• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Deleted member 13131

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
618
Is something a friend of myne explained to me way back then, Thor was bringing something to comic book movies that hasnt been done before with success, and is the magical aspect of comic book universe, before Thor, comic book movies were more inclined to create a universe were the super powers and such were explained with science instead of been basically Magic. He argue that Thor was going to be really hard to pull off without making it look silly given how Thor is so heavy on fantasy elements and this why this movie success opened up floodgates to more fantastical and magical universe.

I would argue without Iron Man success, MCU would have not took off, and without Thor success MCU would have not reached the cosmical aspect the MCU is in today.
Agreed. And it seems that's how it was over at Marvel as well - Thor director Kennith Branagh, from a recent interview about Murder on the Orient Express:

You were tasked with the impossible: to make a movie about Thor, because on paper, that's a really hard character.

Remember, there were only two pictures in the Marvel Universe. Iron Man, genius, the first one. Hulk hadn't worked as they'd hoped.

And then Thor was the third character.

And then number three, it was sink or swim before Captain America and then suddenly, oh, it was fine after that. We make Iron Man 2 and Avengers and everything's tickety-boo. But everybody who was there knows that that was an incredibly sweaty time.


So if Thor doesn't work, the whole operation might be off?

That's certainly how they felt. No question that Kevin Feige used to say to me, "This is the single most difficult tonal challenge for us, to make this movie work in itself and fit into this large universe." In fact, I think Thor, and in Chris Hemsworth's performance, becomes an absolutely integral part.


And Chris Hemsworth winds up being naturally very funny.

No, he was always, always funny. Always funny. But we also would definitely try to anchor some family drama in that first one, and you try to establish the mythology and the fish-out-of-water thing as well when he comes to Earth. So I think we laid out quite a lot of places from which the story could develop. And I'm personally really looking forward to what Taika's done with it. I'm very pleased that they're not just making the same movie each time. They're being ballsy.
At any rate, good video. The bottom line is simple: start small and with a good film with characters people get invested in. That has to be your foundation to bring audiences along. Everyone else has wanted to skip to the front of the line and it doesn't work that way.
 

Ocarina_117

Member
Oct 26, 2017
9,572
In terms of the DCEU, WB were too impatient wanting to chase the avengers money. Ironically the biggest heroes on screen is going to earn them less than Thor and GotG.

Zack Snyder should have stuck with his original idea of MoS2 with a post credit scene of kryptonite being delivered to Batman as a stinger for BvS.
 
Oct 25, 2017
788
Marvel had the luxury of their properties not being really well-known outside of comics. X-Men aside (and that universe has had its share of problems and backlash for not being faithful to the animated series, which is most peoples' most well-known version of the property), there was no definitive animated or live-action versions of their characters that people were attached to, so most of their movies and characters had a clean slate, to their benefit.

DC didn't have that luxury, nor did the Dark Universe. DC already had Keaton and Reeve, the animated shows, and the Nolan trilogy that people had already decided were their "definitive" versions of the character, and when the DCEU delivered characters that people already had preconceived perfect versions of, the backlash began. Hell, look at Superman Returns. Singer tried to continue the Reeve movies, and it didn't work either. Partly because it simply wasn't a fun movie, and partly because it simply wasn't Christopher Reeve. The Universal Monsters have all had iconic portayals lasting 80+ years, and people want their familiar versions of those characters. They don't need to be "reimagined", they need to be respected.

Marvel had a hell of an advantage with their characters not being very well-known compared to other companies, don't underestimate that factor.
 

RoninRay

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,593
yknow, you might very well have a point, what with the highlights of JL apparently being Gadot and the flash guy.

Harley Quinn was the draw of Suicide Squad not Will Smith and she was an unknown actress at that point. Big expensive actors are worthless in comic book movies vs unknown are smaller actors that fit the role .
 

Rendering...

Member
Oct 30, 2017
19,089
It's a matter of spending as much time as it takes to lay proper groundwork, without putting the cart before the horse and trying to charge directly up the face of franchise mountain. There are no shortcuts to fleshing out a world with a series of well made movies that each do their own thing.

