The Downside of the "Marvel Effect"
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Im perfectly happy with where everythin is at the moment. Yeah the Amazing Spider Man movies weren't spectacular, but they were more than watchable. Its not the end of the world if Marvel/Disney gets the rights to that, but I'm fine with it either way.
However they better keep their fuckin grubby hands off X-Men. Its very very clear that Fox has a plan for the franchise (unlike Sony where the only plan was throw shit against the wall to see what stuck) and a clear direction. First Class and Days of Future Past were fuckin brilliant and I'd easily rate first class as one of my all time favorite superhero movies, easily a match for any one of the Marvel movies to date. I would be horribly pissed if Marvel somehow got the rights back to X-Men and just shat all over all the good things Fox has done with the franchise.
Fantastic Four can go wherever it wants. I actually did like the original 2 films, but I liked them because they were cheesy as fuck, not because they were good films.
However they better keep their fuckin grubby hands off X-Men. Its very very clear that Fox has a plan for the franchise (unlike Sony where the only plan was throw shit against the wall to see what stuck) and a clear direction. First Class and Days of Future Past were fuckin brilliant and I'd easily rate first class as one of my all time favorite superhero movies, easily a match for any one of the Marvel movies to date. I would be horribly pissed if Marvel somehow got the rights back to X-Men and just shat all over all the good things Fox has done with the franchise.
Fantastic Four can go wherever it wants. I actually did like the original 2 films, but I liked them because they were cheesy as fuck, not because they were good films.
Yadda yadda, franchise control is inherently evil.MovieBob said:
What were you expecting when you conceded the principle that creating art needs to be "allowed" by an owner that is determined by whichever corporation happened to employ a particular comic book issue's artist several decades earlier?
But the leaked Sony emails confirm that ASM causes cancer!shintakie10 said:
...Or, at least, that's the impression I get when I read these articles.
Marvel can't get the rights of spiderman fast enough, as for the fantastic four I strongly believe that it will happen the same and go back to marvel. The reason is quite obvious, they just don't have any idea of what to do with them. Better for the two franchises to go back to someone who actually cares about them and has an idea of what to do. AS for the X-men we all know too well that there is no way fox is giving them up and quite honestly I'm ok with it. So far they have been doing a great job with them and as long as they keep releasing good movies they can keep the rights.
Comic accurate portrayal's, is that what we are calling Marvel's Hawkeye, Scarlet Witch, Quicksilver and Thor (WHERE IS THE HELMET!) now? and no having the CGI look like the comic doesn't change the fact that only Captain America actually has a costume in the MCU.
Marvel are even having costumes in the comics redesigned to look more realistic (boring) so when they put them on film they can say look it's just like the comic.
We are entering the leather jacket with symbol age of comic book characters and it's terrible.
Marvel are even having costumes in the comics redesigned to look more realistic (boring) so when they put them on film they can say look it's just like the comic.
We are entering the leather jacket with symbol age of comic book characters and it's terrible.
I think the overall precedent set by Sony's problems is an issue bigger and more historic than just Spiderman. This is studio that has suffered massive failings due to their projects (Amazing Spiderman's future and The Interview getting pulled) that have landmark repercussions no corporate giant should ever be associated with. The real crazy part is how two seemingly separate things now play into each other - the hacking reveals the higher-ups are jerks and that the Spiderman issue is more dire than we thought, while Sony sharing a franchise they directly control - something I don't believe has ever happened, at least like it is now - because they've bungled it and caving to terrorist "threats" paints them as weak. I originally thought at least having their name plastered on the news for weeks and the buzz generated by their secret projects (23 MIB Street?) would be a silver lining, but this is looking like a fallout that'll take years to recover from.
The problem with superhero movies is that nobody is willing to sit down and think critically about them. Marvel's films have all been average action films with a nice coat of paint ... and now their coat of paint is the One True Coat of Paint that will lead us to the Promised Land, and you should accept no substitutes! I'm sick of vapid fanservice provided by a company that blatantly cares only about the sales figures suddenly being the new gold standard.
