21 ms·

How Marvel took over cinema and TV

79 points by hhs 5y ago

stephanos2k 5y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20210918132953/https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2021/09/17/how-marvel-took-over-cinema-and-tv https://web.archive.org/web/20210918132953/https://www.econo...
1cvmask 5y ago
When product market fit meets sales market fit. The MCU is a true rocket ship now (pun not intended).
moomin 5y ago
Sadly, this article doesn’t actually deliver of the headline and tell you how they did it. A lot of people, including some extremely powerful media executives, would like to know.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  I came to say this and also gripe about the fact that this franchise of franchises has gobbled up cinema and contributed in lowering the quality of mainstream film across the board. I personally cannot stand any of the Disney properties, particularly marvel and star wars, or their competitors anymore who are basically copying them to compete and also making their products mediocre.
  - vidanay 5y ago
    I'm waiting for the day (not in a good way) when they announce the Star Wars/MCU crossover trilogy movies.
    - lbotos 5y ago
      As a MtG nerd, this day is here and I mourn it.
  - cptskippy 5y ago
    I'm not sure they're the reason, just a symptom of the current system that only rewards box office hits.
  - n8cpdx 5y ago
    Do you have evidence that they have lowered tbe quality of cinema across the board? I see a studio that consistently produces content with excellent visual quality, excellent audio quality, consistently high quality acting, decent plot twists, cross-film synergy (even working across studios), and even morally ambiguous characters. I don't see what's missing, aside from a failure to play to elitist tendencies that assume mainstream=bad. The reflexive assumption that something is popular is automatically trash (I see this with pop music a lot, too) seems like it is predicated on a fundamentally bizarre conception of 'good'-ness or quality.
    - betwixthewires 5y ago
      You're asking for proof that a subjective medium of expression has changed measurably in quality? I don't have proof, just an opinion. The storylines and plot lines are all formulaic and one dimensional, the characters have basically no depth to them, the name of the game is throw a budget at graphics and rake in the money, and finally, lots of expressive elements are off the table if they want the Chinese market, which they do. I don't know how many times people can watch the good guy fire laser beams at the bad guy and win and still enjoy it, maybe one day they'll have to mix it up and have the good guys lose until the sequel comes out in which they undo the loss and still win, predictably.
      - thom 5y ago
        I feel the same way about endless prestige dramas involving guys doing crimes and then agonising about it. I don’t believe any of us is starved for content though.
        moomin 5y ago
        You're not wrong that much prestige drama has become just as tired and formulaic as the average procedural. The point was ably made in this profile of Jane the Virgin's showrunner: https://www.vulture.com/2019/03/jane-the-virgin-jennie-snyder-urman-profile.html https://www.vulture.com/2019/03/jane-the-virgin-jennie-snyde...
      - 5y ago
- judge2020 5y ago
  Ya, this article would be best suited to drop the 'how'.
- cm2012 5y ago
  Short answer is willingness to take risks and good taste. For risks: 1) Casting unknown or washed up actors in leading roles 2) Switching up the genre with every movie. Iron Man was a classic super hero movie, Thor was fish out of water, Captain America was a spy movie, Ant Man was a heist movie, Guardians a space comedy, etc. 3) Forcing people to watch past movies to understand new ones. Accepted wisdom before Marvel was no one would do that so you have to dumb it down.
  - toyg 5y ago
    4) Jon Favreau. He's the modern Steven Spielberg, everything he touches turns to gold.
  - bawolff 5y ago
    I think the thing is that they both do and don't do that at the same time, so they get the benefits but not the blowback. Sure they take some risk with casting, but they take very few risks in other areas. How many of the plots are basically quipy selfish hero learns to stop acting in selfish self-interest long enough to save the world, well still being a little bit of a dick so as not to be boring? Half. Don't get me wrong, its a good groove, but it doesn't scream taking risks. Similarly with 2- sure they switch out the genere,but its always using the trappings superficially. Capt may be a spy movie, but just barely and not a very good one. Its a good super hero movie, but i wouldn't watch it if i wanted a good spy movie, and similar for all the others. In the end, they manage to make it different enough to not feel repetitive, well still being similar enough that the risk of making something that doesn't work is low.
- prfctstrm0 5y ago
  Success in numerous contexts; hiring diversity, a generation of parents and DINKs with cash who grew up on the material, sincere effort at complex emotional themes, world building attract diverse crowds. Versus DC that went with two gorillas and a hot chick formula. They got props for a fish movie after floundering about. Marvel is vertically integrated all the latest social memes. Comics have a long history of taking life seriously and being socially aware; Watchmen, V for Vendetta, Green Arrows sidekick Speedy being a dope fiend was written in 1971; really all they had to do was a detailed translation of the material rather than treat it like camp.
fedreserved 5y ago
An eternal truth in cinema/tv. Once fans fall in love with the characters, they will stick around until you drop the ball
- thrav 5y ago
  Which is why their heavy investments in making high quality films out of the first film for each character is the real key. Click into each director of the phase 1 films. They were all multi-decade successes, with their biggest films fitting well with what they’re after. Rudy, Swingers -> Iron Man Transporter movies -> Hulk OG Jumanji, October Sky -> Cpt America They made big bets up front and it’s paid dividends, and then some.
cptskippy 5y ago
Was it Matt Damon who said you can't make projects that aren't block busters anymore because Streaming has completely eroded the Media sales market where smaller projects could recoup box office loses?
- grecy 5y ago
  Yep, exactly. https://streamable.com/pedvjq https://streamable.com/pedvjq
- toyg 5y ago
  Surely the audiences that bought DVDs are still there, so I guess the issue really is either: a) streaming does not pay per viewer as well as DVDs used to do (which is a commercial issue and relatively easy to fix: just force streamers to pay more, or invest in a dedicated "alt-films" service), or b) current streaming services fail at surfacing non-blockbusters. This is hard to fix (it's a problem common to basically everything on the web - there is only so much space on a screen, winner-takes-all, and people don't like going to multiple sites to do one thing).
