My issue with Marvel/DC franchises

[Dowdsy McDowds]

I'm well aware that studios seeking to create franchises out of initial films is nothing new and given how much piracy threatened the cinema/film industry in the mid/late 00s, studios have now focussed more attention on how to create a succession of sure-fire money-makers.

That's all fine and dandy.

The issue I'm starting to have with both Marvel/DC productions is that their future planning is coming out far too early that it is distracting from the more immediate releases. Case in point would be the confirmation that Captain America 3 will be an ensemble piece based on the Civil War story-arc and at time of writing, it is likely to be Chris Evans' final appearance as Captain America.

Age of Ultron hasn't even been released yet though. In fact I believe the Ultron trailer and announcement of CA3 came fairly quickly after it. The sense of dread that the Ultron trailer put across has pretty much evaporated now for me.

Sure, the likelihood of any villain emerging victorious in a super-hero film is quite low but with Marvel already shifting focus on to the next set of films after Ultron, its taken some of the shine and appeal off of Ultron itself.

DC hasn't quite got to this stage yet but it seems likely they will follow in the same footsteps.



So does it bother anyone else that the marketing departments are actually killing off intrigue of what will happen next or are we generally alright with knowing what the release schedule for the next 5+ films from the franchises will be?

 

[Dave]

I do see what you are saying but this was always likely to be the case. Marvel know that what they have is a sure-fire money maker. And they are doing their best to capitalise on that; it's that simple. Sometimes, I actually think that they are too eager but then I think that they are just making sure that they hype train for the next billion dollar flick begins fairly early.

Whilst I do agree that it ruins some of the tension attached to the new Avengers flick, this is just what cinema is these days. As soon as something is announced, they bare thinking about the future. And right now there is no series of films that can even rival the amount of money that The Avengers can make.

 

[Dowdsy McDowds]

I do see what you are saying but this was always likely to be the case. Marvel know that what they have is a sure-fire money maker. And they are doing their best to capitalise on that; it's that simple. Sometimes, I actually think that they are too eager but then I think that they are just making sure that they hype train for the next billion dollar flick begins fairly early.

Whilst I do agree that it ruins some of the tension attached to the new Avengers flick, this is just what cinema is these days. As soon as something is announced, they bare thinking about the future. And right now there is no series of films that can even rival the amount of money that The Avengers can make.

See this is what puzzles me about this marketing ploy; the Marvel films are all box office behemoths in their own right so does their release of plot details for films 3+ years away really make a difference to the box office performance of films in the here and now?

Part of me thinks in 5 years or so, there will be an 'episodic' Marvel film that people won't feel the need to see because of what they know will happen in the next instalment and the current must-see factor of these films will have lessened dramatically.

 

[JamJam]

Yeah, it seems like Marvel and DC are eager, but honestly, this is a good strategy. Everyone knows that superhero movies are a draw in this day and age so why not capitalize on that? I do think that both companies releasing their entire slate of movies might've been a mistake but it can't be taken back now. For me, I would've announced their new slate of movies one or two movies at a time. Since both companies are making their movies connect, it would've been cool to let their audiences speculate a bit more before revealing everything.

But again, once a report comes out, it's hard to keep these kinds of things a secret. So right now, I wouldn't worry about the eagerness of both Marvel and DC. Instead, let's enjoy the ride folks.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

All in all, it seems to be a strategy that's paid off for Marvel and DC is starting to follow suit. Marvel establishing a cohesive cinematic continuity instead of having all the various films be stand alone has been innovative and it's something that's helped these films make a lot of money. Thus far, there've been 10 films released that are part of Marvel's cinematic universe that've taken in a combined $7.2 billion worldwide at the box office. Factor that in with DVD sales & rentals and merchandise.

Phase One included "Iron Man", "The Incredible Hulk", "Iron Man 2", "Captain America: The First Avenger", "Thor" and "The Avengers." The first five films were solid money makers, but the strategy of then releasing The Avengers culminated in a massive payoff and set new standards for comic book adaptations.

