When will the Marvel backlash begin?

[cayman shen]

So, thought this was worth bumping: Age of Ultron was greeted with a meh by many fans. Ant Man looks like more of the same slick, safe, obvious, middle of the road corporate product. About twenty million Mad Max reviews pointed out how dull watching cartoon robots is compared to visceral live action stunt work, specifically referencing Ultron...I dunno, these Marvel flicks are starting to feel pretty lackluster to me. A bunch of grumpy critics and I can't be the only ones. I bet by this time next year we're starting to see the numbers drop as fatigue sets in on the MCU with the general public.

And yes, I'll still see Ant-Man in the theaters. But after Ultron, I'm pretty ambivalent about it.

 

[Inquisitor Peregrinus]

Meanwhile, I loved AOU and want to see it again at least once more before it leaves theaters, can't wait for Ant-Man, and am looking forward to Phase 3. *shrug* I went into AOU primed to be disappointed in it from all the international-release commentary here and elsewhere, and I was pleasantly surprised to find I liked it almost as much as the first Avengers (and it probably would have been on par for me if it hadn't been chopped for run-time). I saw all the points people were griping about and wondered if they'd even been paying attention to the film -- or indeed the entire MCU -- up to that point. But all that can be argued over in the AOU threads.

The only Marvel stuff I'm "meh" about is Fantastic Four, although I am disappointed the Powers That Be didn't keep Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker (even if it meant introducing one of the other Spider-Man/Girl/Gwen characters to keep the character's dynamic youngish).

Now, DC... :facepalm

--Jonah

 

[cayman shen]

Is Fantastic Four part of the MCU or is it still owned by a different company? Looks a LOT better than the other FF movies, but still is a redbox rental for me.

DC I'm thinking probably should've stopped when they lost Nolan. I want to give BvS the benefit of the doubt, but...could be I'm just burned out on superheroes in general.

 

[glunark]

I'm not sure you can call a franchise fatigued if it makes a billion dollars in three weeks.

 

[Clutch]

I feel the same way toward these comic book movies as I felt toward Madonna. Can't wait for them to go away.

 

[Riceball]

Is Fantastic Four part of the MCU or is it still owned by a different company? Looks a LOT better than the other FF movies, but still is a redbox rental for me.

FF4 is still under Fox or Sony, for now. If this latest one tanks like the others have they might be willing to work with Marvel, as is happening with Spiderman, or they might even let Marvel get the movie rights back.

 

[Michael Bergeron]

Was over for me LONG ago. The market has become saturated with superhero stuff to the point that it's pretty ridiculous. I don't begrudge it though so no backlash from me, just mild annoyance. :lol

It'll go away in another couple years like any other entertainment shift.

 

[Cephus]

I feel the same way toward these comic book movies as I felt toward Madonna. Can't wait for them to go away.

Then by all means, don't watch them. Solved your problem for you.

 

[coofunkcurly]

I used to see all these movies in theatres. First week. Sometimes multiple times. I am yet to see AoU. I've been wondering why I've lost interest. I think some of it is superhero burnout. A bit is disappointment in the last few I saw. And I think I'm a little overwhelmed with how interconnected the MCU has become. Feel like if I don't watch Agents of Shield or pass on a certain movie that I will be lost. So I'm just losing interest in everything. It's all starting to feel too corporate to me. Too busy. Too stale and heartless.

Just my opinion and understand if you are more emotionally invested in the Marvel brand than I. A lot of people are and while I think that's fantastic that you are getting what you want now, I can't help but wonder if the general public isn't growing tired of it. Sure AoU is making huge bank. But it will make less than the original. That's almost unheard of for a sequel. They're supposed to make more each time they put one out. But bottom line is everyone was curious about the spectacle of putting all these heroes together in the first one. And now interconnected plotlines and number of characters are getting more confusing for the casual viewer. And casual viewers are the bulk of those billions of dollars. Not us geeks. So while I think backlash is a strong term I do think we are starting to see a bit of a cooling. And given how much more is coming from the MCU I won't be surprised to see that cooling trend continue. Used to be special to see a superhero movie. You'd wait in anticipation for years. Now you just have to wait a month to get another one that wasn't much different than the one before.

