Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

lilmac

Marvel: Too Big to Fail?

Recommended Posts

  • Founder / Operator

Good topic!

 

Nothing's too big to fail, IMO. Marvel might not necessarily ever completely fade away, but historically, everything has a peak and a trough. Marvel's time is right now. It could be DC's ten years from now for all we know (or another genre entirely).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'd forgive marvel any failure they may have ( because it can happen) because at least they're not afraid to try and go out there see what stick , unlike another company that's so frozen in their bat boots which reminds me of french gvt red tape bureaucracy bs bunch of bla bla bla and nothing gets done after countless discussions commitees etcc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll use my Western analogy again. The real question is this: Is Marvel Classic Traditional Westerns(The peak 40's 50's) or Spaghetti Westerns(60's 70's) or is DC the Spaghetti type which is the peak right before the fall*?

 

*Westerns continued to be made right up to today, but they became much fewer and farther between which means superhero films will probably go that route once their popularity dwindles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The great thing about Marvel is that it's not all the same thing. It's not a single genre.

 

If the audience gets tired of seeing Spider-Man or the X-Men after 14 years, just throw them a movie like CATWS or GOTG. Show them something they haven't seen yet in a superhero film.

 

By the time we get GOTG in 2014, Ant-Man in 2015, Dr Strange (or Black Panther or Inhumans or Captain Marvel or whoever) in 2016 and/or 2017, we won't be staring in the face of the exact same characters showing up on screen every single year (or two). We may still get Wolverine or Spidey that often, but by then the MCU will be so diversified that if something doesn't work or if there seems to be audience fatigue for a certain character, there will be tons of worthy characters just sitting on the bench waiting to be brought into the game. GOTG and Big Hero 6 are just the tip of the iceberg in regards to how deep Marvel can dig through it's library of characters.

 

While it's true that Iron Man and the Avengers may have been the centerpiece in Disney's decision to buy Marvel, you'd better believe that Disney had an interest in that whole entire library of 5000 characters.

 

 

 

 

That said, about 90% of this article seems to be devoted to Agents of Shield and it's various roadbumps throughout the season. Which is hardly a fair comparison to the health of superhero movies as a whole. AOS's main problems were a lack of compelling characters and stories (at least to start the season) and a distinct lack of superheores in a show based on a universe that was built around superheroes. Those shouldn't be a problem in the world of superhero movies going forward. Well, bad writing may be a problem. But that's a problem that usually self-corrects itself at the box office. You'd think that Thor 3 and Cap 3 would have different box office prospects after the 2 recent movies for each hero got fairly different receptions from audiences, but Thor 3 may be able to overcome it's predecessor's shortcomings if the marketing makes it look like a must-see event.

 

We've seen superhero movies like FF, GL, and even Hulk underperform based largely on the quality of the movie. Not to mention smaller offerings like Catwoman, Steel, Elektra, or Jonah Hex. But we rarely see a superhero movie underperform in spite of the quality of the movie. Probably only once or twice, most notably in the case of X-Men First Class.

 

There's no real reason to expect AOS's problems to translate to superheroes on the big screen. They won't have the limitations AOS had for the first half of it's season. And unlike the comparison to many comic books, many comic book movies have truly felt like complete stories, regardless of what sort of teasers they leave you with at the end. Movies like IM3 and CATWS are great examples of that. Even if you know there are more adventures to come, the movies still yield a satisfying conclusion. Though TASM2 may be a bit of a counter-example, a movie that partially feels like it's just the beginning of a story that will be told in future movies. Some storylines may have been wrapped up, but there were one or two really significant storylines that didn't feel properly complete.

 

 

 

Marvel's strength has not just been it's characters, but also it's creators. But not just the likes of Lee, Kirby, Claremont, etc, it's also made some great decisions with the creators behind all the movies. It begins at the top with Feige, it continues down to all the directors and writers and actors, and you can tell that Marvel movies are great collaborations between countless talented individuals. If the quality remains, you can bet that the box office will remain strong.

 

Fresh ideas and fresh directors/writers/actors are a necessary part of keeping superhero movies from becoming stale. Fresh characters await on every trip to the Marvel archives.

 

Marvel's other strength is it's unprecedented ambition. The size of the Marvel Universe truly feels special compared to other movies that only exist within a 2-hour timeframe. That's something that other studios are trying to copy. It remains to be seen whether Sony/Fox/DC/or even yearly Star Wars movies will make the MCU seem less impressive. It seems unlikely though. People always remember the first, and the best.

 

 

 

As to the question of oversaturation, we're probably looking at the worst-case scenario right this minute. We're going to get the third Marvel movie in 50 days. The current schedule for 2016 is even worse, but you really have to expect that something is going to change there.

 

And even with the current scenario, we're still looking at 3 movies in 50 days that will total $2 billion worldwide, unless DOFP comes in under expectations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kitik's whole post.  :worthy:  :worthy:

 

I agree, Marvel and the superhero genre in general are FAR more versatile and dynamic than a Western (regular or spaghetti). You can have a live action Three Days of the Condor 70's political thriller-esque Winter Soldier movie, a live action Star Wars meets Hitchhiker's Guide Guardian of the Galaxy AND an animated The Incredibles meets The Iron Giant meets How To Train Your Dragon Big Hero 6 in the same year. The diversity in tone and sub-genre leaves far less room for fatigue to set in, if the movies are executed as efficiently as they've been so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I love several of the big superhero movies I do hope it dies down eventually. I'm sort of tired with superhero films cluttering the release schedule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Community Manager

S.H.I.E.L.D. and the CW’s Arrow, a clever, Easter egg–packed take on a problematic, frequently overhauled DC character that draws 2 million or 3 million viewers — a true-believers-only audience of a size that would get it canceled on a Big Four network. (S.H.I.E.L.D.’s same-day audience hovers around 6 million.)

