Why are Marvel getting it right?

[Mr Mystery]

How do. A more specific topic than the general super hero comics thread, so figured I'd make it a separate one.

In short? I'm mildly baffled.

You see, Marvel are set to release their fourteenth movie in the MCU later this year, in the shape of Doctor Strange, starring everyone's favourite Etonian, Bendyitch Custardpatch.

And whilst there's definitely the odd internal consistency issue (and a shameful lack of female lead movies), they're very much '13 for 13' when it comes to a healthy profit.

Add to that the TV element of their shared Universe (SHIELD, Agent Carter, Daredevil and Jessica Jones), and they're really yet to shoot themselves in the foot.

Yet.....Fox. Sony. Warner Bro's......they're all struggling to replicate the runaway success which Marvel has been enjoying. Let's have a brief synopsis of their efforts....

Fox - responsible for X-Men, Deadpool and Fantastic Four.

To date, no really solid Fantastic Four film. Including Wolverine in X-Men, they've done eight films, of which I'd say perhaps half are decent efforts. Deadpool of course was something of a surprise hit in terms of sheer profitability.

Sony? Two decent efforts on Spidey, three pretty awful ones.

Warner Bro's? Well, their tv output is fairly solid. Whilst I've not watched it all, what I have seen of Arrow, Gotham, Flash and Supergirl tick all the right boxes, and the shows are certainly well received. But their movies? Jesus. Let's tick them off, shall we?

I'll kick off with Batman Begins, as I think that's their first modern foray. That was a corker, and its sequel was pretty damned good. Shame about Dark Knight Rises though.

Then we have Supes. Superman Returns, and Man of Steel - neither is held in especially high esteem. I dunno about you, but the more I've seen Man of Steel, the less I enjoy it. There's then the two most recent offerings - BvS and Suicide Squad. I've not yet seen either of these, but the critical consensus is that they're messy offerings. Some good bits, but just off key.

Now whilst WB/DC have turned a profit on all of these, they didn't set the box office alight the way Marvel has - and the critical reception to their respective offerings has the conspirasphere utterly convinced Disney/Marvel are bribing critics for favourable reviews (if you're not aware of this, it's probably because the mouth breathers haven't found a convenient woman to blame for it. Yet.)


But hey, the above is just my opinion, so please don't think I'm confusing it with fact.

But what is an indisputable fact is that Marvel are running away with the genre. Even their films which I genuinely didn't expect much from turned out to be highly enjoyable slices of cinematic nonsense. Specifically Guardians of the Galaxy (very much my favourite), and Ant-Man. Especially Ant-Man. Ain't no film goes through that level of development hell and actually turns out to be thoroughly entertaining.

So how are they doing it? It really seems that this stage they can do no wrong. Box Office and Home Media sales point to it being far more than just fanboy squeeing.

I mean I'm seriously expecting their bubble to burst at any moment. As above, I expected it to start with GOTG. Then Ant-Man. Then Civil War. But nope, the juggernaut of their success continues to steamroller the box office. Even when it shouldn't. Did I mention that Ant-Man should've been a massive steaming pile because of its very painful, convoluted, change of writers journey to the silver screen?

How. How the hell are they doing it when others just can't get it work as well? It's maddening!

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

I love the Marvel TV series (minus Agents of shield) but I think the films have been mostly terrible personally. Not that the DC ones have been any better though, I think those have been far worse. Perhaps when we'll see Ms Marvel, Female Thor, solo black widow and scarlet witch movies ill change my mind but I can't stand most of the male led heroes so far (Thor, cap america, hulk, iron man) only Black Panther and the new Spiderman seemed likeable leads to me. I'd rather just watch Agent Carter again though.

[Mr Mystery]

Which is fair enough.

But DC in particular really need to have a good think about why they're not hitting the same high notes Marvel are - particularly as Wonder Woman is their next offering.

Not only is that a pretty major and much loved comic character, but it is of course the first female fronted comic book adaptation in a while (certainly the first I can immediately think of since 1995's Tank Girl).

In short, WW has to be excellent. Not just to turn around their fortunes and prove they can definitely compete with Marvel, but because if it's a fourth misfire, you can pretty much guarantee that'll be blamed on it be a female fronted, non-chick flick movie.

Look at the vitriol piled on Ghostbusters. EG shared a good infographic thing, showing it's been downplayed when it's inevitable second week downturn (majority of movies have these) was less of a drop than BvS. The movie has definitely made a profit for the studio, and it's a lot of fun - but already it's being used as 'proof' that 'The Public' don't want female lead movies...

Now, I'm going to go out on a limb here, and suggest that if WB hadn't committed to Wonder Woman, we wouldn't be getting Captain Marvel - a film which has already been shunted about the schedules, notably to make room for (yet another) Spiderman flick.

Given the late addition of Captain Marvel, and it's freely shunted about nature, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that shows a certain nervousness within Disney/Marvel about a female lead movie - especially as fans have been clamouring for a Black Widow movie ever since her star turn in Iron Man 2.