  - afavour 5y ago
    > which is a commercial issue and relatively easy to fix: just force streamers to pay more, or invest in a dedicated "alt-films" service I’d counter and say that neither of those things are particularly easy to achieve.
    - toyg 5y ago
      I mean, it's a "people problem" - given the right incentive and alignment of social planets, it can definitely be done. Whereas the other side of the problem may not be solvable at all. Hence "relatively".
- thristian 5y ago
  Matt Damon said you can't make non-blockbuster films because streaming eroded the DVD sales that supported those films. Matt Damon forgets that non-blockbuster films were popular before DVDs were invented. In the 1950s people went to the movies often, sometimes more than once a week, just to hang out with their friends and be entertained. Today there's so many more ways and venues to achieve that goal, movies get a smaller and smaller slice of that pie. DVDs weren't the solution, they just put off the inevitable for a little longer.
judge2020 5y ago
Speaking of the 'how' (given the article is just a brief rundown of the box office numbers), Marvel made enough good movies in phase one (with Iron Man 1 & 2, Captain America, The Avengers) for people to be intrigued about the idea of multiple characters coming together to fight a common enemy. Once you have people invested, getting them to watch the next movie or the next TV show is easier with the promise of familiar faces showing up to connect events together.
- lbotos 5y ago
  It was also a perfect storm of nostalgia, a gap in the market of "epic cinema" (LoTR / Harry Potter were ending), and a huge library of IP to run with.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    LOTR ended 5 years before Phase I.
    - thenewwazoo 5y ago
      The Hobbit?
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        The Hobbit was roughly contemporaneous to MCU Phase 2. (Its hard to view the LotR and Hobbit trilogies as single ongoing “thing” that the MCU came in at the end of when most of the time between the first LotR release and the last Hobbit release, including the time the MCU rose to prominence, is the time between the last LotR release and the first Hobbit release.)
  - antupis 5y ago
    Generally companies/funds sleep on IP, I am rather surprised that there is not more companies that acquire IP that has strong fandom and start pumping new stuff across media landscape.
- 5y ago
tengbretson 5y ago
Step one: purchase the studios that own the rights to all other potentially competitive intellectual properties...
- someperson 5y ago
  Disney does not yet own the DC universe (Batman, Superman, etc). Warner Bros can and should rival Marvel and should definitely be ahead of what Star Wars has become. Bonus points if Warner Bros invests more in video games than Disney does. Video games are a huge market Disney doesn't do a great job with. The golden age of LucasArts (not to be confused with LucasFilm) did much better with their Star Wars games than they have since under Disney management.
  - judge2020 5y ago
    Disney invested in video games... but they got Square Enix to do an Avengers game just last year, and it's pretty sub-par experience with bugs and generally unfun, repetitive gameplay. It supposedly costed just under $200 million to make[0]. Disney probably got a better deal when they licensed Epic to put the characters in Fortnite with an entire 3-month season (Chapter 2 Season 4) dedicated to Marvel and Galactus[1]. 0: https://www.gamesradar.com/marvels-avengers-still-needs-to-recoup-development-costs/#:~:text=The%20game%20reportedly%20cost%20close,the%20second%20quarter%20of%202020 https://www.gamesradar.com/marvels-avengers-still-needs-to-r.... 1: https://fortnite.fandom.com/wiki/Chapter_2:_Season_4#Rewards https://fortnite.fandom.com/wiki/Chapter_2:_Season_4#Rewards
n8cpdx 5y ago
This article doesn't cover _how_ marvel was able to be successful for so long. This article from HBR does, and I think is particularly insightful: https://hbr.org/2019/07/marvels-blockbuster-machine https://hbr.org/2019/07/marvels-blockbuster-machine They have a podcast epsidoe released around the same time that covers the same content, if you prefer listening. People like to criticize marvel (mostly closed-minded people who assume all the movies are the same and choose not to watch them because they 'lower the quality of film' somehow by existing) but there's a lot to learn from them. There is a lot of fantastically original content coming out of marvel. I thought WandaVision was a particularly fun twist on the history of television.
- someperson 5y ago
  The real secret sauce: Kevin Feige of Marvel Studios, and his team including the top-tier casting director Sarah Halley Finn. Kevin Feige prevented Marvel movies from getting stale by completely switching the genre every single movie: eg, Winter Soldier (political thriller), Ant-Man (heist movie), Spider-Man Homecoming (high-school drama movie), Thor Ragnarok (Australia/New Zealand comedy), Shang-Chi (mythical Chinese martial arts movie). Feige has said if a character is ever successful enough to have a third movie, they will always take a very different approach from the prior two movies. Thor Ragnarok is the best example of this: a soft reboot of the personality of a previously dull Shakespearean character into a fan favorite. The success of that soft reboot was enough to give that C-level character his fourth solo movie -- something Marvel has not done before. None of Marvel's competitors have any producer of Kevin Feige's caliber. Not Warner Bros (DC comics), not Sony (Spiderman-villains universe) and not even Disney's LucasFilm (Star Wars). Kevin Feige is 48 years old and it's not clear whether he'll retire after the X-Men and Fantastic Four are integrated in the MCU. His magic touch and keen understanding of the characters have been a key part of the Marvel Studio's success, and it's not at all clear whether it will survive when he leaves. Marvel Studios could become like LucasFilm after George Lucas sold it. It's a shell of its former self that can barely produce anything passable: Mandalorian and Rogue One just make the cut as being acceptable Star Wars, but very little else.
  - toyg 5y ago
rdli 5y ago
Some more details are covered in Bob Iger’s book The Ride of a Lifetime. It’s obviously about burnishing his legacy but if you’re a fan of Disney or the challenges of being a CEO at scale, it’s pretty good.
UI_at_80x24 5y ago
Being old-enough to remember the live-action SpiderMan, and The Hulk TV shows; I was happy to see SUPERheros in multiple forms and mediums. One could argue that CGI is finally good enough to match with the imagination of the directors. And that's a very good thing. I do however wish that other things were being produced. Heavy Sequel'ization of movies just leaves me bored. The same can be said of the Star Trek franchises, and quite frankly anything more then "2" has grown tiring. Game of Thrones* has shown hollywood that there is an appetite for epic storytelling, and that people are willing to sit through 7 season of shows to be entertained by an engaging story. (In my heart Babylon5 pioneered grand-story telling.) There are thousands of great books that would do well adapted to TV/Movies, I'd like to see some of these instead of another superhero flick.
