7 ms·

How Marvel Became the Envy and Scourge of Hollywood

44 points by e15ctr0n 12y ago

walruscop 12y ago
It's true; I feel like I can't go to any entertainment news site without being inundated by Marvel news.
danielweber 12y ago
Am I a dork for noticing the mistake that the second Thor movie wasn't a prequel for The Avengers?
- jonnathanson 12y ago
  Unless I'm misreading the article, I don't think it says that Thor: The Dark World was a prequel to The Avengers. Rather, it says that the Thor movies were planned as part of the "Avengers initiative." The confusion arises from the phrase "set the stage for The Avengers." I think what the writer means is that all of these movies, including their sequels, were set into development as part of a single initiative, meant to culminate in the Avengers franchise. Yes, the events of the second Thor movie take place after the events of The Avengers. But that may have been planned well in advance.
  - ChuckMcM 12y ago
    I am particularly amazed at the co-ordination of the movies and the TV series Agents of Shield. Way back when I was at USC professor Arthur Knight used to joke about movies "You can know when it will be done, or you can know it will be good, but not both." because of the challenges of managing a movie production schedule. That Marvel could pull off Thor: The Dark World, have it hit theaters when events in the TV series matched up, that floored me.
    - jonnathanson 12y ago
      Yes, they are an incredibly well-oiled machine. An old friend and former colleague of mine is one of their producers and development executives, and I can say without hesitation that he works harder than anyone else I know in that business. Marvel is in a state of continuous production on all of its properties, all of which are centrally coordinated. This wasn't always the case. Historically, Marvel has had different licensing deals set up at different studios: X-Men and Fantastic Four with Fox; Spiderman with Sony; etc. When it set about creating the Avengers initiative, it realized the logistical benefits of keeping everything under one roof. The Disney acquisition helped with that. The company still does projects under the terms of its legacy deals (see: the Spiderman reboots still being made at Sony, presumably at Sony's request, to exercise and thus keep its deal active). But the magic seems to be happening with the more centrally coordinated projects, like Thor/Iron Man/Cpt America/SHIELD/Avengers.
    - xionon 12y ago
      Not only that, but they did it a second time with Captain America: Winter Soldier.
      - ChuckMcM 12y ago
        Your right, not once but twice in a single TV season. That is seriously amazing planning.
        danielweber 12y ago
        I think lots of people would balk at those constraints, but Joss Whedon sees them and thinks "this is awesome!"
      - oddevan 12y ago
        Which was the bigger tie-in, as the episode the week before ended with the already-released scene of Nick Fury's car chase, and the episode the week after dealt with the (very significant) aftermath. For many reasons, it was one of the best moments in the series.
    - klackerz 12y ago
      It is amazing but Agents of SHIELD did suffer due to that. Most of the episodes until the Captain America 2 tie over episode was very lackluster. Let's see how they will handle the new season.
- roc 12y ago
  How about noticing that the article tossed the tepid Ed Norton HULK film (Marvel film #2) down the memory hole altogether? It does reference The Hulk in the context of the license to Universal. But Marvel regained the film rights in 2006 and Universal was just a distribution partner on Norton-Hulk. It was much more a Marvel Studios film than any sort of Universal-driven successor to Bana-Hulk. Nor does it ever mention Agents of SHIELD by name. To omit the name after specifically discussing the TV appearance clauses is pretty poor form for a journalist, particularly one who dedicated so much ink to the "Universe" strategy. But I guess facing Marvel's mis-steps just didn't fit a "Marvel is unstoppable" storyline.
  - vampirechicken 12y ago
    Perhaps you should not assume shoddy work on the journalist's part. The nits you pick could have been created by editors prior to publication.
    - roc 12y ago
      You're absolutely right. I was wrong to carelessly specify fault in the journalist, rather than simply faulting the piece. However: If I had correctly identified that the piece was shoddy, rather than the journalist, wouldn't materially impact the points in my post. That's a nit. Including Marvel's existing mis-steps would materially impact the points of an article recounting Marvel's lack of mis-steps. That is not a nit.