The Avengers wouldn't have worked if we hadn't spent quality time with most of the individual heroes first. The single-character films weren't just about going through the motions. They were experimental. Marvel learned a lot about what worked well (Iron Man) and not so well (Thor) and kinda OK (Captain America) in their storytelling. They made the necessary adjustments and now we get to enjoy extremely awesome and in some cases boldly eccentric movies like Ant-Man, Dr. Strange, Guardians of the Galaxy 1 and 2, and Thor: Ragnarok--products of much trial and error.

OK, so Thor 3's story structure might not be so bold, but it's got loads of kooky shit and impish humor that wouldn't fly without the weight and history of the MCU behind it. The movie is irreverent, self-referential, almost fourth wall breaking. You can't do that if the audience has no expectations to play against.
 
Last edited:

Caja 117

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,467
Agreed. And it seems that's how it was over at Marvel as well - Thor director Kennith Branagh, from a recent interview about Murder on the Orient Express:

You were tasked with the impossible: to make a movie about Thor, because on paper, that's a really hard character.

Remember, there were only two pictures in the Marvel Universe. Iron Man, genius, the first one. Hulk hadn't worked as they'd hoped.

And then Thor was the third character.

And then number three, it was sink or swim before Captain America and then suddenly, oh, it was fine after that. We make Iron Man 2 and Avengers and everything's tickety-boo. But everybody who was there knows that that was an incredibly sweaty time.


So if Thor doesn't work, the whole operation might be off?

That's certainly how they felt. No question that Kevin Feige used to say to me, "This is the single most difficult tonal challenge for us, to make this movie work in itself and fit into this large universe." In fact, I think Thor, and in Chris Hemsworth's performance, becomes an absolutely integral part.


And Chris Hemsworth winds up being naturally very funny.

No, he was always, always funny. Always funny. But we also would definitely try to anchor some family drama in that first one, and you try to establish the mythology and the fish-out-of-water thing as well when he comes to Earth. So I think we laid out quite a lot of places from which the story could develop. And I'm personally really looking forward to what Taika's done with it. I'm very pleased that they're not just making the same movie each time. They're being ballsy.
At any rate, good video. The bottom line is simple: start small and with a good film with characters people get invested in. That has to be your foundation to bring audiences along. Everyone else has wanted to skip to the front of the line and it doesn't work that way.
Huh, I didnt knew about that Interview.
 

Slightconfuse

Member
Oct 25, 2017
17,816
No leadership Kevin Fiefie is really important to the success of thenmcu. No one else has someone to make decisions
All these Movies are bad, straight up.Neoprene are not fans of cinematic universes, they are fans of good movies

Marvel movies have effort and passion in them compared to cynical cash grabs like mummy or ghostbusters
 

RobinPanties

Member
Nov 4, 2017
72
The obvious answer. Those universes were first set up by movies that didn't try to setup an entire universe.
 

iksenpets

Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,494
Dallas, TX
Making interconnected universes is hard and Marvel was both lucky and had the advantage of going first. They were able to ride out some rough spots of the early movies and really nail it with the first Avengers movie. Key things that seemed to help them:

1. Having one, really solid first movie that established at least one of the key characters as a fan favorite (Iron Man, for Marvel)
2. For at least the first wave, making sure that every key character got an intro movie to explain back story, and that they were all at the very least serviceable
3. Really nailing the first crossover movie

Building things around RDJ's Iron Man really let them have the breathing room to develop Evan's Captain America and Hemsworth's Thor over time and turn those two into big stars by the end of it.

DC's problem seems to be that theyrevso enticed by this success that they're trying to rush it. They moved right into Justice League without giving all the key cast full introductions (by their second movie with BvS they were already full into crossover mode) and without establishing at least one really solid character to base things around. (They got one with Wonder Woman, but by the point they knew that was their good one, Justice League was already into production and it was too late). Now that they've flubbed Justice League that feels like they've poisoned the whole thing.

And none of that is even to mention them going all in on the Zack Snyder tone.
 

Rendering...