- ekianjo 5y ago
  > One could argue that CGI is finally good enough to match with the imagination of the directors. If anything the abuse of CGI leads to boring fighting scenes where you know everything is 100% fake. I'd rather they use much, much less of it.
  - adrianN 5y ago
    That seems perfectly appropriate for superheros where the expectation is that no actor can even come close to what the character can do in-universe.
    - jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
      I hear ya but I agree with the comment above. I was a comic book kid, and love a lot of these characters. But I find these movies where the climax is just a bunch of cg puppets punching each other boring and formulaic. If I had to pick a "uses superpowers action scene" from any of these movies over the years, it's probably still Magneto escaping the plastic prison. I like that scene because it shows the character isn't just powerful in a brute force way, but can do amazing things given even the slightest opportunity. Obviously they had an incredible actor in Ian MacKellen to sell it, but they also didn't need to turn him into some cg puppet to make a big impact scene. I feel like that more creative and subtle conception is missing from most of the more recent movies.
yuy910616 5y ago
One thing that really stood out to me was how "okay" infinity war and end game was. Big franchise like this rarely ends well, especially if you're juggling so many different characters. It is shocking how well they delivered.
aaron695 5y ago
People with magical powers are somewhat equally relatable to Western audiences as non Western audiences. So any Marvel movie that works in the America will be good anywhere. Hollywood comedies however struggle in the new system, good humour is site specific. Unless you take it off site like Pixar does. Throw in sequels help people who are not immersed in Hollywood/West, and you have a profitable formula which allows you to invest more in each movie. Like everything today the answer is the Internet, but it's how Marvel are using the globalisation, as it stands.
- worrycue 5y ago
  I’m not from America and I enjoyed The Godfather. It was a very well told story and a fascinating looking into an alien culture. Really, to be relatable, all you need to do is tell a human story.
TulliusCicero 5y ago
Because they're high quality and there's a fair amount of variety; three MCU TV shows out this year are all quite different from each other, for example. Shang Chi just came out, and while there are some familiar Marvel beats, it still manages to feel moderately different from any of the previous MCU films. People go to see even an obscure character like Shang Chi because Marvel has done a good job of building trust that even their crappy movies are still okay. It's apparent that many of the critics only watched the early movies that were more same-y -- by the time you hit phase 3 they're doing a much better job on average differentiating the films. Thor 1/2 vs Thor 3 is a perfect example of this, with the first two being competent but rote, and then Ragnarok being wildly different (and simply better).
- Raztuf 5y ago
  I respectfully disagree. The Marvel films still follow the same formula as they always did. Not that it is wrong, to each its own. But it's obvious that the films are not driven by vision but by maximising mass audience appeal. That's why they are all the same. They need to have x amount of jokes, x minutes of action, the dialogue needs to be simple, etc
- WastingMyTime89 5y ago
  I am going to admit I rarely go see Marvel movies but I have seen at least two from phase 1 and two from phase 2 and they were all quite formulaic. The plot follows generally the same trops. Music mostly was the same. Easy jokes came counterbalancing heavy moment of gravitas. The overall editing was close with comparable duration of takes and timing. They really calibrated products. Then again, I think it's why people go see them massively. These movies can be consumed with zero intellectual effort and are built to give you a dopamine rush while never challenging your world view in any way. I personally believe this is where cinema goes to die but both the indie scene and foreign industries are producing more movies than ever so I don't really care.
  - TulliusCicero 5y ago
    This is exactly the kind of take I'm talking about. "I haven't seen the movies you're talking about, but I'm not gonna let that stop me from getting up on my high horse and telling you how it is."
philliphaydon 5y ago
I don't feel like they are taking over TV. I enjoyed Dare Devil, Punisher, and Jessica Jones, but I really cannot get into /any/ of the marvel shows that are on Disney+... Production quality is high but they are just so boring to me.
- metamet 5y ago
  I'm in the same boat as you, but I've been thoroughly enjoying "What if...?". Makes me feel like I'm watching an actual comic book.
  - philliphaydon 5y ago
    Thanks, I'll give it a shot.
  - saurik 5y ago
    Fascinatingly, that is the one show I am not enjoying... specially because I keep thinking "this is just a comic book, made into a TV show for seemingly no reason" ;P. (The issue with it for me is that every single story is underdeveloped and rushed, which seems to be part of the genre of comic books... and I honestly kind of get it for a comic book? But it doesn't stand up for me at all in a TV show format. Wandavision, in stark contrast, was just a beautiful use of the TV medium to me, starting with the very first minute when you are hit with "OMG, this is the set of the Dick van Dye show... or is it?" and they spend the entire series paying homage to the entire history of sitcoms in its own medium.)
- dustymcp 5y ago
  i agree streets of harlem tho on the same streaming service is brutal.
  - philliphaydon 5y ago
    Streets of Harlem? Or Godfather of Harlem?
- prox 5y ago
beebeepka 5y ago
Their success might be the main reason I no longer go to the movies. I like sci-fi action movies like Starship Troopers, Terminator, Alita: Battle Angel, Total Recall, Avatar, The Matrix and such. But these days no one seems to care for such products. What makes the big bucks seems to be super heroes made by disney. Would have been fine had they not have completely taken over the market now. Yes, I'm an old fart and movies/TV is targeting the young population. Totally normal. But am I just old and bitter, or is this superhero trend just marketing? I think it's mainly the latter.
- worrycue 5y ago
  As another somewhat old fart, it feels like we don’t see any novel breakout titles take top spot at the box office anymore - titles that come out of nowhere; in addition to the movies you mentioned, Forest Gump, The Godfather, Goodfellas, … etc. It’s all superhero stuff. That’s all people are willing to talk about. It practically dominated the conversation.