cromwellian 12y ago
So far, Marvel is on a roll, like Pixar was for a time, racking up a string of successes. Guardians of the Galaxy seems to be another home run. But how long can they keep it up, and will hype and fan expectations make Avengers 2 an inevitable let-down?
- Zelphyr 12y ago
  I felt like the first Avengers was a let-down and now I realize why. Joss Whedon is amazing and not someone you put the kinds of restrictions on that Marvel apparently does. I'm kind-of surprised he took the gig but I guess its success worked out for him, so that's good at least.
  - Avshalom 12y ago
    Joss whedon had written for marvel several times before the avengers, it was probably a part of why they tapped him.
    - talmand 12y ago
      That almost everything he's done involves an ensemble cast.
- bane 12y ago
  I'm predicting an entire X-men reboot done more in the style of the Avengers movies. To date, the effects, casting and story for the X-men movies, while fine for the time, have been a big downgrade from the entire Avengers line-up. > hype and fan expectations make Avengers 2 an inevitable let-down I'm hoping it isn't. The second Captain America movie was a huge upgrade over the first IMHO, and I thought Thor 2 was at least as good as the first one. The Iron Man movies have been relatively good as well (sure they're going down a bit, but they're at least entertaining). If the 80s were the action star decade, the 2010s are the Marvel movie decade.
  - ender7 12y ago
    Marvel sold the X-Men rights to Fox, who retains them as long as they continue to make X-Men movies (the same is true for Sony with Spiderman). It's unlikely that Fox will relinquish those rights within the next 10 years.
JetSpiegel 12y ago
Funny how a Disney subsidiary can be seen as independent mavericks.
- omnibrain 12y ago
  Disney bought them after the first Iron Man movie.
- jamesbritt 12y ago
  Or that tech geeks get enthusiastic over Disney products despite Disney's recurring efforts to lock-down the Internet. There is some serious marketing magic happening here.
  - wmeredith 12y ago
    It's not always about marketing "magic". They have a killer product. Marvel and Disney produce superior entertainment, despite their politics.
omnibrain 12y ago
And I haven't seen a single one of those movies. Are they worth it for someone not into comics at all and a slightly dislike for superheroes. Of course I saw most of the trailers for the movies but the only one that looked appealing to me was the trailer for the second Captain America movie. Can this movie be watched without having seen the other moviews? I also read good things about the S.h.i.e.l.d series.
- rayiner 12y ago
  > Are they worth it for someone not into comics at all and a slightly dislike for superheroes. Iron Man is okay standalone, in the same way the first Spiderman movie was okay. Everything else is a skip.
- forrestthewoods 12y ago
  They are very well done summer popcorn flicks. Do you like blockbuster action popcorn movies? If yes, then yes they're worth it. If no, then probably not.
- CocaKoala 12y ago
  If you're not into comics and dislike superheroes, it's pretty hard to imagine what you'd get out of a superhero movie based on a comic book franchise.
  - Crito 12y ago
    Eh, I'm pretty apathetic to superheros have a dislike (possibly disdain) for comic books. I still enjoyed those of those movies that I have seen. (I liked the first Iron Man the most; and thought that The Avengers was quite good but nevertheless incredibly overrated).
    - lazylizard 12y ago
      imo, the dark knight is a good movie despite it being a comic book superhero movie. v for vendetta too.
  - 12y ago
NickWarner775 12y ago
People, especially children and young adults will always be interested in super heroes, Marvel will have a long and successful run.
moskie 12y ago
What's also interesting is there seems to be a desire in the fanbase for Marvel Studios to have more control over Marvel properties. I get the impression from comments in reddit posts and Slashfilm (which might not be an accurate barometer of reality) that fans are chomping at the bit for Sony and Fox to lose the rights on X-Men and Spider-man, so that Marvel Studios can start making movies with them.
- pyre 12y ago
  Those fans want to see cross-overs. They want to see Spiderman on The Avengers. They want to see the Hulk duke it out with Wolverine. The likelihood of this happening when multiple studios control the characters in question is slim to none.

