Everyone loves a rags to riches story. I'm not such a fan of all the comic book movies coming out, but I applaud them for doing it all themselves and having such success with it.
To me, anything that puts another creative agency on the field is a good thing; and they've obviously found demand and have a long term plan in play so I don't think they're going anywhere anytime soon.
Their movies had a good blend of quality and 'newness' since they weren't reboot. Thor was surprisingly well executed and strange at the same time. But they may pulled the Saint Seiya string inside of me (who else?) with their golden armour and nordic mythology.
Not much about Nordic mythology in there. Between the Asgardian robots, the sci-fi-looking Asgard and the black Heimdal... It has as much to do with Norse mythology as Diablo has with tabletop RPGs.
That's interesting because the ticket price for Avenger Ultron 3D was 7.50 EUR yesterday in Dresden, Germany, which is far less than the typical blockbuster price of 10 EUR, not talking about 3D yet.
The article goes on about the films, but also Marvel has been making quite a few TV shows that seem to be hits and doing well.
One of the latest is a Netflix exclusive Daredevil which was just released and this week another season was ordered (I highly recommend watching it, HBO level production and violence and amazing fight scenes).
It seems Netflix will also be release a few other Marvel series going forward too.
The article did mention TV shows, very briefly. But I'd be shocked if anybody who had even the slightest interest in this stuff wasn't aware of Daredevil and the other upcoming Netflix shows.
I think the first Mortal Combat movie did a lot to make room for the first X-Men movie.
(both have a lot more necessary digital effects and fantasy elements than the other comic book movies that were being produced at that time)
The Doom movie was only mostly taken seriously, but it made a real attempt at fleshing out a story rooted in the game, and at least wasn't hugely hindered by a limited budget.
As the article mentions, at one point Marvel was really broke and simply started licensing out the rights of characters to different studios, here's a breakdown of what studios own which characters.
Because they sold the rights of the X-men to Fox they can't use that character in their own movies. Same with Spiderman to Sony until recently (last month) where Sony is going to let Marvel use Spiderman in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and also produce future Spiderman movies (Sony was simply constantly rebooting Spiderman because of his limited stories and hasn't been able to expand the character and story too much with other characters).
Marvel has started getting back some of these characters, mostly by defaulting it back (studios are forced to release a movie every X years or the character goes back).
Because of this, Marvel has started to phase out entire classifications of characters from the comic mainstream. For example, mutants (read: X-Men) are losing favor to Inhumans, a similar group of characters.
The Fantastic Four series, one of the longest running in comics, is ending shortly. Speculation is that it's because of Fox's ownership of the Fantastic Four film rights.
It's a slightly strong-arm tactic, but also in the best interest of Marvel's bottom line. Why publish comic books with characters that appear in movies that you don't own.
Had Sony not been hacked, they would likely still control Spider-Man.
That's all just rumors, which Marvel (and simple observation of facts) has disputed over and over. Marvel is currently publishing over a dozen x-books; characters from the Fantastic Four are central to the upcoming major event (Secret Wars). Sure, the Inhumans are getting a big push, but folks just publish these death-of-X articles to get traffic and buzz.
> Sony was simply constantly rebooting Spiderman because of his limited stories
That's not why they rebooted. Amazing Spider-Man came about because somebody at Sony realized the rights would revert back to Marvel if they didn't make another movie in a certain amount of time, and they didn't have the time to reassemble the old cast and find a point where everybody's schedule was clear, so they just went with an all-new cast.
(Which wouldn't technically be a contradiction, but the spirit of the line is that they weren't making movies then, not that they released the movie they made shortly after)
My family was always a bit mystified with my preoccupation with comic books when I was younger. I always gravitated toward the Marvel characters back then. It's incredibly gratifying to see how popular the movies, based on my childhood heroes (Iron Man, the Avengers), have become. Of course the X Men and Spiderman franchises have done well, it's good to see the other parts do well. I do not have much hope for the Fantastic Four reboot, however.
