Marvel Cinematic Universe, Phase Three and BEYOOOOONND

[Christopher R Taylor]

Marvel has a few more "successes" like The Marvels and they will go out of business.

[Old Man]

1 hour ago, slikmar said:

I am in the "they are trying to ride the coattails of the Marvel Cinematic Universe successes". I mean, even the "failures" for Marvel would at least be considered ok to other studios, I would think. Of course, not learning the lesson that the reason for Marvels success was due to directors, writers,  and for the most part, actors who actually understood the original medium and enjoyed it, is another matter. I have said before, and I know not all agree, but even the bad MCU movies are better then most the stuff put out by any other studio.

 

Interestingly, the Tom Holland Spider-Man movies and the Spider-Verse animated movies are also Sony movies, and are all pretty good--most of them are really good.  That raises Sony's average quite a bit.  Even the first Venom was okay.  At this point it looks like the issue is the writers for Morbius and Mme. Web, not Sony's overall handling of the license.

[Lord Liaden]

Well, if you're going to look at Sony's handling of the license overall, you have to include Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man movies. Another aborted attempt to create a "Spider-verse" around the Sinister Six. You also can't discount Tom Holland's turns with the character as being collaborations with Marvel Studios.

 

But Sony executives hired the writers for Morbius and Madame Web. They greenlit the scripts. They bear responsibility for the result. Particularly since the same writers did both, and Sony already saw how Morbius turned out.

[Pattern Ghost]

You know, I didn't think Morbius was horrible. Not great, but it was a pretty basic, straightforward origin story. I'd watch a sequel. It'd be nice to get better writers for said sequel.

[Bazza]

The Sony non-Spider-Man films of late  remind me of the similar films in the 2000s eg: Ghost Rider, Electra, and I’ll and to look up the others. 

[Starlord]

I think there's a Kraven movie on the way....

[Lord Liaden]

Yes, with Aaron Taylor Johnson as Kraven. Not close to the first person I would have thought of to play the part, but we'll see.

 

But that's another beef I have with Sony: Taking characters who are outright villains, or at best anti-heroes, and making them the protagonists of superhero movies, mainly because they have the rights to the character. They don't understand what the genre is about and why it was popular for so long. To be fair, most creators of comics today seem to suffer the same deficiency.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

They greenlit the scripts. They bear responsibility for the result. Particularly since the same writers did both, and Sony already saw how Morbius turned out.

 

Yeah, and since Marvel is also involved with the Spider-Man movies, and they have their input, you can't really give Sony too much credit for how they turn out, either.  Marvel has not exactly covered its self in glory lately, but as Bazza says, Sony's own stuff looks more like early Superhero movies that were largely cheese rather than, say, Blade or MCU product.

 

I think Sony's biggest problem is that they are cheap but using writers who put out a very tepid near-fail in a second film is questionable judgement as well.

 

[death tribble]

The one reason that Morbius sucked was of course Matt Smith.....

[Lord Liaden]

Can't agree with you there.

 

 

I do have to acknowledge that Spider-Man has one of the best, if not the best rogues gallery in comics. Large, very diverse, and all with distinctive super powers and/or gimmicks.

Edited February 20 by Lord Liaden

[death tribble]

You think it sucked because of Matt Smith and Jared Leto ?

[Christopher R Taylor]

Morbius is, to me at least, a great character with an interesting background but they didn't do a very good job with the story.  I think Jared Leto did the best he could with what he was given but the writing was bad. Not Madam Web bad, but not good enough to carry a movie about a pretty unknown character.

[slikmar]

23 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Morbius is, to me at least, a great character with an interesting background but they didn't do a very good job with the story.  I think Jared Leto did the best he could with what he was given but the writing was bad. Not Madam Web bad, but not good enough to carry a movie about a pretty unknown character.

The problem with doing Madam Web movie, unlike with Morbius or any of the others, is that she was always, at best, a support character, not a primary character. 

too bad about Morbius, since would have been interesting for them to do some of the Blade/Morbius/Black Cat(?) trio of stories.

[Lord Liaden]

IMHO one of the best in the video series:

 

 

[Hermit]

On 11/19/2023 at 9:54 AM, Dr. MID-Nite said:

This was from my FB review of Marvels....