44 points by e15ctr0n 12y ago

walruscop 12y ago

It's true; I feel like I can't go to any entertainment news site without being inundated by Marvel news.

danielweber 12y ago

Am I a dork for noticing the mistake that the second Thor movie wasn't a prequel for The Avengers?

jonnathanson 12y ago
Unless I'm misreading the article, I don't think it says that Thor: The Dark World was a prequel to The Avengers. Rather, it says that the Thor movies were planned as part of the "Avengers initiative." The confusion arises from the phrase "set the stage for The Avengers." I think what the writer means is that all of these movies, including their sequels, were set into development as part of a single initiative, meant to culminate in the Avengers franchise. Yes, the events of the second Thor movie take place after the events of The Avengers. But that may have been planned well in advance.
- ChuckMcM 12y ago
  I am particularly amazed at the co-ordination of the movies and the TV series Agents of Shield. Way back when I was at USC professor Arthur Knight used to joke about movies "You can know when it will be done, or you can know it will be good, but not both." because of the challenges of managing a movie production schedule. That Marvel could pull off Thor: The Dark World, have it hit theaters when events in the TV series matched up, that floored me.
  - jonnathanson 12y ago
    Yes, they are an incredibly well-oiled machine. An old friend and former colleague of mine is one of their producers and development executives, and I can say without hesitation that he works harder than anyone else I know in that business. Marvel is in a state of continuous production on all of its properties, all of which are centrally coordinated. This wasn't always the case. Historically, Marvel has had different licensing deals set up at different studios: X-Men and Fantastic Four with Fox; Spiderman with Sony; etc. When it set about creating the Avengers initiative, it realized the logistical benefits of keeping everything under one roof. The Disney acquisition helped with that. The company still does projects under the terms of its legacy deals (see: the Spiderman reboots still being made at Sony, presumably at Sony's request, to exercise and thus keep its deal active). But the magic seems to be happening with the more centrally coordinated projects, like Thor/Iron Man/Cpt America/SHIELD/Avengers.
  - xionon 12y ago
    Not only that, but they did it a second time with Captain America: Winter Soldier.
    - ChuckMcM 12y ago
      Your right, not once but twice in a single TV season. That is seriously amazing planning.
      - danielweber 12y ago
        I think lots of people would balk at those constraints, but Joss Whedon sees them and thinks "this is awesome!"
    - oddevan 12y ago
      Which was the bigger tie-in, as the episode the week before ended with the already-released scene of Nick Fury's car chase, and the episode the week after dealt with the (very significant) aftermath. For many reasons, it was one of the best moments in the series.
  - klackerz 12y ago
    It is amazing but Agents of SHIELD did suffer due to that. Most of the episodes until the Captain America 2 tie over episode was very lackluster. Let's see how they will handle the new season.
roc 12y ago
How about noticing that the article tossed the tepid Ed Norton HULK film (Marvel film #2) down the memory hole altogether? It does reference The Hulk in the context of the license to Universal. But Marvel regained the film rights in 2006 and Universal was just a distribution partner on Norton-Hulk. It was much more a Marvel Studios film than any sort of Universal-driven successor to Bana-Hulk. Nor does it ever mention Agents of SHIELD by name. To omit the name after specifically discussing the TV appearance clauses is pretty poor form for a journalist, particularly one who dedicated so much ink to the "Universe" strategy. But I guess facing Marvel's mis-steps just didn't fit a "Marvel is unstoppable" storyline.
- vampirechicken 12y ago
  Perhaps you should not assume shoddy work on the journalist's part. The nits you pick could have been created by editors prior to publication.
  - roc 12y ago
    You're absolutely right. I was wrong to carelessly specify fault in the journalist, rather than simply faulting the piece. However: If I had correctly identified that the piece was shoddy, rather than the journalist, wouldn't materially impact the points in my post. That's a nit. Including Marvel's existing mis-steps would materially impact the points of an article recounting Marvel's lack of mis-steps. That is not a nit.

cromwellian 12y ago

So far, Marvel is on a roll, like Pixar was for a time, racking up a string of successes. Guardians of the Galaxy seems to be another home run. But how long can they keep it up, and will hype and fan expectations make Avengers 2 an inevitable let-down?

