Amph "You think you're the only superhero in the world?" - The Marvel Cinematic Universe

Ok, this is good to know.

 

Enter: the Silver Samurai.

 

Yeah, probably. I think that's the reason Marvel were looking into adapting their not-straight-spandex properties, like Iron Man or Doctor Strange.

 

"All of this has happened before...and all of it will happen again".

Yeah, I fear this bubble is already fit to burst, and Marvel Phase 2 hasn't even really started yet. So many superhero films coming out so frequently in so little time simple doesn't feel like a a good thing anymore.

 

I had to stop reading it during the 2nd page, skimmed the rest. It's really grasping at straws to justify itself. Yeah, yeah, superhero movies won't be the new toy forever. That's not a huge surprise. The only thing I see there that would kill them is #2, the producers + money people controlling more, which is also known as almost all DC superhero movies made and Fox's marvel movies. Usually when they fail is when the people making it just don't care too much about the material. But there's been a general increase of nerdy movies being more in the hands of nerdy people. Because that makes better movies, better movies = more money. Sure you could argue and say that they're going to just want more money for less work, but you could also be an idiot. So my end point, is that if you don't agree with me, you're an idiot. Because I rule these interwebs.

But there's also the whole VFX thing (you're probably skipping the rest of this post now) which isn't mentioned here which is more than likely going to cripple superhero movies if it collapses any more than it already does. But hey who cares about that.

 

First off, count me in the bandwagon who thought the Hulk scene was the cherry on top of the Avengers movie, and makes for a perfect .gif.

Specifically, I'd say the article itself brings up some interesting points, but is also missing 2 very important variables.

1)Relating to what JTS just pointed out, I think at least Marvel is doing things right this time (DC/Warner might be as well, I just don't know) if Disney allows the Marvel-division people to keep creative control, then I'd say having a "2nd Tier" group of movies in the 40mil production range will serve to keep interest in the entire line of Marvel properties. Without the expectations of being a blockbuster, then a movie about Doctor Strange will keep the focus on the fun in movies, and less about counting the beans. Think about a 40 mil Iron Fist movie...Power Man....Doctor Strange...Moon Knight..etc...The stripped down aspect will be more representative of the way the comics themselves are anyway. All linked within the same universe, and all moving toward the one true 100mil+ blockbuster movie that ties everything together for that phase which wraps up every 3 or so years.... It's actually quite exciting. Some individual entries will be hits and some will be misses, but I think they will all support each other. At least the studio realizes that not every "superhero" movie has to cost gobs and gobs of money, just because that's the expectation.

2)What the article also doesn't factor in is that the genre is much more wide open by the nature of the combined source material. An Avengers movie will be different than a JLA movie, which will be different than an Ant Man movie, and so on.... Sure, all are "superhero movies" in the broadest sense, but each still come from different source material. We're not talking about how Hollywood used to handle genre films, so when a movie like Big was a huge hit with Tom Hanks, there was a version of Big with George Burns, and then another one with Dudley Moore, and then another one with Jennifer Garner, etc.. to infinity which seemed to get worse and worse until no more blood could be squeezed from the turnip.

 

It depends on if Disney allows Marvel to retain creative control of it's movieverse. That studio meddling that Warner Bros. So likes to do is pretty much what drove Joss Whedon away from the Wonder Woman movie DC wanted him for and DC from any attempt to do any type of movie (aside from the failtastic Green Lantern) other than constant Batman/Superman reboots every decade. So far Disney has been good in staying out of Marvel's way. Time will tell if they continue to do so.

Also, speaking of FOX: Michael B. Jordon as the Human Torch in FF reboot?

 

Marvel seems to know what it's doing. DC needs to become its own studio if it wants to survive.

 

"Hah, you're funny." - Warner Bros.