 

Movie review: The Marvels (2023). This sequel to the 2019 original links itself to other Phase 4 projects...namely the Wandavision and Ms. Marvel tv series. The plot involves the Kree trying to revive their homeworld while also taking revenge on Carol Danvers. This film works best when it focuses on the interaction between the three leads. The three actresses play off of each other fairly well and they provide most of the movie's best moments. The villain unfortunately isn't all that memorable and certain elements of the story delve into the silly. Still, this is reasonably solid. That end credit sequence though. NIIIIICE!!!!

 

I FINALLY watched the Marvels on Disney Plus. It was enjoyable enough I wish I had just seen it on the big screen. The leads were ALL good, with Captain Marvel allowed to show feelings now that she was in this movie deprogrammed so she wasn't stuck in mandatory wooden mode like in her first movie. I'm a fan of Monica in the comics, and her actress did her justice given the set up. Iman Vellani as Kamala had already impressed me in her mini series, but she really shone on the big screen as the fan girl turned superhero. Loved almost every scene she was in. Fury made with some funny, but was not made to be the joke , which is different and I'm grateful. It was definitely comedic in tone for a lot of the movie, but I liked the balance in it.

 

If I had to sum up where it stands compared to other Marvel movies, I think I'd just say I liked it better than THREE of the Thor movies.

[Bazza]

 

 

(maybe Hermit should skip this.  )

[Starlord]

16 hours ago, Bazza said:

 

 

(maybe Hermit should skip this.  )

 

I'm not really a fan of Beta Ray Bill. I enjoyed the original story by Simonson but I feel I don't like these characters that sort of steal the uniqueness of other great characters sort of like the Superman Family characters and the Batman Family characters.  There should only be one Superman and Batman.  Then handing out a magic hammer to a whole bunch of people so we have a bunch more Thors.  Also, Bill is essentially a slightly more powerful, more noble, and improved Thor.  I don't want that so yeah not really a fan.

[Bazza]

It seems now you might say compulsory that as soon as one character has gotten to an high level of popularity that the same concept HAS to be applied to other characters, particularly if they are heroes. 

[Lord Liaden]

Beta Ray Bill was the first "extra Thor," and his background was unique enough to make a compelling story. The "Thor Corps" concept was rather much, I agree. Jim Starlin even wrote a story line in Thor's own title, about how Thor's mind was starting to break down from multiple people being given his power and taking his identity.

 

But MCU Thor has already jumped the shark for me. His comic book incarnation is my favorite superhero, but after two Taika Waititi films and Avengers: Endgame, I don't recognize him in the movies any more. I doubt there's anything Marvel could do with him at this point to bring me back.

[unclevlad]

I don't mind MCU Thor having a stress breakdown, personally, especially given the magnitude of the issues.  That can only be thrown at us so much, tho...much of that should be handled off-screen.  The mistake wasn't so much doing it...as leaving the broken character front and center.

 

I never liked BRB.  For me, it wiped out suspension of disbelief.  Oh, gee, Thor's having problems...POOF!!! Problem fixed...via BRB.  Say...what?  Granted, comics always strained suspension, and ultimately threw it out the window altogether some time ago...but that doesn't make it a good thing.  The Thor Family ties into the absurd interconnected multiverse BS where suspension of disbelief is simply not even a concept.  EVERYTHING in interconnected multiverse is like "it's all a dream, nothing is real."  So for me?  Utter failure.

 

16 hours ago, Bazza said:

It seems now you might say compulsory that as soon as one character has gotten to an high level of popularity that the same concept HAS to be applied to other characters, particularly if they are heroes. 

 

Because that concept becomes safe.  It's corporate cowardice.  It's why SO many movies are remakes/rehashes like the latest Godzilla vs. Kong or Planet of the Apes.  Or at the big cineplex...Shrek 2, First Omen, Ghostbusters Frozen Empire, and Kung Fu Panda 4.  In TV, you've got the NCIS, CSI, and Law & Order franchises with HOW many series?  Or the 3 Chicagos...Fire, PD, Med...and Fox has their various Rescues.

 

Some of it is, there aren't that many unexplored concepts.  Redo an existing concept...odds are you'll have (unflattering) comparisons to existing, popular ones.  Comics are the direct descendants of the penny dreadfuls.  They're 5 minute diversions...one-time disposables.  There have been exceptions...but not many, and probably fewer in the 21st century.  This also ties into discarding suspension of disbelief because it doesn't matter much with a disposable story.