Member
Oct 30, 2017
19,089
The obvious answer. Those universes were first set up by movies that didn't try to setup an entire universe.
OK but what if I'm an out of touch movie exec who wants to rake in a billion dollars RIGHT NOW? Shoot a laser at the sky, introduce the home base of Team Whatever, throw some neon hair and skintight costumes at the drooling masses, and gimme dat paper. Oh, also add some totally random licensed music for the kids. Kids love licensed music.
 
Oct 27, 2017
45,196
Seattle
Marvel played the long game setting up several solo movies that people for the most part liked. It helped that iron man was a huge success and people loved RDJ.

I think also it helped, that the idea of having a group of heroes which each of their own movies tied into a super group on screen was just unbelievable to people
 

LukeOP

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,749
They fail because they cast big huge well known movie stars.

There is a reason why Marvel dumped Ed Norton as the Hulk.

I 100% gaurentee you an Aqua Man movie would make more than a standalone Batman movie if they keep Ben Afleck.
 

Shig

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,240
I knew DC was out of their gourd when the first meeting they set up between Batman and Superman was drawing mostly on a nihilistic, M-rated what-if/elseworlds story set in a far-flung future.

You can't have a dystopian "things have gone to shit and these two iconic heroes are trying to kill each other" scenario be the square one that your superhero team-up starts at.
 

Carm

Member
Oct 27, 2017
596
Indiana
They fail for the same reason most MMO's failed after World of Warcraft blew up. They are tripping over themselves chasing dollar signs instead of trying to cultivate a long term fan base by releasing a good product that isn't just aping the competition. Their long term plan is money, quality be damned, just release and watch the money flow in. They don't try understand why people are flocking to these products.
 

oledome

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,907
People aren't going to conventions for The Mummy.

So did cinematic universe just become a different name for a franchise?

The difference is that each film (in MCU) forms a piece of a puzzle leading up to the next crossover extravaganza. Other franchises don't tend work like that (Bond, Fast & Furious)
 

Cat Party

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,417
Marvel worked extremely hard to get people to care about their characters, many of whom were not widely known outside comic fans.
 

RobinPanties

Member
Nov 4, 2017
72
OK but what if I'm an out of touch movie exec who wants to rake in a billion dollars RIGHT NOW? Shoot a laser at the sky, introduce the home base of Team Whatever, throw some neon hair and skintight costumes at the drooling masses, and gimme dat paper. Oh, also add some totally random licensed music for the kids. Kids love licensed music.
If i had a cure for 'out-of-touch'-itis, i'd prescribe it. :P
 

verygooster

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,652
New Jersey
You have to make movies worth watching.
Marvel gets it.
Most of Hollywood does not.

This, basically. I also feel a good first impression is important, which is what Iron Man certainly had (and even if Incredible Hulk from the same year didn't land who cares because people were still talking about Iron Man).

Like sure, there are people who liked Man of Steel but I just don't remember it creating much of an impact. And then there's The Mummy which you just had to see the trailers to see the cynical garbage it is (and it is; I actually sat through it).
 

ClickyCal'

Member
Oct 25, 2017
59,687
How is Star Wars not a cinematic universe? We get a film a year with different characters and different parts of that universe.
Rogue one was the first spinoff ever in the series. Until then they have all been sequels/prequels. Even then...rogue one is a direct prequel to a new hope. That's different from a cinematic universe where it's a completely seperate movie, but in the same universe as another one.
 

Contramann

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,404
Because the MCU was accidental. Everyone forgets that Disney didn't make Iron Man 1 and that's where the MCU really starts. Cinematic Universes aren't something to just force upon an audience and consistently try to make, but something you should create from an artistic standpoint.
 

Strangelove_77

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
13,392
Marvel had the luxury of their properties not being really well-known outside of comics. X-Men aside (and that universe has had its share of problems and backlash for not being faithful to the animated series, which is most peoples' most well-known version of the property), there was no definitive animated or live-action versions of their characters that people were attached to, so most of their movies and characters had a clean slate, to their benefit.