I also love comic books, specially super-heroes. It's usually cheesy and derivative but, on those well written stories, so touching, so inspiring!
I also started with Marvel. It's characters are grittier, more humane, and all their "real life" troubles make them extremely relatable (spiderman is the best example).
As an adult, I started to gravitate towards DC. Their characters are larger than life, almost perfect gods. They are not people, they are walking symbols. Only as an adult did I get Superman.
I used to read Teen Titans as a teenager, but as an adult, I appreciated Secret Six with its less-than-perfect characters. And of course, the DC Vertigo line published a number of gems like Sandman.
Apart from that, I've always liked Marvel better (especially the weird experimentations of Marvel UK like Death's Head I). They always felt more "real" to me (especially X-Men, which was somewhat political).
I've always preferred Marvel because of DC's deal of making their characters too perfect. Once they started creating silly weaknesses to Superman so that they can have some sort of conflict to tell the story it went downhill. Without conflict you can't have drama.
I've only really liked Batman because they aspired to make him an example of the perfect human being in every way. Except he's still human and the best Batman stories reflect that.
What do you mean his own things? Avengers is an example of his own thing, yet with established characters. Avengers is a classic example of Whedon's strengths as a creator. He's always been good with ensemble casts.
If you're meaning his own characters, there is that. But from now on he can likely do whatever he feels like. I hope he decides to tell a new story with new characters in the Buffy universe.
Sure, you are right to some extent wrt Avengers, but his hands are still tied by Marvel - there are other people in charge of "big picture", so he can't do anything he wants there.
Sure, he's obligated to maintain certain things to go along with the overall storyline that's being told in the cinematic universe. But it could easily be said he has to follow guidelines about any project he would work on that has studios with other people in charge involved. Unless he wishes to fully fund the project himself.
The point about the comics becoming too complex to keep straight was a good one. While I'd love to see more movies from them, I think Marvel needs to keep a handle on things and not try and do too much, so they ensure the longevity of the series.
Marvel is constantly restarting their series in a way that is welcoming to new readers - the longest run on a current book is I believe Avengers 44 (out next Wednesday) - which will also conclude that volume; they'll have a big event (Secret Wars) and then there will be an all new Avengers team with a new writer and direction. Individual series are lucky to make it to #20 these days without a reset.
I am glad that this article brought up the elephant in the room. Eventually we have to get a re-boot of these characters, and I think that moment is fast approaching. These actors are getting older, and we already see someone of them stepping down, such as Hugh Jackman, and possibly RDJ. Furthermore we have two movies coming out which hint at major character deaths/reboots (Thor 3:Ragnakor and Cap 3:Civil War). I know Marvel has plans to add more characters with Black Panther, Inhumans, Ant-Man, Doctor Strange via movies and Iron Fist, Luke Cage, Jessica Jones via TV. However, that is what they are new characters. They are not going replace Cap, Wolverine, Iron-Man, or Thor. With the start of the DC Cinematic Universe coming out next year and continuing for the next 5+ years,I think we are going to see a saturation of new heroes and people are simply going to lose interest or get bored. You can only drag someone to see an origin story so many times.
Why is rebooting the characters a bad thing? The rich comics universe shows that there are endless stories to tell with these same characters. It's true that a reboot could be a worse take on a character, but plenty of reboots -- Daredevil, Nolan's Batman, and more yet to come -- are welcome reexaminations of their heroes.
Audiences won't get bored as long as their are good stories to tell.
Thank you. The easiest analysis is that people will move on to something else. I must have read it a hundred times (at least!) in the last month alone.
Based on a few 'superhero' examples, clearly, a reboot can work:
Rebooting is not a bad thing. It isn't something that I mind at all, unless it is done in mass. I mentioned this in another comment, but I am worried we may get into a situation where every other movie is a reboot or origin story. I would not mind soft-reboots such as Kate Bishop Hawkeye, Bucky Barnes Captain America, Dick Grayson Batman, or even Miles Morales Spider-Man.
