Is the 'Marvel Cinematic Universe' franchise the best CBM franchise?

[johnnygobbs]

So many comic-book movie franchises have started off so promisingly only to be scuppered by successive movies in their franchise (it's no surprise that so few comic-book movie franchises get beyond two or three films before they're put to bed).  However, so far the Marvel Cinematic Universe has not put a single step wrong, and I think it's fair to treat each film in that franchise as a sequel of sorts since they exist in the same continuity.  From 'Iron Man' through to the latest entry in the franchise, 'Captain America 2: The Winter Soldier' each movie has been of a minimum high standard (even my least favourite entries, the two 'Thor' films, are good films, just not great ones).  In fact, the worst thing I can say about the franchise as far as hiccups go is the jarring change from Terrance Howard to Don Cheadle as 'War Machine' and Edward Norton to Mark Ruffalo as 'Hulk' simply because casting-changes annoy me as far as maintaining my suspension of disbelief and investment in the films as part of a 'real world' (that said, Cheadle and Ruffalo are arguably improvements on their respective predecessors).

Anyway, to address my point let's look at previous CBM franchises (i.e. a comic-book movie that saw at least one sequel):

Superman - This started off great with a brilliant set-up for the sequel (thanks to the early introduction of Zod and his cohorts at the start of the 'Superman: The Movie') but the Salkinds screwed their trump card by firing and replacing Richard Donner before he got to finish the second film, and thus, there are some jarring shifts in style and tone (as well as the mysterious absence of key-players - i.e. Gene Hackman) between scenes.  And although I like 'Superman 3' and 'The Quest for Peace' more than most I think we can safely say they were big disappointments that understandably brought the series to an ignominious end.  'Superman Returns' probably counts as an attempt to continue the franchise from 'Superman II' but the po-faced tone and miscasting of Kate Bosworth and Brandon Routh, who looked a bit like Christopher Reeve but sadly lacked any of his charisma in the part, also ended in failure (despite relatively healthy returns at the box-office).

Batman - Most of us here love at least two of the four Batman films but Burton in his own words made a conscious attempt to distance 'Batman' from 'Batman Returns' from in at least a stylistic and tonal sense meaning that they almost feel like too distinct takes on Batman as opposed to part of the same continuity.  Many of us here have got some time for 'Batman Forever', but as many of us were disappointed that Burton wasn't allowed to continue with the franchise, and by the time the campy and OTT 'Batman & Robin' emerged the writing was on the wall for the franchise.

Blade - This franchise started promisingly with the first two films (although Whistler's revival from turning into a vampire at the end of the first film to returning as a human for the second film is rather contrived and annoyingly brushed-over).  However, 'Blade: Trinity' is generally regarded as a travesty and thus the series came to a close.

X-Men - These films are still (unaccountably) popular and may probably continue for at least another fourteen years.  However, that doesn't detract from the fact that Fox has already annoyed various fans with the franchise's marginalisation of various characters, over-concentration on others (*cough* Wolverine *cough*), over-complicated time-lines, and variable quality between films, and from my own personal perspective I can't help wishing this franchise was brought to a quick end and rebooted, preferably by concentrating on the original 1960s X-Men 'First Class' (i.e. Cyclops, Jean Grey, the poorly-served Angel, Beast and Ice-Man) and an attempt to capture the joyful spirit of the early Kirby and Lee comic-books that has thus far eluded the dour Bryan Singer movies.  I won't hold my breath however as I suspect the upcoming 'Days of Future Past' will be another mega-hit for Fox.

Spider-Man - One can quibble about Sam Raimi's decision to omit Parker's original girl-friend, Gwen Stacy, and go straight to Mary-Jane Watson (which is made even more egregious by replicating the 'Death of Gwen Stacy' bridge scene without the tragic and powerful outcome of the comic-books, and early use of one of Spidey's most formidable foes (the Green Goblin) but for the most part, the first two films were a real joy that captured the look and feel of the comic-books and build a fascinating and emotional dynamic between Peter, Gwen, Harry and Peter's aunt and uncle.  It's thus a shame that 'Spider-Man 3' ruined things by shoehorning a the symbiote storyline and a complex character like Venom (who Raimi purportedly didn't care for) into an already overstuffed movie that had to deal with both Sandman, and his alter-ego's part in Uncle Ben's death, as well as the emergence of Harry as the Green Goblin #2.  Perhaps as had initially been proposed, Sandman's smarter and more deadlier accomplice had turned out to be the compelling but less complex Vulture, we'd still be watching further instalments of Raimis's 'Spiderman' franchise, by which point we may also have ended up with a decent version of Eddie Brock/Venom.  Still, none of this explains why Sony decided to sack Raimi and reboot the franchise bearing in mind that 'Spider-Man 3' was the biggest hit of 2007 (if that's a failure...).