Not to mention that the X-Men frankly should not be sharing a universe with other superheroes at all, no matter who's writing it. The idea behind them is that "mutants" are actually something unique enough to be feared by a lot of people; what really differentiates a mutant from somebody like Thor or Ant-Man or Spider-Man in practice?shintakie10 said:
Granted, there are similar issues with Spidey himself. One of the recurring themes in his franchise is being a controversial figure, with people in the media trying to paint him as a public menace despite because he's a vigilante. That doesn't work so well in a world that's already used to people with super powers and where, realistically, he would get recruited by SHIELD before the first movie is even over and that would be the end of his solo career. If there's one thing the recent crop of movies deserves to get some credit for, it's actually playing up the "controversial figure hated by the authorities" angle, with scenes of him getting shot at by armies of heavily armed police right in the trailers.
Well, hey, maybe that could still work if they cast the next Spider-Man as black. :^P
I'm going to go out on a bit of a limb here and hypothesize that Marvel/Disney's success isn't about creativity (though that certainly plays a big part) or faithfulness to the source material (a premise I've always found more than a little dubious, given the cross-cultural pull these movies clearly have) as something a little more uncomfortable- quality control.
Most of the mainstream-oriented superhero films not helmed by Marvel in recent years (setting aside for the moment less-mainstream quasi-superhero offerings like Watchmen, V for Vendetta, Lucy, etc.) have had significant problems. Nolan's Batman was the best of them, and even it had its share of issues, especially in the final offering. When one gets to recent Fantastic Fours and Spider-Mans and Man of Steels, the issues get more noticiable. Villain isn't threatening. Hero isn't likable or identifiable. Plot is cluttered and fragmented. Humor falls flat. Tone is inconsistent in a way that seems unintentional.
The thing is, in many cases I suspect it isn't that the people immediately responsible for acting/directing/writing these films are inherently of an inferior quality to those making Marvel ones. It's that somewhere in Marvel there's a firewall that's holding a line and saying "this isn't good enough, send it back and try again." I suspect that's mostly- but not entirely- at a script level. The quality of seemingly incidental but important things like banter among team-mates and beats between dialogue and action are so consistent among Marvel movies that I have to believe there's some sort of refining process going on behind the scenes, something that gives Favreau's Iron Man and Whedon's Avengers and Gunn's Guardians an appealing kind of continuity that goes well beyond a shared universe.
It's all but impossible to imagine Marvel mis-stepping as badly as the needless, witless fights in X-Men Origins: Wolverine or the stapled-on bad guys of later Spider-Man movies (both Raimi and Webb). They just wouldn't have gotten that far. (Anyone else notice that scene of a topless Gamora in the Guardians trailer got nixed in the final movie?)
My real fear as far as Marvel goes is that this polish will ebb away, especially in the wake of such a full docket of movies to oversee. Other studios have a certain amount of excuse in playing catch-up to Marvel. Marvel is, in a real way, competing against itself at this point. And if whatever forces keep quality in check behind the scenes get rushed or simply decide that product is product and we'll suck up whatever they produce so long as it has the "Marvel" brand stamped on it, it's their race to lose.
Most of the mainstream-oriented superhero films not helmed by Marvel in recent years (setting aside for the moment less-mainstream quasi-superhero offerings like Watchmen, V for Vendetta, Lucy, etc.) have had significant problems. Nolan's Batman was the best of them, and even it had its share of issues, especially in the final offering. When one gets to recent Fantastic Fours and Spider-Mans and Man of Steels, the issues get more noticiable. Villain isn't threatening. Hero isn't likable or identifiable. Plot is cluttered and fragmented. Humor falls flat. Tone is inconsistent in a way that seems unintentional.
The thing is, in many cases I suspect it isn't that the people immediately responsible for acting/directing/writing these films are inherently of an inferior quality to those making Marvel ones. It's that somewhere in Marvel there's a firewall that's holding a line and saying "this isn't good enough, send it back and try again." I suspect that's mostly- but not entirely- at a script level. The quality of seemingly incidental but important things like banter among team-mates and beats between dialogue and action are so consistent among Marvel movies that I have to believe there's some sort of refining process going on behind the scenes, something that gives Favreau's Iron Man and Whedon's Avengers and Gunn's Guardians an appealing kind of continuity that goes well beyond a shared universe.