DC didn't have that luxury, nor did the Dark Universe. DC already had Keaton and Reeve, the animated shows, and the Nolan trilogy that people had already decided were their "definitive" versions of the character, and when the DCEU delivered characters that people already had preconceived perfect versions of, the backlash began. Hell, look at Superman Returns. Singer tried to continue the Reeve movies, and it didn't work either. Partly because it simply wasn't a fun movie, and partly because it simply wasn't Christopher Reeve. The Universal Monsters have all had iconic portayals lasting 80+ years, and people want their familiar versions of those characters. They don't need to be "reimagined", they need to be respected.

Marvel had a hell of an advantage with their characters not being very well-known compared to other companies, don't underestimate that factor.

You can't be serious. Having only no-name superheroes at your desposal has nothing to do with their success. If anything it was a hindrance. If those first few movies werent good then people wouldn't have gone to watch them since they have no previous attachment.

On the other hand, if you have Batman and Superman and you can write a half decent script then you're basically set. It's been done several times now for several decades. You can change tones, you can change mythology, you can change characters. The general public and most fans will be fine with it if it's written in a way that can be digested with common sense.
But Superman Returns was really boring and these DCEU movies besides WW have been awful. It's almost too nice to call them movies. The ball was and still is in their court and they keep blowing it. They're literally tasked with repeating something they've done tons of times before. And they can't. It's sad.

There aren't any external forces bringing these films down. DC fans need to stop being so paranoid and apologetic and stop trying to deflect these movies' shittiness towards something else. They're just shit movies. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
Oct 27, 2017
12,058
Honestly I think it's as simple as making good movies. People won't care about the next installment if they didn't like the previous one. You can't make something people actively dislike, like BvS.
 

Deleted member 8593

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
27,176
Pfft, I already figured this out a few days ago



Has to be the Namekian dragonballs with Porunga tbh.

Because the MCU was accidental. Everyone forgets that Disney didn't make Iron Man 1 and that's where the MCU really starts. Cinematic Universes aren't something to just force upon an audience and consistently try to make, but something you should create from an artistic standpoint.

You sure "accidental" is the word you're looking for?
 

Contramann

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,404
You sure "accidental" is the word you're looking for?
Somehwat yes, back then there wasn't any talk of "Phases" and Universe wasn't a word being tossed around. Crossover movies weren't that rare and this was basically for Feige a passion project to get to an Avengers movie. I'm sure the enormity of where it would lead to was not what anyone back in 2008 had envisioned at all.
 

Stiler

Avenger
Oct 29, 2017
6,659
Because marvel takes time to setup things for their MCU, I mean how long is it taking them to get to the Infinity Stones/Thanos? They've been setting up that aspect for years and years now throughout their movies.

They did movies for Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, etc all before doing the Justice League. They used Nick Fury to setup the introduction throughout many films before they made the Avengers.

Whereas DC? They literally just rushed their entire thing.

Lets do a Superman movie (that completely misses the point of his character) letsl make him super broody and dark, like Batman cause Batman is > everyone else. Then lets put him against Batman and have the whole thing hinge on their mothers names being the same. Then finally do a single good movie, Wonder Woman.

Then lets rush into Justice League while we haven't did movies for Batman, Flash, Aquaman to establish their characters to the audience and cram that all into the movie instead. On top of this lets leave Green Lantern and Martian Manhunter completely out of it.
 

MisterHero

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,934
I'm gonna suggest, as part of an assembly line, that some of, maybe half, the Marvel movies aren't actually good movies, but everyone kind of just laughs it off. But the ones they really get right they get right.

I didn't think Avengers 1 was very good, but Justice League's severe editing made me appreciate A1's character juggling.
 

Deleted member 8593

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
27,176
Somehwat yes, back then there wasn't any talk of "Phases" and Universe wasn't a word being tossed around. Crossover movies weren't that rare and this was basically for Feige a passion project to get to an Avengers movie. I'm sure the enormity of where it would lead to was not what anyone back in 2008 had envisioned at all.



Nick Fury: "I am Iron Man". You think you're the only superhero in the world? Mr. Stark, you've become part of a bigger universe. You just don't know it yet.
Tony Stark: Who the hell are you?
Nick Fury: Nick Fury. Director of S.H.I.E.L.D.
Tony Stark: Ah.
Nick Fury: I'm here to talk to you about the Avenger Initiative.