The Fantastic Four - Although these films were pretty faithful from a story and characterisation perspective the miscast second-string actors and the lazy direction meant that these films never became firm favourites amongst the comic-book reading fanboys, far less the critical community at large.  Neither film did badly at the box-office but for once Fox saw the light and put this heart-hearted franchise to rest, probably sensing that there wasn't any particular enthusiasm for a second sequel.

Hellboy - These are two utterly wonderful imaginative films that get the tone and look of the comic-books just right, and feature perfect chemistry between Hellboy and his BPRD colleagues, especially the obnoxious, bureaucratic yet rather likeable Tom Manning played by Jeffrey Tambor.  However, it's now been six years since the release of 'Hellboy 2' and there's still no concrete word of another sequel and so I get the distinct impression this franchise will end up simply as a two-film deal...which is a shame (but better to go out on a high).

The Dark Knight - There are various detractors on this site but I for one count myself as a fan of the trilogy and apart from the current 'Avengers' set of films this surely constitutes as the only unequivocally successful CMB franchise in terms of consistency.  The reason why I don't personally rate it as high as the 'Avengers' is that although I consider the 'Dark Knight' films to be excellent movies on their own terms they arguably fail to capture the spirit of a comic-book world in the way the current spate of Marvel films (and the two Burton Batman films) were able to do.  They're more like thrilling, intelligent techno-thrillers but they don't spirit me away to another world and lack a fine balance between humour and earnestness (coming out far in favour of the latter), something that the latest 'Captain America' film gets perfectly right.

Other CBM franchises I haven't considered in more detail are 'The Punisher' films because there has so far been three movies but none of them appear to be directly related, 'Daredevil' and 'Elektra' since Ben Affleck ended any speculation on a sequel to the former quite early on, and the latter is the only spin-off from that movie, and 'Ghost Rider' since I haven't seen the sequel but can merely comment that having seen half of the first film I'm surprised the potential franchise got as far as that.  I also haven't commented on 'The Amazing Spider-Man' since the review for that film are just coming in now, but as much as I liked the first film I am slightly concerned that Sony are taking the wrong lessons from the success of the 'MCU' and rushing to stuff as many characters and make as many spin-offs as possible in order to maximise revenue, instead of concentrating on making a series of carefully crafted, credibly dramatic 'Spider-Man' films featuring slow-burning storylines that will pay in dividends over time.  Am I the only one who'd rather see the Sinister Six emerge as a fully-fledged group of Spider-Man antagonists over time than a 'Sinister Six' spin-off film a mere two or three years down the line?

Anyway, what do other posters think?  Have I got it wrong?  Are there other great CBM franchises, including the ones I've mentioned, apart from the 'Avengers'?  Am I wrong about the 'Avengers'?

[riddler]

I think Marvel seems to get it right as far as which changes to make from the comics. It's a touchy issue, comic fans do tend to complain any time a change is made.

The green lantern and fantasic four were both faithful to the comics but all 3 combined films had flat scripts.


Burton and Nolans Bat-films are both popular yet both heavily deviate from the comics. Schumachers plot points and characters were overall fairly similar to the comics but the tone and the delivery were not. A perfect bat film would likely contain elements from all 3 directors.

spider-man is probably the second best. Even it's weakest film (the 2007 one) was a cash cow and fairly entertaining. So far it has no flops to the extent of superman 4 or Batman and RObin.



My only issue with the Marvel Universe was the initial planning; 2009 was a light year for comic films while 2008 was very heavy. The incredible hulk should have been pushed back a year especially when there'd been a poorly received hulk film 5 years earlier. One or both of Captain america and thor should have been in 2010 with Iron man 2 as the final film before the avengers as some would call it an extended trailer for the avengers anyhow. Though I guess it was hard to predict. I mean I think Iron Man far exceed anyones expectations, Marvel was probably expecting the incredible hulk to be its cash cow. If one or both of the 2008 films flopped, perhaps the remaining films either don't happen or get a smaller budget. I do agree with the casting, they were planning a multiverse, they should have signed all their actors on for multiple deals. Even Samuel L Jacksons participation in the later films was in doubt prior to his signing onto the 2nd iron man film.


I agree with your assessment on the films; while I do consider the 2 thor films as the weak links, they're still decent. I don't think they failed, they just didn't inspire or excite me the way the other ones do.