  - pixel_tracing 5y ago
    Joker? Thought that movie was great, the acting by Phoenix was amazing and it is based in a superhero universe. I also am not a big fan of marvel formulaic movies.
    - worrycue 5y ago
      I miss the “surprise” when the answer to the question, “What’s No.1 at the theatres?” wasn’t “<insert comic book>“. It also really doesn’t help that the subject matter of American comics is so narrow - at the end of the day it’s superhero vs supervillain.
- baxuz 5y ago
  The last SF or fantasy movie I've liked was, I believe, Interstellar. Everything since has either been a superhero movie, Star Wars (please make it stop), or a massive flop. Actually, Bumblebee was pretty entertaining now that I remember. The TV has kinda become the new medium for SF/fantasy, but it too has started to become flooded with superhero shows, superhero deconstruction and more Star Wars.
pixel_tracing 5y ago
I would like to see more standalone movies like the Joker. DC has a good opportunity to cash in on niche art pieces like that, which really digs into the character and motivations. It was a far superior movie than all the Marvel formulaic pieces combined.
sneak 5y ago
I can't think about the Marvel franchise without thinking of the "worldwide audiovisual entertainment [industry]" meme: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/opinion/martin-scorsese-marvel.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/opinion/martin-scorsese-m...
trowngon 5y ago
Movies are no longer just an imagination. Chances are they are shaping the world for real superhero superhuman arrival ;)
carrozo 5y ago
For a wider context on current/future state of cinema and TV, I read this choice quote in a WSJ article[0] yesterday: “Hollywood has taken notice that younger generations are spending less time consuming movies and television. A recent study by Deloitte said that Gen Zers—defined as ages 14 to 24—prefer playing videogames, listening to music, browsing the internet and scrolling through social media in their leisure time over watching movies and TV at home. Every older generation ranked movies and TV as their top entertainment option.” [0]: https://www.wsj.com/articles/hollywood-embraces-tiktok-stars-for-tv-film-projects-11631971638 https://www.wsj.com/articles/hollywood-embraces-tiktok-stars...
- slightwinder 5y ago
  Kinda ironic to be alive in a golden age of fictional content, and instead "wasting" time with trash content. But it's understandable, as in that age discovering the world and finding your place is more important than entertainment. And the addiction of low-quality social media stuck content is also a serious matter as I learned for myself last year. I never cared much for Social media or youtube, but getting stuck at home, away from people, I learned to understand those stuff and dropped Netflix & co. surprisingly fast. It will be interesting to see how that generation will develop in the next decades...when they settle in their life, understand the bad sides of social media better, focus on new things.
  - jeroenhd 5y ago
    Actually, I think the "trash" content is actually a sign that we're all putting way too much importance in big movies. Large video games like Skyrim or Fallout or GTA are no different from a Hollywood production except for visual quality. The story telling is not far removed from minor and some major movies, but instead of passively observing the story you can actively take part in it. There are artsy games for those who would watch complex cinema, there are games that can be played as a sequence of action scenes, there are comedy games, the list goes on. Previously, everyone who'd much rather interact with their fiction would be stuck in the cinema, but these days that's no longer relevant. Memes on social media show that you don't need an epic story to get fiction or a shared perspective among a large group of people. People can get the same joy out of a drawing of a green frog or a hidden "Loss" that they'd previously get out of a Monty Python reference. Cross-cultural borders have been opened by the internet the same way movies and TV did many decades ago. There's also the specificity that the internet brings us. If you were living in a small town and had a passion for building wooden crossbows, there'd be nobody to discuss your hobby with and no way to find them. You could run classifieds, but there's no way you'd reach someone in Canada about this stuff. Now with YouTube you're one search query away from a world of people who share the exact same niche. Mass media is made for the masses, and designed to resonate at least a little with as many people as possible. Social media allows media to be made for a tiny subset while still gaining attention. Sure, it won't make millions or billions, but it'll connect people who'd otherwise thought they were the only people who'd enjoy a certain type of thing. The internet and the age of interactive media has brought us a culture in which we can participate in rather than be a passive observer of. I think this is part of reason for all of the friction against copyright laws that exists these days; covers, re-enactment, let's plays and other such content is being claimed as copyright violation by the big media companies while the people participating in them see them as ways to express themselves and add to the worldwide culture that's grown around certain media. I think the next generation will grow up with a mindset completely foreign to my own, accepting being recorded at all time, accepting that anything you say as a teenager can cost you your job fifty years down the line. The omnipresence of tracking and other invasions of privacy as well as the fact that a few large, American tech companies have unopposed control over your life will shape young generations in an interesting but kind of scary way.
bob229 5y ago
Marvel is trash
nabla9 5y ago
Low effort direction in action scenes spoil Marvel/Disney movies for me. When action scene starts its time to go to kitchen to take more snacks, because directing is so low quality and standardized. It's more emoting, posturing, and short bad ass sounding phrases. Everything is achieved using fast cuts. Nothing really happens. Production quality is high, but making action movies boring is achievement in itself. I own Disney stock, because I think they are doing movies exactly right from business perspective. They do what large customer groups wants. Marvel is like McDonalds and Coke. You sell what sells and they can endlessly milk the franchise.
- abenga 5y ago
  Aside from the apparently compulsory CGI fight in the sky in the last act, Shang Chi has excellent action scenes.
jayski 5y ago
super unpopular opinion here, and I know I'm going to get downvoted into oblivion... I don't think sophisticated adults should be into spiderman. i only see them when I'm with my nephews and always fall asleep. give me a bad story with bad characters any day, over 98 minutes of nonstop cgi action scenes