Well, for one, they could stop doing origin stories on well established characters. For example, the next Spider-Man movie will supposedly be a non-origin story as it is rebooted to be part of Marvel's cinematic universe. If they wish to start a new actor as a character it doesn't necessarily mean a reboot of the character. But issuing new actors over-and-over with reboots and origin stories for these characters would be the boring part.
I, for one, like seeing the new heroes being introduced into the mix such as Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man. Marvel has a large number of characters to rely on that haven't been introduced into the cinematic universe. Just because they are relatively unknown doesn't mean it won't work. Guardians was considered a risk because most people had no idea what they were, yet it did big numbers at the box office.
These stories can be told endlessly if they are done correctly. Not all of Marvel's characters are super-powered beings and some of the normal characters have interesting stories to tell. Daredevil on Netflix is a good example of this. It didn't even feel like a typical Marvel enterprise until the suit came into play. Up to that point it was an interesting drama with occasional action pieces. Agents of Shield is another; stories about mostly ordinary people dealing with living in this new world of super-beings and gods.
Where comic book movies/shows go wrong is when they are created to be commercials for selling toys and the story comes second. So far, Marvel has avoided this. Hopefully DC can do the same. If telling the story is always the most important aspect, then these things can last a long time before they get boring.
He has. Just in recent years Bucky Barnes and the Falcon has all taken up the mantle. Both of those after the events of the comic version of Civil War. But there's been other versions too.
It was: but the actors (and possibly others) weren't told that. As Red Letter Media says in their review, it actually tries and has some competence... just no budget. http://redlettermedia.com/best-of-the-worst-supergirl-captai... (worth watching just to see the insanely bad Supergirl movie get torn to shreds).
I have to disagree with the article a bit... certainly "endless, absurd complexity" is a strong strange attractor (in the chaos theory sense) for this sort of iterative, ongoing story, but it is possible to escape from it. Counter-example, most of the Star Trek series, the vast majority of which has episodes that stand on their own, or as part of a two-parter. It's OK to make a big universe if it doesn't all intertwine and tie together and it turns out that in Movie #14 the real bad guy behind the apparent bad guy (from Movie #13) was a minor villian from Movie #2 who was secretly being mind controlled by someone who seemed like a good guy in Movie #9 but there was a small hint that something was wrong with him in Movie #11 and there was a side story in Movie #4 explaining the motivation. Also because time travel.
This isn't really that hard to avoid, you know? You just need someone with enough central authority to stop the writers from doing this. It's not clever or compelling storytelling, it's just complicated. Said central authority doesn't have to write the story, per se, just prevent this from happening.
I'd also observe there's abundant cinematic precedent for having to change actors, and the Hulk has already been changed without it being a reboot or "new character".
Handled carefully there's no reason this universe MUST become crufty, overpopulated, and stale. It's just... the natural thing that happens when you aren't careful.
And I have hope that they may be careful. One of the undercurrents of the article they never quite called out all the way is that the Hollywood blockbuster machine is broken. Look at how well Marvel is doing, and by and large, they're doing it on good, solid storytelling. Not uniformly across the board, no, but much better than the average blockbusters. Hollywood is apparently willing to pour millions upon millions into special effects but often appears to spend about "$5.12 + whatever the director has in his wallet" on story... or, more accurately, they treat the story like that's the investment they have in it. Marvel is not hitting it out of the park every time, but they clearly care more than the Hollywood machine. Right now, if there's anybody who can hold this all together without an endless series of reboots, it's the Marvel movie guys.
> Eventually we have to get a re-boot of these characters
Why? For instance James Bond worked just fine with simply replacing whomever was playing Bond from time to time.
> You can only drag someone to see an origin story so many times.
