The Marvel/Sony Superhero Movies Thread

[Dead & Messed Up]

Duke, I love ya, but you scare me because you sound like a cult victim.

It's a more dramatic way of saying that audiences generally trust the name Marvel. When people see that label, they know they're getting their money's worth. They'll be sufficiently diverted/entertained for the duration of the film.

(Whether or not I agree with those audiences is sort of immaterial. People keep going, the flicks keep getting high audience scores, they keep making money, and it just keeps going and going and going until a small part of me wants to stab out my eyeballs, but they got fucking Taika to make a Thor movie, so what am I supposed to do? Huh? HUH?! WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO IRISH THEY GOT ME BY THE BALLS)

[transmogrifier]

I'm even starting to think that Doctor Strange may die, but I have a theory on why he may not as well.

Is this the theory?

[Dukefrukem]

Heh Correct. Should have said Marvel. Disney still has a lot of work to do with Star Wars.

[Dukefrukem]

Is this the theory?

Ha. I can see at least one more stand alone film. But he probably won't die. I was just thinking of scenarios where he could.

[Irish]

It's a more dramatic way of saying that audiences generally trust the name Marvel. When people see that label, they know they're getting their money's worth. They'll be sufficiently diverted/entertained for the duration of the film.

Sure. Disney has always had a strong brand. It's what they're good at. I don't think their extended branding exercises are particularly notable.

Another way of looking at it is this: If the Marvel machine is so finely tuned, then how did Suicide Squad outperform Doctor Strange? Both of them were quasi-sequels, taking place in a pre-existing "cinematic universe." Both of them had considerable star power. Both of them introduced a new slate of characters. Both of them had huge ad buys and opened in a similar number of theaters. Suicide Squad was even reviled by both fans and critics; more broadly, it's considered an underperformer. But Harley trumped Strange.

Also, does Suicide Squad's relative success mean Warners went toe to toe with Marvel's juggernaut .. and won? Not really. I mean, nobody thinks that, conventionally. Yet if you look only at the numbers, you could draw that conclusion.

This suggests, in the context of superhero movies, that a decent combo of stars and setting, backed by good ads, will result in a minimum threshold at the box office, almost guaranteed.

That doesn't say much for the popularity of one hero over another. Hell, it doesn't even say much for the popularity of these movies.

(Whether or not I agree with those audiences is sort of immaterial. People keep going, the flicks keep getting high audience scores, they keep making money, and it just keeps going and going and going until a small part of me wants to stab out my eyeballs, but they got fucking Taika to make a Thor movie, so what am I supposed to do? Huh? HUH?! WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO IRISH THEY GOT ME BY THE BALLS)

FOMO and the network effect means you're fucked.

(That's the other, unanswered, big question, for me: Would you see these movies -- every one of them -- even if nobody you knew was interested?)

[Skitch]

3. Iron Man, Captain America, Vision, Thor, Hawkeye all die. Maybe even Falcon and War machine too.

Come on Duke, that will NEVER happen. Literally the only character they've killed is one they had joint rights to and was being used by Fox, hence expendable.

[Dead & Messed Up]

That doesn't say much for the popularity of one hero over another. Hell, it doesn't even say much for the popularity of these movies.

Part of the issue with Suicide Squad was a very generous release window - nearly everything in its wake was fizzling, as will happen with autumn releases, and so it just rode the cultural conversation train, which you mention below. I'd agree with you that the marketing played a big factor in presenting Suicide Squad as basically the world's biggest supervillain party (Joker! Harley! Croc! Uh... Fire Guy! Serial Ropist!).

FOMO and the network effect means you're fucked.

(That's the other, unanswered, big question, for me: Would you see these movies -- every one of them -- even if nobody you knew was interested?)

I'd probably be taking it case-by-case, as I do with most. I held on flicks like Ultron and The Dark World until it came down to the studio making maybe 10 cents off me (dollar theaters, SD stream rentals), and that's more out of a sort of casual curiosity in shenanigans from Whedon and Hiddleston than from some deep desire to see how this world interconnects (that stopped being interesting after Avengers, because you realize they're really just making the sudoku board bigger from here on out).

Thing is, Marvel courts talents that I'm interested in and root for as filmmakers, and sometimes that pays off, as I legitimately enjoyed Whedon's Avengers and Gunn's Guardians (and those films felt, to some degree, like the products of their creators and not just auto-tentpoles (although there's a taste of that in both, especially during the climaxes)). And then they bring in Derrickson to do Dr. Strange, and I'm a big fan of what Derrickson did with The Exorcism of Emily Rose and Sinister, and he's working off the imagery of Ditko, who's my favorite artist of his era with his tripped-out dimensional journeys.