79 points by hhs 5y ago

https://web.archive.org/web/20210918132953/https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2021/09/17/how-marvel-took-over-cinema-and-tv https://web.archive.org/web/20210918132953/https://www.econo...

1cvmask 5y ago

When product market fit meets sales market fit. The MCU is a true rocket ship now (pun not intended).

moomin 5y ago

Sadly, this article doesn’t actually deliver of the headline and tell you how they did it. A lot of people, including some extremely powerful media executives, would like to know.

betwixthewires 5y ago
I came to say this and also gripe about the fact that this franchise of franchises has gobbled up cinema and contributed in lowering the quality of mainstream film across the board. I personally cannot stand any of the Disney properties, particularly marvel and star wars, or their competitors anymore who are basically copying them to compete and also making their products mediocre.
- vidanay 5y ago
  I'm waiting for the day (not in a good way) when they announce the Star Wars/MCU crossover trilogy movies.
  - lbotos 5y ago
    As a MtG nerd, this day is here and I mourn it.
- cptskippy 5y ago
  I'm not sure they're the reason, just a symptom of the current system that only rewards box office hits.
- n8cpdx 5y ago
  Do you have evidence that they have lowered tbe quality of cinema across the board? I see a studio that consistently produces content with excellent visual quality, excellent audio quality, consistently high quality acting, decent plot twists, cross-film synergy (even working across studios), and even morally ambiguous characters. I don't see what's missing, aside from a failure to play to elitist tendencies that assume mainstream=bad. The reflexive assumption that something is popular is automatically trash (I see this with pop music a lot, too) seems like it is predicated on a fundamentally bizarre conception of 'good'-ness or quality.
  - betwixthewires 5y ago
    You're asking for proof that a subjective medium of expression has changed measurably in quality? I don't have proof, just an opinion. The storylines and plot lines are all formulaic and one dimensional, the characters have basically no depth to them, the name of the game is throw a budget at graphics and rake in the money, and finally, lots of expressive elements are off the table if they want the Chinese market, which they do. I don't know how many times people can watch the good guy fire laser beams at the bad guy and win and still enjoy it, maybe one day they'll have to mix it up and have the good guys lose until the sequel comes out in which they undo the loss and still win, predictably.
    - thom 5y ago
      I feel the same way about endless prestige dramas involving guys doing crimes and then agonising about it. I don’t believe any of us is starved for content though.
      - moomin 5y ago
        You're not wrong that much prestige drama has become just as tired and formulaic as the average procedural. The point was ably made in this profile of Jane the Virgin's showrunner: https://www.vulture.com/2019/03/jane-the-virgin-jennie-snyder-urman-profile.html https://www.vulture.com/2019/03/jane-the-virgin-jennie-snyde...
    - 5y ago
judge2020 5y ago
Ya, this article would be best suited to drop the 'how'.
cm2012 5y ago
Short answer is willingness to take risks and good taste. For risks: 1) Casting unknown or washed up actors in leading roles 2) Switching up the genre with every movie. Iron Man was a classic super hero movie, Thor was fish out of water, Captain America was a spy movie, Ant Man was a heist movie, Guardians a space comedy, etc. 3) Forcing people to watch past movies to understand new ones. Accepted wisdom before Marvel was no one would do that so you have to dumb it down.
- toyg 5y ago
  4) Jon Favreau. He's the modern Steven Spielberg, everything he touches turns to gold.
- bawolff 5y ago
  I think the thing is that they both do and don't do that at the same time, so they get the benefits but not the blowback. Sure they take some risk with casting, but they take very few risks in other areas. How many of the plots are basically quipy selfish hero learns to stop acting in selfish self-interest long enough to save the world, well still being a little bit of a dick so as not to be boring? Half. Don't get me wrong, its a good groove, but it doesn't scream taking risks. Similarly with 2- sure they switch out the genere,but its always using the trappings superficially. Capt may be a spy movie, but just barely and not a very good one. Its a good super hero movie, but i wouldn't watch it if i wanted a good spy movie, and similar for all the others. In the end, they manage to make it different enough to not feel repetitive, well still being similar enough that the risk of making something that doesn't work is low.
prfctstrm0 5y ago
Success in numerous contexts; hiring diversity, a generation of parents and DINKs with cash who grew up on the material, sincere effort at complex emotional themes, world building attract diverse crowds. Versus DC that went with two gorillas and a hot chick formula. They got props for a fish movie after floundering about. Marvel is vertically integrated all the latest social memes. Comics have a long history of taking life seriously and being socially aware; Watchmen, V for Vendetta, Green Arrows sidekick Speedy being a dope fiend was written in 1971; really all they had to do was a detailed translation of the material rather than treat it like camp.

fedreserved 5y ago

An eternal truth in cinema/tv. Once fans fall in love with the characters, they will stick around until you drop the ball

thrav 5y ago
Which is why their heavy investments in making high quality films out of the first film for each character is the real key. Click into each director of the phase 1 films. They were all multi-decade successes, with their biggest films fitting well with what they’re after. Rudy, Swingers -> Iron Man Transporter movies -> Hulk OG Jumanji, October Sky -> Cpt America They made big bets up front and it’s paid dividends, and then some.

cptskippy 5y ago

Was it Matt Damon who said you can't make projects that aren't block busters anymore because Streaming has completely eroded the Media sales market where smaller projects could recoup box office loses?