Zelphyr 12y ago
I felt like the first Avengers was a let-down and now I realize why. Joss Whedon is amazing and not someone you put the kinds of restrictions on that Marvel apparently does. I'm kind-of surprised he took the gig but I guess its success worked out for him, so that's good at least.
- Avshalom 12y ago
  Joss whedon had written for marvel several times before the avengers, it was probably a part of why they tapped him.
  - talmand 12y ago
    That almost everything he's done involves an ensemble cast.
bane 12y ago
I'm predicting an entire X-men reboot done more in the style of the Avengers movies. To date, the effects, casting and story for the X-men movies, while fine for the time, have been a big downgrade from the entire Avengers line-up. > hype and fan expectations make Avengers 2 an inevitable let-down I'm hoping it isn't. The second Captain America movie was a huge upgrade over the first IMHO, and I thought Thor 2 was at least as good as the first one. The Iron Man movies have been relatively good as well (sure they're going down a bit, but they're at least entertaining). If the 80s were the action star decade, the 2010s are the Marvel movie decade.
- ender7 12y ago
  Marvel sold the X-Men rights to Fox, who retains them as long as they continue to make X-Men movies (the same is true for Sony with Spiderman). It's unlikely that Fox will relinquish those rights within the next 10 years.

JetSpiegel 12y ago

Funny how a Disney subsidiary can be seen as independent mavericks.

omnibrain 12y ago
Disney bought them after the first Iron Man movie.
jamesbritt 12y ago
Or that tech geeks get enthusiastic over Disney products despite Disney's recurring efforts to lock-down the Internet. There is some serious marketing magic happening here.
- wmeredith 12y ago
  It's not always about marketing "magic". They have a killer product. Marvel and Disney produce superior entertainment, despite their politics.

omnibrain 12y ago

And I haven't seen a single one of those movies. Are they worth it for someone not into comics at all and a slightly dislike for superheroes. Of course I saw most of the trailers for the movies but the only one that looked appealing to me was the trailer for the second Captain America movie. Can this movie be watched without having seen the other moviews? I also read good things about the S.h.i.e.l.d series.

rayiner 12y ago
> Are they worth it for someone not into comics at all and a slightly dislike for superheroes. Iron Man is okay standalone, in the same way the first Spiderman movie was okay. Everything else is a skip.
forrestthewoods 12y ago
They are very well done summer popcorn flicks. Do you like blockbuster action popcorn movies? If yes, then yes they're worth it. If no, then probably not.
CocaKoala 12y ago
If you're not into comics and dislike superheroes, it's pretty hard to imagine what you'd get out of a superhero movie based on a comic book franchise.
- Crito 12y ago
  Eh, I'm pretty apathetic to superheros have a dislike (possibly disdain) for comic books. I still enjoyed those of those movies that I have seen. (I liked the first Iron Man the most; and thought that The Avengers was quite good but nevertheless incredibly overrated).
  - lazylizard 12y ago
    imo, the dark knight is a good movie despite it being a comic book superhero movie. v for vendetta too.
- 12y ago

NickWarner775 12y ago

People, especially children and young adults will always be interested in super heroes, Marvel will have a long and successful run.

moskie 12y ago

What's also interesting is there seems to be a desire in the fanbase for Marvel Studios to have more control over Marvel properties. I get the impression from comments in reddit posts and Slashfilm (which might not be an accurate barometer of reality) that fans are chomping at the bit for Sony and Fox to lose the rights on X-Men and Spider-man, so that Marvel Studios can start making movies with them.

pyre 12y ago
Those fans want to see cross-overs. They want to see Spiderman on The Avengers. They want to see the Hulk duke it out with Wolverine. The likelihood of this happening when multiple studios control the characters in question is slim to none.