It's all but impossible to imagine Marvel mis-stepping as badly as the needless, witless fights in X-Men Origins: Wolverine or the stapled-on bad guys of later Spider-Man movies (both Raimi and Webb). They just wouldn't have gotten that far. (Anyone else notice that scene of a topless Gamora in the Guardians trailer got nixed in the final movie?)
My real fear as far as Marvel goes is that this polish will ebb away, especially in the wake of such a full docket of movies to oversee. Other studios have a certain amount of excuse in playing catch-up to Marvel. Marvel is, in a real way, competing against itself at this point. And if whatever forces keep quality in check behind the scenes get rushed or simply decide that product is product and we'll suck up whatever they produce so long as it has the "Marvel" brand stamped on it, it's their race to lose.
1st - Yes, the idiots who've been running the "amazing" franchise into the ground need to go. Sorry that Andrew Garfield is a casualty in all this (career wise) but I honestly didn't care for him either, though the fault was probably more in the directing/writing than anything else and I can accept that.
2nd - Rights going back to Marvel for Spiderman would not be a bad move. This isn't so much that other companies can't do super hero movies, but that Sony is so bad at making Spiderman movies that they shouldn't be doing it anymore. It makes me nervous for their upcoming (rumored) Sonic and possible Mario films... I can already feel my balls going blue and my depression kicking in.
3rd - X-Men can legitimately stay with Fox. Yes, it sucks Marvel can't play with all their toys the way they want. The problem here though is explaining to the average movie-going why Mutants with super powers are inheritance bad but non-mutants with same powers are perfectly fine. And, more importantly, how the average citizenry in said movies can tell the difference so their racism is appropriate in the context of the narrative. Granted, the Civil War addresses this, sort of, but fact is X-Men functions perfectly fine in its own little bubble, perhaps better than if it had to be woven into the Marvel continuity like everything else. I'm not opposed to Marvel getting them back someday, but X-Men is fine where it is (unless we have another Wolverine Origins again).
4th - As for DC... I'm excited for Suicide Squad. I think that sounds fairly interesting. The rest of it... yeah... I'm still waiting to see how they recover from the very polarizing Man of Steel film. I don't want them to be just like Marvel, but they do need to get a better understanding of the source material so the characters and world feel more like... well... the characters and world the movies are trying to recreate.
2nd - Rights going back to Marvel for Spiderman would not be a bad move. This isn't so much that other companies can't do super hero movies, but that Sony is so bad at making Spiderman movies that they shouldn't be doing it anymore. It makes me nervous for their upcoming (rumored) Sonic and possible Mario films... I can already feel my balls going blue and my depression kicking in.
3rd - X-Men can legitimately stay with Fox. Yes, it sucks Marvel can't play with all their toys the way they want. The problem here though is explaining to the average movie-going why Mutants with super powers are inheritance bad but non-mutants with same powers are perfectly fine. And, more importantly, how the average citizenry in said movies can tell the difference so their racism is appropriate in the context of the narrative. Granted, the Civil War addresses this, sort of, but fact is X-Men functions perfectly fine in its own little bubble, perhaps better than if it had to be woven into the Marvel continuity like everything else. I'm not opposed to Marvel getting them back someday, but X-Men is fine where it is (unless we have another Wolverine Origins again).
4th - As for DC... I'm excited for Suicide Squad. I think that sounds fairly interesting. The rest of it... yeah... I'm still waiting to see how they recover from the very polarizing Man of Steel film. I don't want them to be just like Marvel, but they do need to get a better understanding of the source material so the characters and world feel more like... well... the characters and world the movies are trying to recreate.
I'd say its better to be polarizing and talked about instead of forgettable or just plain bad. DC is interesting because the way I see it there are 3 eras of superhero films. The Superman era, the Spider-man era, and the Iron Man era.SilverUchiha said:
Superman lasted from the original Donner film to Batman and Robin proving superheroes could be done on the big screen.