 

Yeah DC's pretty much on the ball at the moment. They've had success in animation, direct to video animated features, and the Nolan Batman films. Plus their TV shows - Smallville, Arrow - worked or seem to work. If you listen to Fat Man on Batman a lot of the DC guys Kevin Smith talks to have commented that they've learned from what Marvel's done and are building on that model. So, whilst Green Lantern was a letdown, they will make sequel that draws more on the lore and less on an origin story. Wonder Woman's problematic to get just right (lol @ the David E Kelly attempt) but Man of Steel looks to do Superman justice. Add into the mix the New 52, and that the Justice League are better known characters to an audience (how many kids watched Justice League Unlimited for years and will be the right age for a JLA film when it comes out?) and I think they're set.

Plus, you know... they own the film rights to all their big ticket characters....

 

If Marvel keeps up its two-films-per-year pace and takes three years on each phase, we'll get to Avengers 3 in 2018, giving us eighteen MCU films alone over the course of ten years. The only other franchise I can think of with anywhere close to that output, James Bond, took thirty-five years to put out eighteen movies. This is a ridiculous level of output, and that's just the MCU films. This is a bubble, and it's going to burst. Superhero films aren't going to go away, but they won't have this level of success forever and we won't be seeing five a year anymore.

 

A part of me agrees with this wholeheartedly.

But another part of me thinks that the heroes are all different enough that people won't really care that there's so many of them, they're just different enough to work for quite a while. James Bond is pretty much the same movie every time. It's not so with the Marvel hero movies. They have a whole mix of genres to draw from.

 

Yeah, but that doesn't address Marvel's strategy. If Marvel studios keeps to its plans, and makes the "2nd tier" movies at the 40mil or so price point, then they could be filmed just for the fans who want to see them, while still keeping the 1 summer blockbuster strategy that ties all the single films together. I mean, think about it. When Avengers broke the billion+ level, it turned something like 300mil +/- in profit, using the standard calculations that I've seen. (although it's difficult to gauge the formulas for gross vs net and when it all becomes profit) But my point is that Marvel could re-invest the profit from the Avengers and make 7 "2nd Tier" movies and none of the 7 would have to make any money whatsoever.....and Disney/Marvel still wouldn't be out any cash. (bonus if any of the 7 broke even) And that's not counting Iron Man 3, and the other mass appeal films. I still think the idea of stripped down movies of Iron Fist, or Doctor Strange, or Black Panther at a reduced cost point is an exciting idea.

For an obscure example of what I'm thinking about, I have a soft spot for the old 30's-40's Charlie Chan detective movies. Some years, Fox Studios would turn out 4-5 Chan movies per year, and that's just a single franchise. This lasted for about 15 years before tapering off, giving a total of at least 50 (probably more) Charlie Chan movies produced over that period. Now of course, the studio system is different, as is the costs of making movies. But along the lines of what I'm thinking now, 6 movies over a 3 year period isn't that unreasonable, especially if 4 of those would be lower budget movies, and only 2 would come with blockbuster-level expectation.

Obviously, a bubble occurs when the movies don't recoup their investment. But that's more likely under the prior mindset where studios seemed to think that every superhero movie had to have a 100 million+ blockbuster budget, simply because it was a "superhero" movie. I'd agree with others who said that this seems to be more of a danger with Warner/DC than it does with Disney/Marvel, so far at least.

 

The best part is either the above or where they claim Snyder took the rape out of Watchmen.

Here's your sign.

 

As long as DC seems to think that audiences will only flock to Superman/Batman movies (and reboots of Superman/Batman movies), they are never going to be anywhere close to on par with Marvel in the movie department.

 

And DC may as well give up making movies for awhile until they can either partner with a studio that won't run constant interference on them (like Warner Bros does often) or they get their own studio with a Joss Whedon like figure running it. Especially if Man of Steel ends up a flop this summer.

 

If Marvel makes an Ant Man movie work, DC might as well try an Aqua Man movie.

 

I don't see Man of Steel flopping. It looks epic, and I think that's what people want from a Superman movie.

Well, that and red underpants.

 

People were completely sure Thor was going to flop as well. We'll see.

 

WInter Soldier concept art.

 

any thoughts on daredevil, ghost rider, the punisher and blade going back to marvel?

 

Kevin Feige (CEO) has said they're not going to pursuit new movies woth the returned properties right now because, well, the last ones bombed.