DC's main problem had been lack of planning. They never seem to know what they want to do and they'd gotten greedy; superman they first became afraid to relinquish creative control and later tried to succeed on a shoe string budget. Batman of course the soccer moms protested the content and it went too silly. I guess the Nolan films were handled properly, they let him do his own thing. But the common issue there and man of steel is that it's obvious that they were uneasy about bringing comic books to life and clearly shunned their existing audience in the hopes of attracting a new one.

[The Dark Knight]

Spidey has the best representation out of all the heroes via Raimi, for my money. Iron Man has a coherent, quality trilogy considering the other films it is competing against.

Superman's cinematic history is sketchy. The first film is a classic and the others haven't managed to reach that peak. Batman has been pretty good. Burton's two, and Nolan's first two, are pass marks.

Captain America has been fantastic, I've liked all his appearances. I have no time for The Punisher.  X-Men has been good for the most part with X2 and First Class.

Overall, the Marvel Universe has been good so far. The only step wrong I would note is The Hulk's recasting, after Norton left. But even then, I'm glad he did. Ruffallo is brilliant, and that version of the character was fun.

The Webb Spider-Man reboot hasn't reached the heights of Raimi for me, but it is a respectable offering. The majority of reviews coming out of TASM2 cite an overstuffed film with a thin plot. Criticisms which are no longer exclusive to Spider-Man 3, but we'll see how that plays out.

[johnnygobbs]

It's a shame that 'TASM2' ironically seems to be repeating all the mistakes of 'Spider-Man 3' that ultimately led to Sam Raimi being kicked-off the franchise.

By the way, The Dark Knight, you say the Burton Batman films are 'pass marks'.  That seems like rather lukewarm praise to me.  Does that mean they're not your favourite comic-book movies?

[The Dark Knight]

It's a shame that 'TASM2' ironically seems to be repeating all the mistakes of 'Spider-Man 3' that ultimately led to Sam Raimi being kicked-off the franchise.

I won't go into it all again, but indeed. It will be interesting to see if TASM2 gets a free pass or not in this regard.

By the way, The Dark Knight, you say the Burton Batman films are 'pass marks'.  That seems like rather lukewarm praise to me.  Does that mean they're not your favourite comic-book movies?

Sorry. Perhaps my language should have been stronger. Pass mark meaning they're good, selecting the main ones I like from the 89-2012 canon.

[riddler]

I have the same concerns over amazing spider-man 2 having a lot of characters and plotlines. Where I have hope is that the first film did upgrade every single character they put in over the previous series. No Ben or captain stacey here so that frees up more screen time as does the fact that they wont have to tell as much as Peter's story.

[DocLathropBrown]

I wholeheartedly say yes.

The Marvel Studios films (sans Incredible Hulk haha) are the best comic book movies for me, bar none. The only films outside of Marvel Studios that rise to that level of quality for me are BATMAN, Batman Returns, Batman Forever, Superman: The Movie, The Wolverine, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, The Crow and The Amazing Spider-Man.

Marvel Studios can do no wrong for me. I didn't have a single problem with Iron Man 2 or Thor: The Dark World, unlike a lot of other people.

[johnnygobbs]

Marvel Studios can do no wrong for me. I didn't have a single problem with Iron Man 2 or Thor: The Dark World, unlike a lot of other people.

Same here.  I even like 'The Incredible Hulk'. 

I hope Marvel Studios can keep this remarkably consistent high standard up.  I suspect they will.

[Silver Nemesis]

I think Gobbs' analysis is pretty much spot on. As far as individual superhero/comic book films go, I'd say Donner's Superman films and Raimi's first two Spider-Man films are the best. The first RoboCop film also deserves a mention, although it's not adapted from a comic.

In terms of a complete series of films, the best would be Nolan's Batman trilogy IMO. Sure, TDKR had its flaws, but ultimately they were outweighed by its merits. I thought all three films were good.

But the best ongoing series has got to be the Disney Marvel cinematic universe. So far none of those films has been rated 'ROTTEN' on Rotten Tomatoes. In fact most of them are rated in the 70s, 80s and 90s. They've all done well at the box office and have generally been well received by the fans. No other superhero franchise has yielded such consistently good results. I'm not mad on the Thor films myself, but I dig the Iron Man and Captain America movies. And I'm looking forward to seeing Guardians of the Galaxy, Age of Ultron, Ant-Man and whatever else they're cooking up for us.

[johnnygobbs]

I'm particularly looking forward to what Marvel Studios have got coming up next, based on the hilarious 'Guardians of the Galaxy' trailer, the fact Edgar Wright is directing Ant-Man (who also happened to be one of my favourite Marvel characters), and my love for the first 'Avengers' film.

But I'm curious Silver Nemesis, are you not a fan of the Burton Batman films?  I asked The Dark Knight the same question.   But I notice that you don't even refer to them in your post.