A few weeks later



Gen. Thaddeus 'Thunderbolt' Ross: Stark.
Tony Stark: General.
Gen. Thaddeus 'Thunderbolt' Ross: You always wear such nice suits.
Tony Stark: Touché. I hear you have an unusual problem.
Gen. Thaddeus 'Thunderbolt' Ross: You should talk!
Tony Stark: You should listen. What if I told you we were putting a team together?
Gen. Thaddeus 'Thunderbolt' Ross: Who's "we"?
 

PSqueak

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,464
I mean, is this really a question?

-Marvel has experience handling joint universe due to comics
-The comics themselves serve as guides to how to pull it
-Other companies just do it to cash in
-As such they have no experience or idea on how to do it right
-Marvel/Disney assure quality of the movie

The only reason DC is failing is due to snyder, not lack of making a coherent universe.
 

Inturbulence

Member
Oct 28, 2017
66
The creation of the MCU was equal parts chance and a solid long term plan executed with patience and care. This is a great summary of how what we know as the MCU came together: http://www.slate.com/arts/2017/11/justice-league-dcs-new-superhero-movie-reviewed.html

Back when Marvel Studios first started trying to secure financing for their films in 2005, they didn't even have rights to Iron Man! They had to use the character rights they did have as collateral. Slowly some rights expired and Phase 1 began to take shape through a lot of winging it mixed with a solid plan. Marvel couldn't afford a top down approach because they didn't have a fixed lineup of characters to work with. Taking the long approach of individual films done well, or at least reasonably decent, was the only way they could build it. There were a few missteps along the way, but because they were a pioneer, it wasn't as scrutinised. Releasing Thor today would be very different than releasing it in 2010, since the bar has been raised so much, thanks to the MCU itself. And because they were just a studio, they had to cut deals for distribution and publishing, which explains the debacle over some rights, especially the Incredible Hulk. Then Disney came along.

With Disney's cash and The Avengers success, Phase 2 could be more ambitious. But Perlmuletter at the helm was holding it back... which is why there were some wrinkles. Phase 2 was about the finding MCU's feet in the grand new world they created. Then with Ike out of the way, Phase 3 is a realisation of the ambitions the MCU had all along. If you look at it superficially, yes the MCU's success seems so easy. But there were a lot of bumps and a lot of learning along the way, held together by Kevin Feige's vision. The MCU has been a long, long labour of love... and that's what's sets it apart from all the other cynical cash-grab attempts at cinematic universes.
 
Oct 25, 2017
788
You can't be serious. Having only no-name superheroes at your desposal has nothing to do with their success. If anything it was a hindrance. If those first few movies werent good then people wouldn't have gone to watch them since they have no previous attachment.

On the other hand, if you have Batman and Superman and you can write a half decent script then you're basically set. It's been done several times now for several decades. You can change tones, you can change mythology, you can change characters. The general public and most fans will be fine with it if it's written in a way that can be digested with common sense.
But Superman Returns was really boring and these DCEU movies besides WW have been awful. It's almost too nice to call them movies. The ball was and still is in their court and they keep blowing it. They're literally tasked with repeating something they've done tons of times before. And they can't. It's sad.

There aren't any external forces bringing these films down. DC fans need to stop being so paranoid and apologetic and stop trying to deflect these movies' shittiness towards something else. They're just shit movies. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm 100% serious.

You think "they're shit movies", I think the deck has been stacked against them from beginning due to there being a higher number of people who hold a certain existing version as definitive in their minds, and anything but that version is unacceptable.

Marvel was able to build recognition and perception with their heroes because people weren't too familiar with them. DC and the Dark Universe had decades of iconic, definitive portrayals to compete against.
 

Poeton

Member
Oct 25, 2017
789
Austin, TX
I think a cinematic universe needs to have a strong foundation of a trio of movies were the universe building is subtle in its execution i.e. post credit scenes. But I think what ends up leaving a bad taste in everyone's mouth has more to do with the insane amount of exposition movies like BvS had to do to get the audience caught up with the characters and universe. Where Avengers had 4 previous movies to introduce characters and setup everything.