grecy 5y ago
Yep, exactly. https://streamable.com/pedvjq https://streamable.com/pedvjq
toyg 5y ago
Surely the audiences that bought DVDs are still there, so I guess the issue really is either: a) streaming does not pay per viewer as well as DVDs used to do (which is a commercial issue and relatively easy to fix: just force streamers to pay more, or invest in a dedicated "alt-films" service), or b) current streaming services fail at surfacing non-blockbusters. This is hard to fix (it's a problem common to basically everything on the web - there is only so much space on a screen, winner-takes-all, and people don't like going to multiple sites to do one thing).
- afavour 5y ago
  > which is a commercial issue and relatively easy to fix: just force streamers to pay more, or invest in a dedicated "alt-films" service I’d counter and say that neither of those things are particularly easy to achieve.
  - toyg 5y ago
    I mean, it's a "people problem" - given the right incentive and alignment of social planets, it can definitely be done. Whereas the other side of the problem may not be solvable at all. Hence "relatively".
thristian 5y ago
Matt Damon said you can't make non-blockbuster films because streaming eroded the DVD sales that supported those films. Matt Damon forgets that non-blockbuster films were popular before DVDs were invented. In the 1950s people went to the movies often, sometimes more than once a week, just to hang out with their friends and be entertained. Today there's so many more ways and venues to achieve that goal, movies get a smaller and smaller slice of that pie. DVDs weren't the solution, they just put off the inevitable for a little longer.

judge2020 5y ago

Speaking of the 'how' (given the article is just a brief rundown of the box office numbers), Marvel made enough good movies in phase one (with Iron Man 1 & 2, Captain America, The Avengers) for people to be intrigued about the idea of multiple characters coming together to fight a common enemy. Once you have people invested, getting them to watch the next movie or the next TV show is easier with the promise of familiar faces showing up to connect events together.

lbotos 5y ago
It was also a perfect storm of nostalgia, a gap in the market of "epic cinema" (LoTR / Harry Potter were ending), and a huge library of IP to run with.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  LOTR ended 5 years before Phase I.
  - thenewwazoo 5y ago
    The Hobbit?
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      The Hobbit was roughly contemporaneous to MCU Phase 2. (Its hard to view the LotR and Hobbit trilogies as single ongoing “thing” that the MCU came in at the end of when most of the time between the first LotR release and the last Hobbit release, including the time the MCU rose to prominence, is the time between the last LotR release and the first Hobbit release.)
- antupis 5y ago
  Generally companies/funds sleep on IP, I am rather surprised that there is not more companies that acquire IP that has strong fandom and start pumping new stuff across media landscape.
5y ago

tengbretson 5y ago

Step one: purchase the studios that own the rights to all other potentially competitive intellectual properties...

someperson 5y ago
Disney does not yet own the DC universe (Batman, Superman, etc). Warner Bros can and should rival Marvel and should definitely be ahead of what Star Wars has become. Bonus points if Warner Bros invests more in video games than Disney does. Video games are a huge market Disney doesn't do a great job with. The golden age of LucasArts (not to be confused with LucasFilm) did much better with their Star Wars games than they have since under Disney management.
- judge2020 5y ago
  Disney invested in video games... but they got Square Enix to do an Avengers game just last year, and it's pretty sub-par experience with bugs and generally unfun, repetitive gameplay. It supposedly costed just under $200 million to make[0]. Disney probably got a better deal when they licensed Epic to put the characters in Fortnite with an entire 3-month season (Chapter 2 Season 4) dedicated to Marvel and Galactus[1]. 0: https://www.gamesradar.com/marvels-avengers-still-needs-to-recoup-development-costs/#:~:text=The%20game%20reportedly%20cost%20close,the%20second%20quarter%20of%202020 https://www.gamesradar.com/marvels-avengers-still-needs-to-r.... 1: https://fortnite.fandom.com/wiki/Chapter_2:_Season_4#Rewards https://fortnite.fandom.com/wiki/Chapter_2:_Season_4#Rewards

n8cpdx 5y ago

This article doesn't cover _how_ marvel was able to be successful for so long. This article from HBR does, and I think is particularly insightful: https://hbr.org/2019/07/marvels-blockbuster-machine https://hbr.org/2019/07/marvels-blockbuster-machine They have a podcast epsidoe released around the same time that covers the same content, if you prefer listening. People like to criticize marvel (mostly closed-minded people who assume all the movies are the same and choose not to watch them because they 'lower the quality of film' somehow by existing) but there's a lot to learn from them. There is a lot of fantastically original content coming out of marvel. I thought WandaVision was a particularly fun twist on the history of television.

someperson 5y ago
The real secret sauce: Kevin Feige of Marvel Studios, and his team including the top-tier casting director Sarah Halley Finn. Kevin Feige prevented Marvel movies from getting stale by completely switching the genre every single movie: eg, Winter Soldier (political thriller), Ant-Man (heist movie), Spider-Man Homecoming (high-school drama movie), Thor Ragnarok (Australia/New Zealand comedy), Shang-Chi (mythical Chinese martial arts movie). Feige has said if a character is ever successful enough to have a third movie, they will always take a very different approach from the prior two movies. Thor Ragnarok is the best example of this: a soft reboot of the personality of a previously dull Shakespearean character into a fan favorite. The success of that soft reboot was enough to give that C-level character his fourth solo movie -- something Marvel has not done before. None of Marvel's competitors have any producer of Kevin Feige's caliber. Not Warner Bros (DC comics), not Sony (Spiderman-villains universe) and not even Disney's LucasFilm (Star Wars). Kevin Feige is 48 years old and it's not clear whether he'll retire after the X-Men and Fantastic Four are integrated in the MCU. His magic touch and keen understanding of the characters have been a key part of the Marvel Studio's success, and it's not at all clear whether it will survive when he leaves. Marvel Studios could become like LucasFilm after George Lucas sold it. It's a shell of its former self that can barely produce anything passable: Mandalorian and Rogue One just make the cut as being acceptable Star Wars, but very little else.
- toyg 5y ago

rdli 5y ago

Some more details are covered in Bob Iger’s book The Ride of a Lifetime. It’s obviously about burnishing his legacy but if you’re a fan of Disney or the challenges of being a CEO at scale, it’s pretty good.