It's like Marvel has mastered the "just enough" for me. There's always "just enough." And it sorta sucks, because I want to see something genuinely challenging to the form instead of scribbling interesting ideas in the margins of the page (and Lord knows Marvel can afford to do that), and instead it's "just enough" (like the first sound and light trip and final showdown of Dr. Strange, the cold-as-ice work from Swinton). But I also don't feel like I've been swindled, and I smile quite a bit and sometimes laugh, and there's a creative sequence here and there, and then everybody leaves the theater in an orderly fashion, and it's on to figuring out dinner.

[Sidebar: one of the more bizarre developments in superhero film is that the tentpole umbrellas of large movies haven't fostered a concurrent development in smaller, indie properties or original superhero IPs, which were actually quite prevalent in the '90s (Tank Girl, Spawn, etc.). For that action, you have to go to TV, and even then it's really just Marvel and DC again.]

[Dukefrukem]

Come on Duke, that will NEVER happen. Literally the only character they've killed is one they had joint rights to and was being used by Fox, hence expendable.

They NEED to inflict some kind of stakes with Thanos. This is the only way. There's only so many times you can threaten the "world" or the "galaxy"....

Maybe not all of those people die, but more than 1 death at the very least.

[Skitch]

I agree they need to add some stakes, I just dont think they will. At least not with anyone big. Hawkeye, Black Widow, maybe. But history so far suggests no majors. Hell, War Machine is expendable as hell, and they didnt even have balls to cripple him.

[transmogrifier]

They will have to start offing some of them to keep wages under control.

[Irish]

They will have to start offing some of them to keep wages under control.

Well, shit, Doctor Strange isn't even American. Thanos can just have him deported.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I agree they need to add some stakes, I just dont think they will. At least not with anyone big. Hawkeye, Black Widow, maybe. But history so far suggests no majors. Hell, War Machine is expendable as hell, and they didnt even have balls to cripple him.

Marvel's going for a lighter tone, obviously, and Feige's said that he'd prefer his movies pay more attention to the heroes than the villains (like this is all some sort of binary and balance can't be attained), but that has the effect of supervillains with apocalyptic plans feeling like temporary inconveniences. Part of it is the low stakes you cite, for sure (the War Machine fixer-upper was just the worst), but I also think part of it is that the villains are not dramatized as frightening or formidable opponents. I know it's a different kind of film, but think of the presence and weight and immediate threat when Bane enters basically any of his scenes in The Dark Knight Rises. It's not just his deep voice or how he carries himself or how casually (and personally) he dispatches innocent lives. It's also in how people react, whisper about him, how his chessmaster plans put the players at significant disadvantage. How he wins for a good long while. And he doesn't kill a single main character! It's all in the dramatization.

Where's the awe? Where's the fear in our heroes? Where are the deeper personal moments of villainy?

[Sidebar: One of the intriguing differences is that the Dark Knight movies have three main villains who are ideologues. They really, truly believe in something. Ra's believes that his purging fire is regrettable but necessary, a goodness. The Joker believes he's doing people a favor by dragging them down to anarchy. Bane believes, well, what Ra's believed, but he also deeply believes in maximum suffering - he wants to go the extra distance and wound people psychologically before killing them. He enjoys it (otherwise he'd just nuke Gotham immediately). They aren't opportunistic capitalists (Jeff Bridges, Corey Stoll) or somewhat generic despots (Ronan, Malekith, Red Skull, Loki).]

[Irish]

[Sidebar to your first sidebar: Hellboy 2 was really the sort of low-impact IP you're talking about and there isn't room for it anymore. Part of the reason is advertising. I heard recently that, back in the 1980s, studios spent 20¢ on advertising for every dollar they took in. Today, it's more like 60¢. Long story short: It costs less to advertise a product that's part of an established brand. (This is why there are 32 kinds of tooth paste and 600 forms of laundry detergent at the supermarket.)]

[Sidebar to your second sidebar: Batman's always been a more idealogical character; the villains are unyielding zealots because Batman is an unyielding zealot. (That'll be obvious to everyone here, but I thought I'd say it anyway.) I think you're dead on about Marvel, and the lack of "belief" in those characters exacerbated the story problems in Civil War.]

[Ezee E]

Downey has maybe five years left before he starts to be too old to be Iron Man.

In which case, I just wonder when they decide to either "reboot" Iron Man or figure a way to have a next generation Iron Man if they wanted to keep it within the same MCU.

[Watashi]

I think once Downey, Evans, and Hemsworth part way, Marvel will put all of its focus on television and tell more smaller, serialized stories.