But rebooting ends up simply retelling origin stories over and over. How many times do you need to tell how Superman (yes I know that's DC) or Batman (again, DC) or Spiderman became themselves, or how their villains became them.
Apparently it's every 10 years for Spiderman.
The actual actor for these parts shouldn't matter. That they play the character and in the continuity should. But maybe I'm missing something, I never really got into comic books.
I agree with you on James Bond there, and I think that is how things should work. I think someone else in the comments did point out that is what they did with the Hulk.
I don't mind new actors, or re-boots. What I am worried about is 6 new movies coming out, and an origin story movie being half of them. Before it was one every 4-5 years, now it is one every two-years, pretty soon you get into a origin-movie-fatigue situation with two being made every year.
I do honestly wonder if there is a breaking point in all of this. There will always be a market for superhero movies, but we're seeing so many right now.
It's just pent-up demand, I think. Comics never really made sense as the source material for movies until very recently, because they're full of outlandish, fantastic characters and locations that would have been prohibitively expensive (or just downright impossible) to have staged using only stunts and practical effects.
Look at the 1978 Superman movie, for instance; the big selling point there was that "you will believe a man can fly!" Never mind all the other stuff Superman can do in the comics; it was stretching the boundaries of the possible just to show him flying in a way that was convincing to an audience.
The advent of affordable CGI removed those limitations, of course, but by the time that came along there had built up this huge well of untapped source material and a big audience that grew up reading comics for which seeing this stuff on screen is completely novel. Eventually one or the other will dry out, and superhero movies will go back to being just one genre among many.
I strongly dislike Marvel movies. I have no respect at all for films that are released in 3D (and sometimes IMAX and IMAX 3D) when they are not filmed in 3D or using IMAX cameras. It is a pure money grab. Disney does not care about quality, they care about profits. The endless sequels and prequels and spinoffs are simply greed. They will not withstand the test of time. A decade or two from now, people will look back at Nolan's Batman series as the definitive super hero films of the day. They use real sets and stunts instead of endless poor quality CGI action scenes that move too fast for you to see what is even happening (hint: it's because what's happening is meaningless, but bright colors and fast movement stimulate your brain). Marvel exists to sell children disposable plastic action figures and made in China clothing that will fall apart before the next sequel comes out.
Children are marketed to and manipulated with cartoons and "happy meal" toys. It is insidious.
On top of that, Disney expends a tremendous amount of money on marketing to force their products into the prevailing culture. Have you noticed how many television shows have references to Marvel super heroes? Those jokes aren't because the writers are fans, Disney pays for them. Actors don't wear super hero t-shirts randomly. It's all marketing.
They are doing the same thing with Star Wars. There has been an insane amount of hype for the new movie and various spinoff products already. Quite frankly I am sick of it. I am not going to see the new Star Wars movie in theaters because this type of behavior should not be rewarded.
Disney buys up treasured parts of global culture and exploits them to death. It was heart breaking to see them do this to Pixar. Cars 2, Monsters University... just shameful cash ins.
Well, to be fair, the OP did not mention the quality or historic import of the new Disney managed Marvel properties, but only their financial and viewership success.
I happen to think CGI is the key element to make good comic book movies but despite how advanced it is now days, it's still not there yet. It's still too expensive to do it well, so it often gets half-assed and the cost also affects story lines, like less hulk, because hulk is expensive. The expense also affects greatly which characters they decide to bring into the stories at all.
57 comments
[ 6.2 ms ] story [ 93.0 ms ] threadTo me, anything that puts another creative agency on the field is a good thing; and they've obviously found demand and have a long term plan in play so I don't think they're going anywhere anytime soon.
One of the latest is a Netflix exclusive Daredevil which was just released and this week another season was ordered (I highly recommend watching it, HBO level production and violence and amazing fight scenes).
It seems Netflix will also be release a few other Marvel series going forward too.