Phase Two has been made up of "Iron Man 3", "Thor: The Dark World", "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" and "Guardians of the Galaxy." The first three are sequels that far outdrew the previous films, Guardians looks poised to be the #2 highest grossing film of 2014 and they're all connected in a way that'll culminate in "Avengers: Infinity War Parts 1 & 2." So unless they let the quality of the movies slip between now & the third and fourth Avengers films, Marvel's got everything going.

DC is doing the same thing with "Man of Steel" being their first installment into their own cinematic universe and "Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice" is highly anticipated. They saw something that'd worked for Marvel and figured they could do the same thing as their characters are just as iconic, some arguably even more so.

 

[Dowdsy McDowds]

Everyone knows that superhero movies are a draw in this day and age so why not capitalize on that?

I think that audience apathy/burn-out is my biggest concern.

I fully understand that it makes sense to strike while the iron is hot and all that but over-saturation is a real danger for the future. Consider also that both Marvel and DC have television shows currently running to introduce/expand on characters who will be in future films and its a bit similar to the Western genre in the 70s (although the comic-books films/shows are more intricately linked with each other).

Musicals also had a similar cinematic run at the same time as Westerns and both are now rare genres to see new films in. I guess I'm concerned that the Comic Book film could, in a decade or so, be closer to those faded genres because its been so over-loaded and tightly scheduled.

I guess that non-Marvel/DC comics that are being written for screen could benefit though in two ways; audiences are watching comic book adaptations and, most importantly, there are some very good independent comics that are quite different to what Marvel/DC publish - Preacher, Y the Last Man and 100 Bullets for example. If a production company wanted to take advantage of the popularity of the genre by green-lighting controversial subject matter, then any of those would be a good place to start.

 

[jacdnwarrior]

I think that audience apathy/burn-out is my biggest concern.

Couldn't agree more. I know summer is for big budget films but I have to say other audience members may want a change of pace from the big explosion fight comic book flicks. The expense the overload of these films could turn people off. If Disney now owns Marvel, what films are going to be pushed aside for the summer season. The Star Wars film is moving to December, what other quality projects will be pushed aside, will these films kill the variety at the box office and with box office at a 7 year low with the release of Xmen Days of Future Past, Amazing Spiderman, Guardians of the Galaxy, Captain America the WInter Soldier, I'm not sure more comic book films crammed into one summer is the answer. I hope for the sake of Wonder Woman who is long overdue for a film series of her own, they actually get it right with the writing and the direction. Which is my concern with a lot of these films, many are poorly written with an overdose of action sequences. the rules of making a great film is just as important with these blockbusters as anything else.

 

[lil steroid meat]

I was just thinking this the other day. It's kind of a buzzkill that they give away their whole plan/plot of a sequence of movies but then again I guess that comes with the territory of adapting material of any type.

I just wish they were more ambiguous (for lack of a better term) in the way that they tell their stories.

But then again, I haven't read the comics in the first place so it will probably still be fairly new to me.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

SPOILERS AHEAD... Don't read on if you don't want to know stuff about movies you might not have seen.






It comes from the nature of the material. Those comics the series come from don't have the same villain... they have one for a while, who is "defeated" then goes away, then comes back. It's rare anyone is truly defeated.

Take the Marvel franchises based around Loki as a villain (again SPOILERS... Last Warning!!!).




Loki was the main villain through phase one that we saw and some of Phase two... but was he the last time we saw him?

Thanos was clearly the "puppet master" as seen in Avengers and Loki seemed pretty glad the Chitarui failed. He looked very "haggard" when he first arrived in that film, so it's entirely possible he was the villain only in as much as enough to keep Thanos in the dark... he would know about the stones.. the plan Thanos had to wield them and what was coming...

By the end of Thor 2 Loki's arc seemingly was "complete" with his death...and another stone seemingly safe in Asguard... until it turned out he wasn't dead at all.

There are 2 ways it can go... Loki can of course can be the villain for Thor 3 OR... it could be part of a plan... we just assume he killed Odin and took his place, it's equally likely he now having seen how Thanos operates, knowing he could have at least two of the gems in his posession knows that the next one is at least still in Asgard... The Tesseract... In otherwords... Thanos is coming to Asgard sooner rather than later.