UI_at_80x24 5y ago

Being old-enough to remember the live-action SpiderMan, and The Hulk TV shows; I was happy to see SUPERheros in multiple forms and mediums. One could argue that CGI is finally good enough to match with the imagination of the directors. And that's a very good thing. I do however wish that other things were being produced. Heavy Sequel'ization of movies just leaves me bored. The same can be said of the Star Trek franchises, and quite frankly anything more then "2" has grown tiring. Game of Thrones* has shown hollywood that there is an appetite for epic storytelling, and that people are willing to sit through 7 season of shows to be entertained by an engaging story. (In my heart Babylon5 pioneered grand-story telling.) There are thousands of great books that would do well adapted to TV/Movies, I'd like to see some of these instead of another superhero flick.

ekianjo 5y ago
> One could argue that CGI is finally good enough to match with the imagination of the directors. If anything the abuse of CGI leads to boring fighting scenes where you know everything is 100% fake. I'd rather they use much, much less of it.
- adrianN 5y ago
  That seems perfectly appropriate for superheros where the expectation is that no actor can even come close to what the character can do in-universe.
  - jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
    I hear ya but I agree with the comment above. I was a comic book kid, and love a lot of these characters. But I find these movies where the climax is just a bunch of cg puppets punching each other boring and formulaic. If I had to pick a "uses superpowers action scene" from any of these movies over the years, it's probably still Magneto escaping the plastic prison. I like that scene because it shows the character isn't just powerful in a brute force way, but can do amazing things given even the slightest opportunity. Obviously they had an incredible actor in Ian MacKellen to sell it, but they also didn't need to turn him into some cg puppet to make a big impact scene. I feel like that more creative and subtle conception is missing from most of the more recent movies.

yuy910616 5y ago

One thing that really stood out to me was how "okay" infinity war and end game was. Big franchise like this rarely ends well, especially if you're juggling so many different characters. It is shocking how well they delivered.

aaron695 5y ago

People with magical powers are somewhat equally relatable to Western audiences as non Western audiences. So any Marvel movie that works in the America will be good anywhere. Hollywood comedies however struggle in the new system, good humour is site specific. Unless you take it off site like Pixar does. Throw in sequels help people who are not immersed in Hollywood/West, and you have a profitable formula which allows you to invest more in each movie. Like everything today the answer is the Internet, but it's how Marvel are using the globalisation, as it stands.

worrycue 5y ago
I’m not from America and I enjoyed The Godfather. It was a very well told story and a fascinating looking into an alien culture. Really, to be relatable, all you need to do is tell a human story.

TulliusCicero 5y ago

Because they're high quality and there's a fair amount of variety; three MCU TV shows out this year are all quite different from each other, for example. Shang Chi just came out, and while there are some familiar Marvel beats, it still manages to feel moderately different from any of the previous MCU films. People go to see even an obscure character like Shang Chi because Marvel has done a good job of building trust that even their crappy movies are still okay. It's apparent that many of the critics only watched the early movies that were more same-y -- by the time you hit phase 3 they're doing a much better job on average differentiating the films. Thor 1/2 vs Thor 3 is a perfect example of this, with the first two being competent but rote, and then Ragnarok being wildly different (and simply better).

Raztuf 5y ago
I respectfully disagree. The Marvel films still follow the same formula as they always did. Not that it is wrong, to each its own. But it's obvious that the films are not driven by vision but by maximising mass audience appeal. That's why they are all the same. They need to have x amount of jokes, x minutes of action, the dialogue needs to be simple, etc
WastingMyTime89 5y ago
I am going to admit I rarely go see Marvel movies but I have seen at least two from phase 1 and two from phase 2 and they were all quite formulaic. The plot follows generally the same trops. Music mostly was the same. Easy jokes came counterbalancing heavy moment of gravitas. The overall editing was close with comparable duration of takes and timing. They really calibrated products. Then again, I think it's why people go see them massively. These movies can be consumed with zero intellectual effort and are built to give you a dopamine rush while never challenging your world view in any way. I personally believe this is where cinema goes to die but both the indie scene and foreign industries are producing more movies than ever so I don't really care.
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  This is exactly the kind of take I'm talking about. "I haven't seen the movies you're talking about, but I'm not gonna let that stop me from getting up on my high horse and telling you how it is."

philliphaydon 5y ago

I don't feel like they are taking over TV. I enjoyed Dare Devil, Punisher, and Jessica Jones, but I really cannot get into /any/ of the marvel shows that are on Disney+... Production quality is high but they are just so boring to me.

metamet 5y ago
I'm in the same boat as you, but I've been thoroughly enjoying "What if...?". Makes me feel like I'm watching an actual comic book.
- philliphaydon 5y ago
  Thanks, I'll give it a shot.
- saurik 5y ago
  Fascinatingly, that is the one show I am not enjoying... specially because I keep thinking "this is just a comic book, made into a TV show for seemingly no reason" ;P. (The issue with it for me is that every single story is underdeveloped and rushed, which seems to be part of the genre of comic books... and I honestly kind of get it for a comic book? But it doesn't stand up for me at all in a TV show format. Wandavision, in stark contrast, was just a beautiful use of the TV medium to me, starting with the very first minute when you are hit with "OMG, this is the set of the Dick van Dye show... or is it?" and they spend the entire series paying homage to the entire history of sitcoms in its own medium.)
dustymcp 5y ago
i agree streets of harlem tho on the same streaming service is brutal.
- philliphaydon 5y ago
  Streets of Harlem? Or Godfather of Harlem?
prox 5y ago

beebeepka 5y ago

Their success might be the main reason I no longer go to the movies. I like sci-fi action movies like Starship Troopers, Terminator, Alita: Battle Angel, Total Recall, Avatar, The Matrix and such. But these days no one seems to care for such products. What makes the big bucks seems to be super heroes made by disney. Would have been fine had they not have completely taken over the market now. Yes, I'm an old fart and movies/TV is targeting the young population. Totally normal. But am I just old and bitter, or is this superhero trend just marketing? I think it's mainly the latter.