 

[third3ye]

I believe that even after superhero fatigue does kick in for the general public (which it will, as we're witnessing a comic book bubble), Marvel Studios and the MCU will still command the highest brand loyalty. The fact that they are still raking in $$$ past the $1B mark for an Avengers film that has had mixed critical reception says a lot about the strength of their brand. They've had such a long and unprecedented string of success that audiences will look past 1 or 2 flops on their way to Infinity Wars and beyond. A great example is another Disney-owned studio, Pixar. The CG animation genre is in a more mature lifecycle stage than superhero films, has experienced a bubble when Dreamworks and a bunch of other studios got into the game, and Pixar has a more mixed track record of late than Marvel, yet everyone is always eagerly awaiting the next Pixar release. We were willing to forgive Pixar for the Cars franchise (with a 3rd film on its way), I think we can certainly look past some of AoU's shortcomings :lol

While the overall plots within individual movies are rather formulaic, Marvel has been firmly committed to long-form storytelling with respect to character development and story arcs, and it does show as each Avenger is clearly evolving and the MCU approaches Infinity Wars. I also think the criticisms leveled against superhero films being formulaic is a bit unfair, because aren't MOST films, whether sci-fi, action, horror, or drama - victim to such formulas? Yet we still continue going to the movies because some filmmakers make that journey incredibly entertaining, in spite of us knowing what to expect at the end. Marvel did give us IM3 and GotG, which ventured off the beaten superhero path, and they've approached film genres not as superhero films, but as genres with superheroes in them - case in point, TWS was modeled as a political thriller. On the other hand, TDW and AoU were more cookie cutter superhero films, and maybe that's where some of the criticism against AoU came from.

I don't believe the general audience will get lost with all the subplots Marvel's throwing at us, because if you think about it, how's the MCU different from a long-running TV show? I find it hard to believe people can follow complex shows like Lost over 6 seasons but have trouble with the MCU. The main difference between the MCU and a TV show is the time between episodes, but the studio does make a concentrated effort to create each film with enough legs to stand on its own. AoU was easily the first MCU film where it didn't have quite enough legs to stand on its own as it sacrificed quality storytelling for interconnectivity between Phases 2 and 3, but for the most part Marvel's been pretty good at this area.

As DC prepares to enter the fray with their own cinematic universe, I think that's when overcrowding is going to become a concern. But I believe that when the dust settles, Marvel will still emerge as the brand to beat, much like how Pixar is still the industry leader in family features.

 

[Inquisitor Peregrinus]

I like a good story. Regardless of whether it's a contemporary drama, a historical comedy, a sci-fi suspense thriller... *shrug* I don't care as much about the setting as I do about a good story, well-told. That's my biggest bitch about Bayformers (even more than him ignoring the established science of the original property). For all that it was a marketing tool aimed at selling '80s (and '90s) children's toys, between the G1 cartoon and comic, some serious mythbuilding happened there, probably in spite of themselves. Archetypes, good versus evil, ambition and greed versus egalitarianism and standing up for the little guy. Religious overtones, hard-s/f theoretical and speculative science, strong characters (and weak ones). So rather than a morality play with thought-provoking examination of relative perceptions of time between humans and nigh-immortal non-carbon-based alien life-forms from a rogue planet with no sun, the persistence of memory in a war that's been going for millions of years in one form or another, culture shock and adjustment, and any number of other things set within a straightforward narrative of "find the bad guys and thwart their evil plan"... we got a handful of shambling piles of polygons with a half-thought-out and contradictory backstory with only as much plot as was necessary to move us from one action scene where we couldn't tell who we were looking at fighting (or which end of them we were looking at) to the next. And Megan and Shia.

That's why I keep going to see Marvel's movies, often multiple times. The character pieces are character pieces, and even the big "move the story forward" team action films still have a good chunk of character development included. These are all damaged people getting past themselves to step up and protect those who can't protect themselves, who make mistakes along the way, and who respond to stressful situations the way a lot of us do -- with humor. I don't mind that I have to see the next installment, because I want to see the next installment. I don't feel that the focus on the Infinity Stones is becoming tedious or a Maguffin. That's longform storytelling. The Stones are resurfacing after eons of being lost or forgotten, whether by cosmic convergence or by the subtle manipulations of Thanos' scheming. It's all building up to him getting all of them and all the heroes introduced up to that point having to find some way to take him down. And along the way stuff happens. Tony has PTSD that Wanda cranks to eleven and Tony uses the Mind Stone's containment interface to accidentally create a self-aware A.I. that wants to destroy humanity. Natasha is so inept at interpersonal relationships that she succeeds in driving off the guy she's felt the closest bond with ever. Et cetera, et cetera. They're going to evolve and grow and change and overcome ever-increasing obstacles, because they're heroes. It's not just about the big fight at the end, but the journey to get there.

Which is why I've been so disappointed with DC since TDKR. They've created a strong TV universe... that has no connection to the film universe. Over at Marvel, the TV stuff augments the films without being necessary. Want to see the build-up to the reveal that HYDRA has utterly infiltrated SHIELD? Watch Agents of SHIELD. Is it necessary to watch that before seeing The Winter Soldier? No. Want to see how Fury got that helicarrier? Stay tuned in coming weeks. If not, do something else. That, incidentally, is what Joss was meaning with his comment about Coulson. Putting Coulson in Age of Ultron would confuse the heck out of anyone who hadn't watched or been aware of the TV show without some onscreen explanation, and the run-time was already way over. So, as far as the cinematic universe is concerned, Coulson is still dead. Until there's time to have it be relevant to a future film's plot. But DC can't even go that far. No world-building; they crammed three films worth of stuff (or two films and a Last Days of Krypton TV series) into Man of Steel, they dumped everything they had built with Nolan and Bale, with Donner and Reeve and Singer and Routh; and after one overstuffed film that introduced one rebooted character, now we're getting more than half the Justice League jammed into BvS.