(both have a lot more necessary digital effects and fantasy elements than the other comic book movies that were being produced at that time)
The Doom movie was only mostly taken seriously, but it made a real attempt at fleshing out a story rooted in the game, and at least wasn't hugely hindered by a limited budget.
[0] - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0803096/
http://screenrant.com/marvel-comics-movies-characters-carl-6...
Because they sold the rights of the X-men to Fox they can't use that character in their own movies. Same with Spiderman to Sony until recently (last month) where Sony is going to let Marvel use Spiderman in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and also produce future Spiderman movies (Sony was simply constantly rebooting Spiderman because of his limited stories and hasn't been able to expand the character and story too much with other characters).
Marvel has started getting back some of these characters, mostly by defaulting it back (studios are forced to release a movie every X years or the character goes back).
The Fantastic Four series, one of the longest running in comics, is ending shortly. Speculation is that it's because of Fox's ownership of the Fantastic Four film rights.
It's a slightly strong-arm tactic, but also in the best interest of Marvel's bottom line. Why publish comic books with characters that appear in movies that you don't own.
Had Sony not been hacked, they would likely still control Spider-Man.
That's not why they rebooted. Amazing Spider-Man came about because somebody at Sony realized the rights would revert back to Marvel if they didn't make another movie in a certain amount of time, and they didn't have the time to reassemble the old cast and find a point where everybody's schedule was clear, so they just went with an all-new cast.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Punisher_%281989_film%29
There was also a 1990 Captain America movie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_America_%281990_film%29
(Which wouldn't technically be a contradiction, but the spirit of the line is that they weren't making movies then, not that they released the movie they made shortly after)
I also started with Marvel. It's characters are grittier, more humane, and all their "real life" troubles make them extremely relatable (spiderman is the best example).
As an adult, I started to gravitate towards DC. Their characters are larger than life, almost perfect gods. They are not people, they are walking symbols. Only as an adult did I get Superman.
Apart from that, I've always liked Marvel better (especially the weird experimentations of Marvel UK like Death's Head I). They always felt more "real" to me (especially X-Men, which was somewhat political).
I've only really liked Batman because they aspired to make him an example of the perfect human being in every way. Except he's still human and the best Batman stories reflect that.
Here's to a thousand of copyright extensions more!
By the way, did you know that Marvel and DC jointly owns a trademark to the word "super-hero" and no other company can use it unless licensed?
No other company in the US. Toei uses that term all over the place in Japan, and Marvel and DC can't do anything about it.
Source?
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4809%3Aa...
If you're meaning his own characters, there is that. But from now on he can likely do whatever he feels like. I hope he decides to tell a new story with new characters in the Buffy universe.
Audiences won't get bored as long as their are good stories to tell.
Based on a few 'superhero' examples, clearly, a reboot can work:
Box Office (in millions of dollars):
-Spiderman 2002: $821
-Spiderman 2012: $757
-Batman 1989: $411
-Batman Begins 2005: $374
-Hulk 2003: $245
-The Incredible Hulk 2008: $263
-Robocop 1987: $100
-Robocop 2014: $242
Then perhaps Wolverine can be true to the comic, womanizer and short 5'3''.
I, for one, like seeing the new heroes being introduced into the mix such as Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man. Marvel has a large number of characters to rely on that haven't been introduced into the cinematic universe. Just because they are relatively unknown doesn't mean it won't work. Guardians was considered a risk because most people had no idea what they were, yet it did big numbers at the box office.
These stories can be told endlessly if they are done correctly. Not all of Marvel's characters are super-powered beings and some of the normal characters have interesting stories to tell. Daredevil on Netflix is a good example of this. It didn't even feel like a typical Marvel enterprise until the suit came into play. Up to that point it was an interesting drama with occasional action pieces. Agents of Shield is another; stories about mostly ordinary people dealing with living in this new world of super-beings and gods.