Odin needs another Odinsleep to be able to fight Thanos when the time comes... but they can't let on Asgard is weak either as Thor has renounced the throne... for a quick return etc would show weakness... so he has to take his fathers place...and that is Loki's "curse" he gets to be "king" but not as himself and not able to let on he is... later once Thanos is beaten, would Loki not want the throne still? He could still be a villain again..

That's just one example of the multilayering Marvel is doing... the above might not happen at all... but it means Loki can return as the big bad... OR be a hero who is in on a bigger plan by the time Infinity War actually happens.

Ultron is more one dimensional in that he is a must defeat baddie for the Avengers... if they fail, the world is done. Doesn't mean he won't rise again at some point.

DC haven't done this. They are fare more one dimensional in their finales... Killing Zod was heresy, but it was done to set up the dichotomy between Supes and Batman and the need for Bats to have his "death file" on everyone... the strongest hero AND villain in the DC universe is Batman... if he ever went rogue with his knowledge, he could kill everyone. That's not a movie or comic people are gonna want to see, but they will want to see Jared Leto's Joker get hold of those files etc... They are behind in what they've done but they're going balls to the wall to catch up... it might die on it's ass but Suicide Squad is a good shout casting wise to get people interested.

What it does mean is Superhero overload... the main reason Marvel is killing comics off and Sony's CEO is about to hand them the Spidey rights back regardless of what his board think is because there IS overheating... the golden goose is close to being killed and they probably know Disney is going to be so cash rich by next January with the 2 top box office movies ever (Ultron and Star Wars) that they will take the rights regardless... and shutter Spidey etc down, a cameo but nothing else... just to let it cool down enough so that Phase 4 can be a true Spidey integration etc...

Likewise those who have seen the mid season finale of Shield and the stinger on Cap 2 will know that there are "Miracles" and now Inhumans... which is going to be Marvels way of doing X-Ment/mutants... guys like Spidey, Cap, Witch and Quicksilver are Miracles, man made... Inhumans have it within them and it's awoken... and Inhuman has a nice "racist" vibe just like "Mutant" does to get that persecution over...

The pattern IS full... Sony know if they go too much further into this Spidey verse it could sink them... Fox seem to want to go on regardless but once Jackman is out that too crumbles...

But where once Comics were the staple of kids and geeks, now it's superhero movies and shows... they are the new comic books... so they will be made many and often.

 

[Mitch Henessey]

Thought about this after watching The Winter Soldier again.

While I can understand, where Dowds is coming from, I have to lean towards agreeing with Dave and Jack-Hammer. Marvel has a surefire and proven formula that works, and it's hard to ignore the proven track record of consistency, with one film after another achieving financial and critical success. Also, I'm not a comic book guy, so there's a legit sense of surprise for me, when I see a post-credits scene to tease what's next.

Although, I'm not too sure the same formula will work out for DC. While Man Of Steel was a financial success, the critical reception was lukewarm, and Marvel is too far ahead of the pack now, with Marvel producing another smash hit with Guardians Of The Galaxy, a film based on relatively unknown source material. Batman VS Superman needs to be a strong hit, or DC is facing a serious future of uncertainty.

 

[Wolf Pac]

I think that audience apathy/burn-out is my biggest concern.

This is definitely my biggest issue. Not so much with the movies, at least there's months/years before the next one comes out, but with the TV shows for sure. There's a lot of them on right now and apparently we'll be getting a Supergirl and live action Teen Titans series in the future. I've had to give up Constantine and Agent Carter just to keep myself from getting burned out on the Comic Book TV Shows and I don't see myself watching the Supergirl or Teen Titans TV series'.

 

[LitasRevenge79]

As much as there is a rabid fan base for comics, I'm one who has always gone for the antisocial anti-hero. Don't get me wrong I love watching Arrow, and am loving Marvel movies. But NBC really had a hit with Constantine, the guy looked exactly LIKE him in the comics. The show had such a huge outcry when it was said that it may not be renewed. As for the Batman/Superman/Wonder Woman movie...I'm kind of up in the air...I get execs want big people, but that's not guaranteed success. I mean the girl playing Wonder Woman goes against the archetype of amazonian in many fans minds. I think Marvel had that one in a million shot casting Hiddleston as Loki, who'd have thought the villain would get just as many fans if not more than the heroes, enough for writers to have to figure a way in for him to be in Ultron movie.