 

Grantland sort of runs into trouble here since 2-3 million is pretty great for the CW. It's one of it's biggest hits and it's debatable that if Arrow was on another network then it would be getting better ratings (although this doesn't mean it would be a hit on that network.) The article's failure to take into account the CW rating situation therefore weakens it's argument, if slightly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll use my Western analogy again. The real question is this: Is Marvel Classic Traditional Westerns(The peak 40's 50's) or Spaghetti Westerns(60's 70's) or is DC the Spaghetti type which is the peak right before the fall*?

 

*Westerns continued to be made right up to today, but they became much fewer and farther between which means superhero films will probably go that route once their popularity dwindles.

Proably not as  Disney has thousands of superior stories to mix match and combine thanks to 40-50+ yrs of some great comic stories out there. Accursed.

 

As long as folks keep  pushing the envelope... Comic films will still be in demand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kitik's whole post.  :worthy:  :worthy:

 

I agree, Marvel and the superhero genre in general are FAR more versatile and dynamic than a Western (regular or spaghetti). You can have a live action Three Days of the Condor 70's political thriller-esque Winter Soldier movie, a live action Star Wars meets Hitchhiker's Guide Guardian of the Galaxy AND an animated The Incredibles meets The Iron Giant meets How To Train Your Dragon Big Hero 6 in the same year. The diversity in tone and sub-genre leaves far less room for fatigue to set in, if the movies are executed as efficiently as they've been so far.

Well  put , not to mention  Westerns never kept trying to push the envelope like marvel and TW films aim to do.. The Western genre pretty much for the most part was wrapped  up in all too tiresome at times Shootem, get the girl clichee.. That sort of ununique  thinking can slow down a big genre.

 

 

There is too much variety and incredible talent who grew up with the books for fatigue to set in.. And you can always reboot to tell a fresh storie if needed :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Citcuit City was the #2 electronics big box chain: it failed. Blockbuster, KMart, Sears, Borders. All were powers for a time. Marvel is steady now, but I dont think be indestructable forever. They wont "fail" unless they make bad investments, but I dont see steady $1B grossers in the future. Eventually people will tire.And yes I compared a movie studio with American retail stores.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Citcuit City was the #2 electronics big box chain: it failed. Blockbuster, KMart, Sears, Borders. All were powers for a time. Marvel is steady now, but I dont think be indestructable forever. They wont "fail" unless they make bad investments, but I dont see steady $1B grossers in the future. Eventually people will tire.And yes I compared a movie studio with American retail stores.

As long as they dont get lazy with sequels and reboots and teamup movies... This ride wont fail, and I still see billion dollar grossers in the far future as long as quality is there.

 

There are too many stories to tell, you tell them well and keep pushing the envelope money is assured. And rem its soon going to be no less than 9-15+ per movie ticket domestically alone , and OS its going up up on top of that.

 

So there will be alot of 800-1b+ films hitting the horizon.. And maybe even some suprises that we dont expect to hit those ranges.

 

Alot of cool heroes are waiting to be brought to life. It will be glorius.

 

Watch for WW, Powerman and Iron Fist, Aquaman, Black Panther etc. DC and MArvel are going  to wow us.

 

 

I wonder if anyone will ever make a film so powerful from this genre that it lands best picture.. :)

 

Now that would be  awesome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They said Lehman Brothers was too big to fail. Yet it did.

LOL Lehman doesnt have thousands of potential ways to go or tell stories though or hundreds  of creative filmmakers itching to bring stories to life.

 

Very very different Im afraid Mr. Noctis. .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grantland sort of runs into trouble here since 2-3 million is pretty great for the CW. It's one of it's biggest hits and it's debatable that if Arrow was on another network then it would be getting better ratings (although this doesn't mean it would be a hit on that network.) The article's failure to take into account the CW rating situation therefore weakens it's argument, if slightly.

Arrow is incredible, the closest thing to smallville quality in a long time. Had Smallville and Arrow been on a huge network the ratings would be far bigger.

 

 

I mean smallville on the fledging WB network back in 2001 got 8-10 mil viewers for a while!! Imagine if it had been on ABC!!

WOw

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good topic!

 

Nothing's too big to fail, IMO. Marvel might not necessarily ever completely fade away, but historically, everything has a peak and a trough. Marvel's time is right now. It could be DC's ten years from now for all we know (or another genre entirely).

As long as they dont take the genre for granted, I cant ever see it failing.. Now having many films 10-20 yrs from now making 800-1billion plus, that will be a challenge..

 

:).. IT can be done though.  Think of the SH genre as SW,HP and LOTR on Super Steroids. Far more stories, far more epic events to tell and make them encompassing all our emotions...

 

 

This is going to keep going and going.. Marvel alone has 5000+ characters lol. DC has thousands as well I think

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.