I enjoyed JL, but I'm still bitter about BvS.
 

affeinvasion

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,951
It's a lot on Kevin Feige. He should get a lot of credit because I'm not even sure that the Star wars film universe is going to work out the way they want it to.

It's also the casting. RDJ was lightning striking. Chris Evans and Chris Hemsworth both turned out to be really good.
 

Contramann

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,404
Like I said, crossovers were nothing new. A Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, and "Universe" plan was not what they were coming up with in '08.

It's a lot on Kevin Feige. He should get a lot of credit because I'm not even sure that the Star wars film universe is going to work out the way they want it to.

It's also the casting. RDJ was lightning striking. Chris Evans and Chris Hemsworth both turned out to be really good.
Alot of the credit is Feige. He really wanted that proper Avenger's comic book experience on the Big Screen. For him he's basically living the dream because he accomplished a vision of his while making a lot of money doing it.
 

Deleted member 6730

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
11,526
The MCU was not great in phase 1. People loved Iron Man, hated Iron Man 2, people were real meh on Thor and Hulk, and people liked the best Phase 1 film of TFA. Then Avengers happened and boom, it happened. The world got to see this shit for the first time. Now the movie itself was alright, not great or anything, but that experience was built on four years of setup.

Noa companies want that quick billion like it's easy money for a franchise but it's not.
That's a bit revisionist but ok.
 

$10 Bagel

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,481
Because marvel never set out to have a cinematic universe and it allowed everything to grow naturally

Take Marvel vs DC. Aside from Black Widow showing up in Iron Man 2 the first team up happened in Avengers, after like 6 movies. In the DC cinematic universe there's Man of Steel and then Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman all in the same movie. Then a WW solo and a team up in Justice League. Most comic book fans probably don't even know who cyborg is bc who gives a fuck about him, now you're just gonna throw him into a team up without introducing him to non-comic book people beforehand?

As for the other CUs who gives a shit about Godzilla vs King Kong or The Mummy cinematic universe?
 

AlexBasch

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,310
I still want the Disney one to happen. Wasn't the new Lion King, Jungle Book and others in the same universe?

Shit I want Mowgli, Aladdin and Simba to fight against Scar and idk, Ursula?
 
Oct 25, 2017
12,018
Aside from the movies having to be good first, there's a whiff of cynicism emanating off of these other franchises in a post-MCU world where the copycat mentality is so blatantly obvious. Maybe if they would surprise audiences with an expanded continuity instead of trying to market four or five brands under a megabrand umbrella at once it would work better. That really only works with Marvel Studios because they've set an expectation that is bolstered by trust.

If at the end of GI Joe one of their Humvees transformed into a robot and attacked the Joes before cutting to black, that would be a cool little post script cliffhanger that would get people talking. If the studio had the restraint to not announce the surprise ahead of time and wait until after opening weekend to announce a GI Joe/Transformers crossover, I bet people would be more receptive to it than if they gave the whole thing away by announcing some giant toybox crossover before they've made anybody give a shit about either thing.
 

jmood88

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,468
MCU just pushes easy to digest products filled with jokes. All you gotta do and the money and ratings come. Disney knows you don't gotta make a truly inspiring or well made movie for a thumbs up because audiences don't grade past passable and a critic won't give a "movie is fine" a "don't watch". It's really amazing how well Disney has hustled the rating world.
New site, same schtick.
 

JdFox17

Member
Oct 26, 2017
439
That's a bit revisionist but ok.
It's really not, though. Iron Man was amazing and the fairly well-kept secret at the end really drove people into a frenzy. No one cared about the movie that came a month later. People mostly didn't care for Iron Man 2, though they at least showed up. Thor wasn't all that popular and people forget how badly The First Avenger actually did -- less than $375 million worldwide. That would be considered an absolute failure in this day and age.

Everyone praises Marvel as this well-oiled machine that has hit after hit. And that's fairly true for the last few years, but it wasn't until Avengers broke out and became a success that everyone was like "Oh, shit, this cinematic universe stuff can work."