I have no problem seeing as many or as few films in a given year as interest me. Whether that's one Marvel film or two or five, if it's a good story, well-told, I'll plunk down and enjoy it. Odds are, more than once. So far, Marvel has shown that they're better at telling good stories than Fox or DC. That they happen to be about characters and scenarios taken from comic books is incidental to me. I read the comics I read for the same reason -- good stories, well-told. When they stop being that, I stop reading. I have faith in Marvel to keep getting it right for at least the next little while. After Infinity War, we'll see where they want to go next, and with whom, but until then...

--Jonah

 

[ghostryder]

http://mashable.com/2015/07/15/too-many-superhero-movies/

 

[Solo4114]

Are there too many superhero movies? Hm. Maybe. But the truth is, if it wasn't superhero movies, it'd be something else. Hollywood does this. They latch on to a trend, and ride it right off a cliff.

The thing that is, I suspect, actually saving superhero movies is that at least one studio keeps putting out consistently decent-to-great films in the genre...and that keeps everyone else afloat while folks chase the same high. That studio is Marvel, and everyone else is basically riding their coattails at the moment. That may change over time, but I don't see it changing any time soon, and short of gross mismanagement or a precipitous decline in quality, I don't see Marvel hanging up its cape any time soon. WB/DC might. Fox and its mutant and FF properties very well might. But I don't think Marvel's gonna just say "Well....guess we're done now. bye! It's been fun!"

I mean, look at it this way. In the 60s, there was a spy craze. You had TV shows about spies, tons of movies about spies -- both big budget and low budget, etc. It wasn't quite what it's like today with superhero films, but there was certainly plenty of it. Eventually, that fizzled out...but the James Bond franchise continues to this day in spite of that.

You ask me, it's more likely the other studios will flame out...mostly because they're putting out a mixed bag (at best) of material. Marvel, as long as it maintains consistent quality, will be just fine. I expect that Marvel will, like Bond, become a genre unto itself.

 

[dascoyne]

http://mashable.com/2015/07/15/too-many-superhero-movies/

From the article: "Five years after Tobey Maguire put aside his red suit, Marvel decided to reboot the franchise and start the story all over again. If you’re keeping track, you know Marvel is about to reboot Spider-Man for the third time in 2017 (Marvel is also rebooting Fantastic Four just eight years after the since the first FF)."

Because the writer can't distinguish products from Fox, Sony and Marvel Studios/Disney his assessment is ill-informed and his sentiment is misplaced.

... and he wasn't impressed with The Avengers = zero geek cred. The argument is invalid.

 

[niennumb1]

I think superheroes never have gone out of style. It's always been limitations of what is possible. Now, sadly, our limitations are what terrible writing happens before the cameras even roll.

I've grown up loving superheroes and comics and will never tire of films about my favorite heroes. I do tire of huge departures from properties that don't need to be changed in order to be an effective film.

 

[cboath]

Are there too many superhero movies? Hm. Maybe. But the truth is, if it wasn't superhero movies, it'd be something else. Hollywood does this. They latch on to a trend, and ride it right off a cliff.

The thing that is, I suspect, actually saving superhero movies is that at least one studio keeps putting out consistently decent-to-great films in the genre...and that keeps everyone else afloat while folks chase the same high. That studio is Marvel, and everyone else is basically riding their coattails at the moment. That may change over time, but I don't see it changing any time soon, and short of gross mismanagement or a precipitous decline in quality, I don't see Marvel hanging up its cape any time soon. WB/DC might. Fox and its mutant and FF properties very well might. But I don't think Marvel's gonna just say "Well....guess we're done now. bye! It's been fun!"

I mean, look at it this way. In the 60s, there was a spy craze. You had TV shows about spies, tons of movies about spies -- both big budget and low budget, etc. It wasn't quite what it's like today with superhero films, but there was certainly plenty of it. Eventually, that fizzled out...but the James Bond franchise continues to this day in spite of that.

You ask me, it's more likely the other studios will flame out...mostly because they're putting out a mixed bag (at best) of material. Marvel, as long as it maintains consistent quality, will be just fine. I expect that Marvel will, like Bond, become a genre unto itself.

Another difference is marvel is super heroes and comics. Period.
End of Story

Fox can give up and go on to whatever they want. Sony can give up and do whatever they want. WB, same thing. None of those studies are tied to super heroes or comics at all. Marvel pretty much is unless they decide to re-invent themselves and make non-comic films, which i don't see happening. The rest have the ability to give up a whole lost easier as they can simply do other things with zero change in the way they do business.