 

I get it.  Trying to sell a new concept is HARD, and it's much more likely to fail.  Sturgeon's Law...90% of everything is crap.  That makes the market much less likely to explore...but more willing to at least *try*, when it's connected to something they already like.

[Old Man]

9 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

It's why SO many movies are remakes/rehashes like the latest Godzilla vs. Kong or Planet of the Apes. 

 

This.  To be fair, if it was my $100M, I'd be less inclined to take risks too.

 

That said, the current Planet of the Apes franchise has been massively underrated.  Rise, in particular, had no business being as good as it was.  Idk how the upcoming fourth installment will be without Andy Serkis Caesar, though.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

This.  To be fair, if it was my $100M, I'd be less inclined to take risks too.

 

Well that's a big part of the issue isn't it?  They are spending so damned much on movies now that they have to make close to a half billion dollars just to break even.  That's a ridiculous ask, and lately its been a painful fail.  Yeah if you pull in a billion dollars, that 350 million dollars in delays, reshoots, and rewrites doesn't seem so bad.

 

But if you made the same movie for 50 million, then you made even more money and it doesn't need to make a half bill just to see green.  Famously now, Godzilla One cost a fraction what Hollywood movies do and made huge bank.  It cost fifteen million to make.  FifTEEN, not even 50 million.  And it made over 100 million.  When The Marvels made about that much, it was a catastrophic failure, because it costs so damned much to make.

Edited April 16 by Christopher R Taylor

[Ternaugh]

17 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Well that's a big part of the issue isn't it?  They are spending so damned much on movies now that they have to make close to a half billion dollars just to break even.  That's a ridiculous ask, and lately its been a painful fail.  Yeah if you pull in a billion dollars, that 350 million dollars in delays, reshoots, and rewrites doesn't seem so bad.

 

But if you made the same movie for 50 million, then you made even more money and it doesn't need to make a half bill just to see green.  Famously now, Godzilla One cost a fraction what Hollywood movies do and made huge bank.  It cost fifteen million to make.  FifTEEN, not even 50 million.  And it made over 100 million.  When The Marvels made about that much, it was a catastrophic failure, because it costs so damned much to make.

 

I've been watching a bunch of older films lately (including a bunch of B movies), and I realized just how much I missed the smaller productions of the past. 1984's Night of the Comet, for example, was made for about $700,000 (about $2M in today's money), but grossed almost $14.5M during its 6 week run in theaters.

[Old Man]

2 hours ago, Ternaugh said:

 

I've been watching a bunch of older films lately (including a bunch of B movies), and I realized just how much I missed the smaller productions of the past. 1984's Night of the Comet, for example, was made for about $700,000 (about $2M in today's money), but grossed almost $14.5M during its 6 week run in theaters.

 

I fully expect a significant drawdown in movie budgets in the very near future.  First of all you have movies like Indiana Jones and the Wheel of Time that cost 1/3 of a billion dollars--there aren't enough moviegoers in the universe to make that much money back.  Second, the streaming services have achieved saturation so they'll go straight into cost cutting/ens***tification mode.  Third, you have movies like Godzilla Minus One proving you can make an effects-laden film for 1/5 of the cost using, like, brains. 

 

But it remains to be seen whether Hollywood has learned to value good scriptwriting.

Edited April 16 by Old Man

[Lord Liaden]

A big portion of Hollywood's investment in movies now goes to "name" actors' bloated salaries. But let's be real, nobody goes to a movie any more just because Star X is in it. They cost the moviegoer too much, and having a particular actor in a movie doesn't guarantee it will be any good. Audiences demand a total package to be worth their investment.

 

Recently I've been watching quite a bit of old Star Trek episodes -- TOS, TNG, DS9. They remind me that many of their most compelling stories weren't about flashy special effects and action set pieces. They were dramas involving deep character interactions, and explorations of the human condition. Christopher's example, above, of Godzilla Minus One, falls well into that category. Despite the undeniable spectacle, the bulk of the movie, and the heart of the story, is about people who have suffered terrible tragedy and loss, trying to put their lives back together, and coming together as a community. Critics loved it, audiences loved it, and it gave a huge return on a relatively small financial investment. Mind you, it also had no name actors.