The Spider-man era is the era that began with Blade, X-men, and Spider-man that set the stage for superheroes to dominate the world.
The Iron Man era proved that intercontinuity between franchises is viable and now is the new standard.
DC has really only had 2 movies in the new era and one of those was made in between Batman films. Essentially while they were ruling the world with Batman Iron Man came along and changed the rules of the game forever and they sadly just have not adjusted to the rules. I mean Man of Steel is the opening to the DCU as we are led to believe but it still stands totally and completely on its own that you wouldn't need to add a movie universe if you didn't want too. I'm hoping Batman v. Superman will be great and I hope the Suicide Squad movie turns out good. If they do DC might've finally figured it out and while it might be lame if they aren't as "fun" as Marvel movies having a slightly more serious tone might be the thing that sets them apart.
I mean if someone is doing something you want to do but they are doing it better you have two options figure out how to out pace them or find a new angle. DC is finding a different angle and I hope it pays off because if after Batman v. Superman the quality of their movies is as consistently good as Marvels all of us win.
X-men is quite fine with Marvel. It wouldn't even make sense in the larger Marvel cinematic universe as others have pointed out.
Spider-man, on the other hand, would fit in perfectly in the MCU. What with the fall of SHIELD and, possibly, Ultron, a world that's grown bit weary around superheroes is possible. I just hope they don't give Jameson an obsessed hatred of spiderman... just cause.
I'm willing to see what the fantastic four movie will be like. It could turn out to be good. Maybe they'll do like a reverse avengers. First movie is a team, then later movies focus on a single character.
Sony's "The thing" coming to a theater near you.
Spider-man, on the other hand, would fit in perfectly in the MCU. What with the fall of SHIELD and, possibly, Ultron, a world that's grown bit weary around superheroes is possible. I just hope they don't give Jameson an obsessed hatred of spiderman... just cause.
I'm willing to see what the fantastic four movie will be like. It could turn out to be good. Maybe they'll do like a reverse avengers. First movie is a team, then later movies focus on a single character.
Sony's "The thing" coming to a theater near you.
Please tell me which Marvel villains are threatening? because Thor 2, IM3 and GotG all suffered from terrible boring irrelevant bad guys. The only good ones are Loki who is fun rather than a threat and Winter Soldier who's a mind controlled future good guy.Callate said:
Honestly, I think Spider-Man deserves a break from the big screen. He's been in 5 movies over the last 12 years.
And if he did return to the big screen under Marvel then I'd like it to be in a partnership with Toei. A reboot (soft or hard, it doesn't matter) of Supaidaman would be a wonderful foreign presence in the MCU.
And if he did return to the big screen under Marvel then I'd like it to be in a partnership with Toei. A reboot (soft or hard, it doesn't matter) of Supaidaman would be a wonderful foreign presence in the MCU.
Of the three: Spiderman, Fantastic Four and X-Men it's definitely Spiderman that I was most keen on seeing in the Marvel films.
He doesn't really need his own standalone films at the moment but he'd be a great addition to the Avengers team. They don't really have a young little guy and they also don't have a hero who's identity isn't known (Hulk stays private but everyone knows who he is).
X-Men are a team in themselves and at least some of their films have really good. Several of the characters could easily get overshadowed or ignored if they were joined the rest of the Marvel entourage (although while the films still act like "Wolverine & Pals" movies that's already the case)
I don't care about the Fantastic Four because I've never seen anything in which they aren't crap
He doesn't really need his own standalone films at the moment but he'd be a great addition to the Avengers team. They don't really have a young little guy and they also don't have a hero who's identity isn't known (Hulk stays private but everyone knows who he is).
X-Men are a team in themselves and at least some of their films have really good. Several of the characters could easily get overshadowed or ignored if they were joined the rest of the Marvel entourage (although while the films still act like "Wolverine & Pals" movies that's already the case)
I don't care about the Fantastic Four because I've never seen anything in which they aren't crap
I never quite understood that.Zachary Amaranth said:
Did ASM set the world on fire? God no, but it did well enough.
Why on earth would you sell the rights to a franchise thats a guaranteed payday simply because its not as big of a payday as you want it to be?