Where comic book movies/shows go wrong is when they are created to be commercials for selling toys and the story comes second. So far, Marvel has avoided this. Hopefully DC can do the same. If telling the story is always the most important aspect, then these things can last a long time before they get boring.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_X5C6e3ZeY
Shame it was never released. Apparently it was so bad they tried to erase it from history.
This isn't really that hard to avoid, you know? You just need someone with enough central authority to stop the writers from doing this. It's not clever or compelling storytelling, it's just complicated. Said central authority doesn't have to write the story, per se, just prevent this from happening.
I'd also observe there's abundant cinematic precedent for having to change actors, and the Hulk has already been changed without it being a reboot or "new character".
Handled carefully there's no reason this universe MUST become crufty, overpopulated, and stale. It's just... the natural thing that happens when you aren't careful.
And I have hope that they may be careful. One of the undercurrents of the article they never quite called out all the way is that the Hollywood blockbuster machine is broken. Look at how well Marvel is doing, and by and large, they're doing it on good, solid storytelling. Not uniformly across the board, no, but much better than the average blockbusters. Hollywood is apparently willing to pour millions upon millions into special effects but often appears to spend about "$5.12 + whatever the director has in his wallet" on story... or, more accurately, they treat the story like that's the investment they have in it. Marvel is not hitting it out of the park every time, but they clearly care more than the Hollywood machine. Right now, if there's anybody who can hold this all together without an endless series of reboots, it's the Marvel movie guys.
Why? For instance James Bond worked just fine with simply replacing whomever was playing Bond from time to time.
> You can only drag someone to see an origin story so many times.
But rebooting ends up simply retelling origin stories over and over. How many times do you need to tell how Superman (yes I know that's DC) or Batman (again, DC) or Spiderman became themselves, or how their villains became them.
Apparently it's every 10 years for Spiderman.
The actual actor for these parts shouldn't matter. That they play the character and in the continuity should. But maybe I'm missing something, I never really got into comic books.
I don't mind new actors, or re-boots. What I am worried about is 6 new movies coming out, and an origin story movie being half of them. Before it was one every 4-5 years, now it is one every two-years, pretty soon you get into a origin-movie-fatigue situation with two being made every year.
That could just be me, but who knows?
Look at the 1978 Superman movie, for instance; the big selling point there was that "you will believe a man can fly!" Never mind all the other stuff Superman can do in the comics; it was stretching the boundaries of the possible just to show him flying in a way that was convincing to an audience.
The advent of affordable CGI removed those limitations, of course, but by the time that came along there had built up this huge well of untapped source material and a big audience that grew up reading comics for which seeing this stuff on screen is completely novel. Eventually one or the other will dry out, and superhero movies will go back to being just one genre among many.
Children are marketed to and manipulated with cartoons and "happy meal" toys. It is insidious.
On top of that, Disney expends a tremendous amount of money on marketing to force their products into the prevailing culture. Have you noticed how many television shows have references to Marvel super heroes? Those jokes aren't because the writers are fans, Disney pays for them. Actors don't wear super hero t-shirts randomly. It's all marketing.
They are doing the same thing with Star Wars. There has been an insane amount of hype for the new movie and various spinoff products already. Quite frankly I am sick of it. I am not going to see the new Star Wars movie in theaters because this type of behavior should not be rewarded.
Disney buys up treasured parts of global culture and exploits them to death. It was heart breaking to see them do this to Pixar. Cars 2, Monsters University... just shameful cash ins.
To make matters worse, Disney doesn't even pay it's fair share of taxes on the massive income generated by these franchises: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30412293
The only thing that you can do is to vote with your dollars and time. Please stop supporting this exploitative behavior.
I happen to think CGI is the key element to make good comic book movies but despite how advanced it is now days, it's still not there yet. It's still too expensive to do it well, so it often gets half-assed and the cost also affects story lines, like less hulk, because hulk is expensive. The expense also affects greatly which characters they decide to bring into the stories at all.