Unless Disney can rope in X-Men during Phase 4 then they'll stretch their cinematic universe as far as they can go.

[Skitch]

I'm really not trying to start a "DC v Marvel" debate. While I'm more of a DC guy, I totally dig way more of all comic book films than the general populace. Nearly everyone of them makes me feel like a kid again. I love the vast majority of it.

But this love of Iron Man/Tony Stark...it baffles me. IM1 is the best to me. Every entry after that...he is doubly the cause of the problem. Either his ego or his tech creates the antagonist. And while I dug Civil War, that third act infuriates me.

[

Show Spoiler

How the FUCK can THIS ego maniac attempt to justify wanting to outright kill Bucky when he full well knows Bucky was under mind control, yet Stark is constantly apologizing for creating/causing Whiplash, Killian, Ultron, and the audience is expected to shrug it off like its less weird or more forgettable or more forgivable or somehow more understandable than the "Martha" moment because, well, "He killed my mommy".

Both moments are equally poor filmmaking imo. I really don't see much difference. Hell, [again being more DC leaning, admittedly] might give the edge to BvS because they're at least trying an angle whereas Iron Man has been fucking this shit up for multiple movies. That being said, BvS had a host of other problems, but the internet world losing their shit about that catalyst but not the Civil War one was so weird to me.

]

I'm sure I'll get hate for that take, but whatever, I enjoy both films.

[Irish]

Downey has maybe five years left before he starts to be too old to be Iron Man.

Audiences didn't blink at a 65 year old Indiana Jones or a 73 year old Han Solo. Downey's probably good for awhile, I figure.

[

Show Spoiler

How the FUCK can THIS ego maniac attempt to justify wanting to outright kill Bucky when he full well knows Bucky was under mind control, yet Stark is constantly apologizing for creating/causing Whiplash, Killian, Ultron, and the audience is expected to shrug it off like its less weird or more forgettable or more forgivable or somehow more understandable than the "Martha" moment because, well, "He killed my mommy".

Both moments are equally poor filmmaking imo. I really don't see much difference. Hell, [again being more DC leaning, admittedly] might give the edge to BvS because they're at least trying an angle whereas Iron Man has been fucking this shit up for multiple movies. That being said, BvS had a host of other problems, but the internet world losing their shit about that catalyst but not the Civil War one was so weird to me.

]

No hate here. Pretty much everything you cite is the big reason why I wanted to see Cap punch Tony so badly in Civil War.

(On another note, I like Ultron more than most here---purely because of James Spader---but one of the things that really bugs me about it is the way the script mumbles through everything Tony does, his justifications for doing it, and the resulting consequences. And nobody on the team turns to him and says, "What the fuck, Stark. You've totally screwed us all.")

[Skitch]

And nobody on the team turns to him and says, "What the fuck, Stark. You've totally screwed us all.")

AGAIN. Thats the bit that gets me. You've screwed us....AGAIN.

He is an excellent Tony Stark, but hes not irreplaceable. Shave your beard funny and act like a sexist asshole with a couple of good quippy lines.

IRON MAN.

[Irish]

AGAIN. Thats the bit that gets me. You've screwed us....AGAIN.

LOL, yeah. I'm gonna watch Civil War tonight just to see him get punched again.

[megladon8]

Am I weird for preferring Winter Soldier to Civil War?

[transmogrifier]

No. Winter Soldier is much better.

[Skitch]

Agreed.

[number8]

I thought that was the consensus.

[Dukefrukem]

And nobody on the team turns to him and says, "What the fuck, Stark. You've totally screwed us all.")

THey say it multiple times. In Ultron and in Civil War. Thor lifts Stark up by his neck because of it... "use your words buddy"

I thought that was the consensus.

It is on MC.

[Dukefrukem]

I agree they need to add some stakes, I just dont think they will. At least not with anyone big. Hawkeye, Black Widow, maybe. But history so far suggests no majors. Hell, War Machine is expendable as hell, and they didnt even have balls to cripple him.

Getting back to stakes.... the reason why deaths need to happen is exactly what they've been building up across these movies.

Stark and Cap are obvious choices, but they could go after Hawkeye because he's a family guy. Same with Scott.
I feel like they already went down the road with Black Widdow and her break up with Bruce.
They could start a Vision, Scarlet Witch relationship which they started to in Civil War. Vision is another obvious choice. He has the Mind Stone and we all know Thanos needs all of the stones.

The rest of the characters are too new to kill off. Or we are not deeply attached to them because they are not fully built up: War Machine, Vision and Strange.