who's the bad guy in Guardians Vol. 2? See?).
Kurt Russell. What do I win?
I prefer Fox absolutely. Logan and Deadpool alone are so much better than anything the MCU has ever done, it's not even a comparison, and then The Wolverine is also superior (IMO) to all of MCU, and I honestly expect New Mutants and Deadpool 2 to be in the same range, quality-wise.
I agree that Logan and Deadpool are both better than anything Marvel's done (with the possible exception of the first Guardians movie) but they're not really representative of the Fox era of Marvel movies. The majority of the Fox movies have been garbage (Fantastic Four, Daredevil, Elektra, half of the X-men movies) and the only reason those two movies got made was because Fox was tired of getting embarrassed and were actually willing to take a chance on something different. I would be very concerned if Disney got all of the Marvel stuff back (largely because we would never see anything as daring as Logan or Deadpool again) but I can't say I would miss Fox making comic book movies.
I think a large reason the Marvel movies have become so frustrating and repetitive is that they're all tied together. Since Kevin Feige and the Marvel execs have this grand "larger vision" and consider them all telling one, single coherent narrative leading to Infinity War and beyond, none of them can really diverge too much or do anything particularly interesting with the characters. They all have to have their required callbacks, easter eggs and cameos. They have to sell future movies and remind you of past movies so it's either the same Iron Man origin story retold with a different character or a "here's <character X> in a <genre Y> story" with all of that other shit stuffed in to the seams. Having a united universe was an interesting idea that made sense with comic book movies but in practice, it makes each individual movie less important, have fewer stakes and more formulaic. Why give a shit what happens to Thor when you already know he's going to be in two Avengers movies after this? Granted, that oversight and overarching narrative means that pretty much anyone can come in and create a competent movie in that blueprint. It also means there likely will never be a truly great Marvel movie until they become unprofitable and have to stray outside of their comfort zone.
It's also the reason I think the original Iron Man and the Guardians movies are the best of the group: they weren't weighed down by this larger narrative and having to carry water for what comes next. They were allowed to breathe and tell their own stories separate from all of the other baggage and bullshit for the most part. Plus James Gunn is a weirdo who knows how to tell a good story about misfits.
The one thing I'm actually grateful for regarding the Marvel movies is that all of these relatively unknown/quirky directors have been able to cut their teeth on these $100+ million dollar superhero movies. One of the reasons film has been so god awful the last ten-plus years is that the studios aren't willing to take a chance on ANYTHING unless it's a proven commodity which means nothing but comic book movies, sequels, remakes and adaptations of books. They still let Spielberg and Scorcese and a couple of the other older names dick around but that's about it. The only notable exception to that has been Christopher Nolan. Not everyone likes what he does, but he's actually gotten WB to pony up big money for a WW1 film, two weird sci-fi movies and a movie about magicians. I feel like if there are more proven directors out there who have made huge budget movies and not fallen on their faces, studios will be willing to let them pitch their ideas (lord knows James Gunn and the Thor Ragnarok guy will have some weird shit to offer) and we'll start seeing more chances taken and a better variety of movies show up in theaters.