Now, I have few doubts that Captain Marvel is going to be a solid movie - but hey, let's hope a messy or disappointing Wonder Woman doesn't cause it additional, needless scrutiny, yeah?

[CoffeeGrunt]

I think there's a few factors at play, personally.

The first is the internet and reviewsphere. You'll always have an initial wave of viewers for a movie, and they will always go to see a movie based on the trailer, in addition to the critics who are paid to do so. Whereas you'd normally have to wait for word-of-mouth or the weekend paper's movie review column to see what the movies of today are like, now you can see them instantly, and see many, many opinions arrayed together and even aggregated on sites like Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes. You can follow specific reviewers closely to see what they think and, comparing their tastes to your's, decide on whether you wanna see it.

So the viewer is better-informed going in than ever before, which is the same reason video games are having problems with initial releases converting into sustained sales, because the first wave buys Assassin's Creed, video, text and image reviews of the issues and failings go up, and your second-wave sales die. Thus, it's important to start strong in order to sustain it.

Secondly, we have the modern Marvel formula. It's complex enough that I couldn't express it as an algorithm, but if Einstein were here he'd identify it as the mathematical formula for pure escapism. It's bright, it's exciting, there's grand scenes of visual splendour and some gorgeous cinematography. Action flows and is exciting, and fight scenes are well-choreographed and fun to watch. This is interspersed with small moments of comedy. Enough for a laugh without breaking the flow of the action, and often incorporated into the action in a funny way. The humour is simple enough that most people get it instantly and it translates well to foreign markets where clever wordplay is lost in translation. The shot of the Hulk smashing Loki around after Loki preaches about how he's a God? Watch that without dialogue and it's still pretty funny, plus it's simple enough to not be lost in translation. Man thinks he's God, boasts of his power, then the beast smashes him around to put him in his place.

Thirdly, this has been oncoming for decades. Marvel has been pushing hard on all fronts to have that breakout hit and establish this, and there's been a good amount of risktaking and audacity on the way there. The Cinematic Universe is genius, and the steady buildup to the Avengers was a step beyond simple sequel-baiting. It could have failed horribly with the amount of cash setting up origin story movies, building up to this massive dreadnought of a blockbuster. They pretty much deserve the payout at this point.

Fourthly, Disney.

Fifthly, casting. Downey Junior is Tony Stark. Chris Evans is Captain America. These actors - and the actresses with them - nail their roles and just get them. Evans has that genuine feel of hopefulness and decency that defines Cap. Downey Junior nails the arrogance and egotism built over a shell of frail vulnerability and fear. And Vin Diesel nails the panoply of emotions as Groot.

And finally, they mix up the formula enough from movie-to-movie that it's not the same. Ant Man is a heist movie, Guardians is an ensemble action-comedy, and Winter Soldier is a spy thriller. Granted, they're still distinctly Marvel, but things are mixed-up enough that it keeps it fairly fresh.

IMO, they make movies that are at least good. The only one I've felt that missed the mark of greatness so far is Age of Ultron, I just think the villain wasn't great in that and overall it's good. I'd take Winter Soldier over it any day, genuinely enjoyed that movie. Iron Man 3 was alright. So I tend to go see whatever they put out, because it has yet to disappoint. They're the only franchise I'll regularly pay for cinema tickets for, is what I'm saying. They've proven themselves already, whereas others like Ghostbusters or Wonder Woman still have to earn that trust from me, (and my enjoyment of the WW trailer is at-odds with DC's track record so far. I hope they embrace that turn-of-the-century feel and really go for it.)

[eldargal]

I think the main problem is the tone they went for and the directors and writes they hired to get that tone. The Nolan trilogy worked well as a kind of stand alone thing, but as the MCU shows what people want in a cinematic universe is proper, superhero-y fun and MoS and BvS didn't deliver that, they took themselves too seriously, they were too dull visually (grimdarkgrimdarkgrimdark) and in order to fit the 'gritty' tone the characters end up being unpleasant arseholes who acted completely out of character. The MCU is colourful, funny, mostly cheerful so when the fecal matter hits the fan it has a lot more weight because you see the emotional impact it has on the characters. When its 24/7 grimdark, you don't get that, you just get more grim and things have to escalate almost stupidly to try and have any impact at all.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Plus with the number of movies everything has much more weight to it.

Batman and Superman fight at the end of BvS. We knew it was happening, there was no investment because we knew they would band together because a Justice League movie was promised.

In Civil War, that fight at the end between Tony and Cap? I didn't know if someone was going to die, and it had far more weight to it because of the long establishment we've had of these characters. We know Tony is impulsive and arrogant, and lets his emotions get the better of him. We know Cap would defend Bucky to his death.

It's this Greek tragedy that plays out where no-one is really the bad guy and we can understand their motivations, but we don't know if one will swing too hard and kill the other, marking how bad the fighting had become. I genuinely thought it was going to end with Cap dead and Tony suddenly realising what he's done, taking out both major players as Stark quits the Avengers altogether. It's almost a pity we didn't get that.

I mean...Uhhh...

"Martha!"