worrycue 5y ago
As another somewhat old fart, it feels like we don’t see any novel breakout titles take top spot at the box office anymore - titles that come out of nowhere; in addition to the movies you mentioned, Forest Gump, The Godfather, Goodfellas, … etc. It’s all superhero stuff. That’s all people are willing to talk about. It practically dominated the conversation.
- pixel_tracing 5y ago
  Joker? Thought that movie was great, the acting by Phoenix was amazing and it is based in a superhero universe. I also am not a big fan of marvel formulaic movies.
  - worrycue 5y ago
    I miss the “surprise” when the answer to the question, “What’s No.1 at the theatres?” wasn’t “<insert comic book>“. It also really doesn’t help that the subject matter of American comics is so narrow - at the end of the day it’s superhero vs supervillain.
baxuz 5y ago
The last SF or fantasy movie I've liked was, I believe, Interstellar. Everything since has either been a superhero movie, Star Wars (please make it stop), or a massive flop. Actually, Bumblebee was pretty entertaining now that I remember. The TV has kinda become the new medium for SF/fantasy, but it too has started to become flooded with superhero shows, superhero deconstruction and more Star Wars.

pixel_tracing 5y ago

I would like to see more standalone movies like the Joker. DC has a good opportunity to cash in on niche art pieces like that, which really digs into the character and motivations. It was a far superior movie than all the Marvel formulaic pieces combined.

sneak 5y ago

I can't think about the Marvel franchise without thinking of the "worldwide audiovisual entertainment [industry]" meme: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/opinion/martin-scorsese-marvel.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/opinion/martin-scorsese-m...

trowngon 5y ago

Movies are no longer just an imagination. Chances are they are shaping the world for real superhero superhuman arrival ;)

carrozo 5y ago

For a wider context on current/future state of cinema and TV, I read this choice quote in a WSJ article[0] yesterday: “Hollywood has taken notice that younger generations are spending less time consuming movies and television. A recent study by Deloitte said that Gen Zers—defined as ages 14 to 24—prefer playing videogames, listening to music, browsing the internet and scrolling through social media in their leisure time over watching movies and TV at home. Every older generation ranked movies and TV as their top entertainment option.” [0]: https://www.wsj.com/articles/hollywood-embraces-tiktok-stars-for-tv-film-projects-11631971638 https://www.wsj.com/articles/hollywood-embraces-tiktok-stars...

slightwinder 5y ago
Kinda ironic to be alive in a golden age of fictional content, and instead "wasting" time with trash content. But it's understandable, as in that age discovering the world and finding your place is more important than entertainment. And the addiction of low-quality social media stuck content is also a serious matter as I learned for myself last year. I never cared much for Social media or youtube, but getting stuck at home, away from people, I learned to understand those stuff and dropped Netflix & co. surprisingly fast. It will be interesting to see how that generation will develop in the next decades...when they settle in their life, understand the bad sides of social media better, focus on new things.
- jeroenhd 5y ago
  Actually, I think the "trash" content is actually a sign that we're all putting way too much importance in big movies. Large video games like Skyrim or Fallout or GTA are no different from a Hollywood production except for visual quality. The story telling is not far removed from minor and some major movies, but instead of passively observing the story you can actively take part in it. There are artsy games for those who would watch complex cinema, there are games that can be played as a sequence of action scenes, there are comedy games, the list goes on. Previously, everyone who'd much rather interact with their fiction would be stuck in the cinema, but these days that's no longer relevant. Memes on social media show that you don't need an epic story to get fiction or a shared perspective among a large group of people. People can get the same joy out of a drawing of a green frog or a hidden "Loss" that they'd previously get out of a Monty Python reference. Cross-cultural borders have been opened by the internet the same way movies and TV did many decades ago. There's also the specificity that the internet brings us. If you were living in a small town and had a passion for building wooden crossbows, there'd be nobody to discuss your hobby with and no way to find them. You could run classifieds, but there's no way you'd reach someone in Canada about this stuff. Now with YouTube you're one search query away from a world of people who share the exact same niche. Mass media is made for the masses, and designed to resonate at least a little with as many people as possible. Social media allows media to be made for a tiny subset while still gaining attention. Sure, it won't make millions or billions, but it'll connect people who'd otherwise thought they were the only people who'd enjoy a certain type of thing. The internet and the age of interactive media has brought us a culture in which we can participate in rather than be a passive observer of. I think this is part of reason for all of the friction against copyright laws that exists these days; covers, re-enactment, let's plays and other such content is being claimed as copyright violation by the big media companies while the people participating in them see them as ways to express themselves and add to the worldwide culture that's grown around certain media. I think the next generation will grow up with a mindset completely foreign to my own, accepting being recorded at all time, accepting that anything you say as a teenager can cost you your job fifty years down the line. The omnipresence of tracking and other invasions of privacy as well as the fact that a few large, American tech companies have unopposed control over your life will shape young generations in an interesting but kind of scary way.

bob229 5y ago

Marvel is trash

nabla9 5y ago

Low effort direction in action scenes spoil Marvel/Disney movies for me. When action scene starts its time to go to kitchen to take more snacks, because directing is so low quality and standardized. It's more emoting, posturing, and short bad ass sounding phrases. Everything is achieved using fast cuts. Nothing really happens. Production quality is high, but making action movies boring is achievement in itself. I own Disney stock, because I think they are doing movies exactly right from business perspective. They do what large customer groups wants. Marvel is like McDonalds and Coke. You sell what sells and they can endlessly milk the franchise.

abenga 5y ago
Aside from the apparently compulsory CGI fight in the sky in the last act, Shang Chi has excellent action scenes.

jayski 5y ago

super unpopular opinion here, and I know I'm going to get downvoted into oblivion... I don't think sophisticated adults should be into spiderman. i only see them when I'm with my nephews and always fall asleep. give me a bad story with bad characters any day, over 98 minutes of nonstop cgi action scenes