anyone worried for the future of the Marvel movies?

[mrrockey]

While I love the idea of having a shared universe for all these characters, I DON'T think it'll take too long before it becomes overcrowded with too many characters and storylines going on, making these movies very unfocused and impossible to follow without seeing EVERY film in the franchise first. Granted, I think the audience have responsibilities on their own to follow the franchise as best they can but I think eventually, average fans will just become lost in the continuity after seeing 20 or so movies in the same universe. I think they could prevent this by wrapping everything up at the end of each phase.

But what do you think?

Discuss...

[riddler]

I understand where you're coming from. Generally I don't like the Avengers comics, like you said they're overcroweded and most of them wouldn't translate to a movie; the characters remain in costume for the majority of the team and the stories aren't as compelling as the solo ventures when we get to see the double life. That being said I also haven't read many comics similar to the first avengers

Xmen make it work with multiple heroes, I think Whedon will be fine but hopefully he doesn't go overboard. I'd imagine budget constraints wouldn't allow the heroes to stay in costume for most of the film.

[The Laughing Fish]

I don't think the films have been confusing to follow at all so far, unlike the joke that is the X-Men franchise. 

Having said that though, I think the real issue is the risk that new characters may not really impress the audience. I thought Iron Man 2 was absolute rubbish and the worst MCU film by far, but Marvel Studios managed to dodge the bullet thanks to Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger, in my opinion. But it's unlikely that every character they'll adapt on screen will meet the same positive reception like the Avengers.

What if Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man fails to impress the general audience to the point that those movies end up bombing at the box office? If one movie failed miserably, how would that affect Marvel's plans to tie events to an under-performing movie to an Avengers movie and the rest of their future films altogether? And if you take into account that the Ant-Man production has been a mess so far, the concern of one mess of a movie affecting the rest of the franchise could be happening sooner than we think. Edgar Wright was supposed to direct Ant-Man but left because Marvel wanted to make changes to script, and the film STILL hasn't gone into production yet, despite it's scheduled to be released around this time next year.

[riddler]

This has been the most successful CBM franchise but not without it's faults, in hindsight here is how phase one should have gone;

Iron Man 2008
Incredible Hulk should have been later. For one thing Marvel did not release a film in 2009 and they should have. Secondly the extra gap should have helped distance itself with the Ang Lee film. I will bring up the change in actors although I'm unsure if Marvel could be blamed for the Norton fiasco.
Thor or Captain america should have come earlier.
Many say iron man 2 felt like an extended trailer for the avengers so it should have been the last film before it.



I still feel it's a shame that the hulk is getting buried. He came off so well in the Avengers and yet Ruffalo may never have the chance to portray him in a solo film.



I'm not sure how the Ant Man film will go but I could see him fitting in well with the Avengers. Starmanand Groot from guardians of the galaxy may as well but the issue is it will become less grounded.

[The Joker]

Not worried about the Marvel Studios movies at all.

From what we've seen thus far, Marvel Studios have played it pretty smart with their properties, and it's very likely that they will continue onward with the formula that is clearly working for them. I believe, as time goes on, and Phase 2-3-4 ... 5-6-7-8-9-10 or whatever many they got planned, continues on, we'll see certain characters scaled back significantly in order to introduce other characters who have decidedly less name brand recognition/iconic.

Given that the comics routinely bring about events and such for new readers to find accessible as a jumping on point, Marvel Studios will almost assuredly take the same sort of approach in their subsequent film phases over time, and provide any interested parties that same sort of jumping on point without necessarily having to be overly familiar with what has already been released.

If the marketing from Marvel Studios is any indication, they obviously know how to promote their properties, and any worries, atleast in the foreseeable future, is minimal.

[johnnygobbs]

While I love the idea of having a shared universe for all these characters, I DON'T think it'll take too long before it becomes overcrowded with too many characters and storylines going on, making these movies very unfocused and impossible to follow without seeing EVERY film in the franchise first. Granted, I think the audience have responsibilities on their own to follow the franchise as best they can but I think eventually, average fans will just become lost in the continuity after seeing 20 or so movies in the same universe. I think they could prevent this by wrapping everything up at the end of each phase.

But what do you think?

Discuss...

I'm worried they're going to run out of actors...seriously.    Already we've seen big names like Robert Redford, Tommy Lee Jones, Jeff Bridges, Sir Ben Kingsley, Sir Anthony Hopkins, William Hurt and Samuel L Jackson appear in these films, and Glenn Close and Michael Douglas will appear in 'Guardians of the Galaxy' and 'Ant-Man' respectively.  That doesn't leave many stars left to play other characters within this universe, especially when some actors like Don Cheadle and Mark Ruffalo are duplicating characters already played by Terrence Howard and Ed Norton respectively (and if you count the TV series "Agents of SHIELD", Bill Paxton is ruled out too).  They'll have to start casting from other comic-book franchises (I guess they've already done that with Chris Evans from the now defunct 'Fantastic Four' franchise), like the 'Batman', 'TDK' and 'X-Men' films.

I do love the shared continuity however, and I think every film so far has stood on its own terms.  One can enjoy 'Captain America: The Winter Soldier' without having seen the previous movies, although like any sequel it does help to have seen the previous movie(s) and does provide an incentive for going to see future instalments (which is why 'Guardians of the Galaxy' can afford to be made despite containing characters with relatively little name-recognition).

I love the idea of one day, albeit many years from now, being able to sit back with Phase One, Phase Two and onwards boxsets of the various MCU films (and possibly TV spin-offs) and enjoy watching them almost back-to-back in long marathons, although I don't think it would be wise to continue the series for too long.

I also now think it's a relief that Marvel Studios don't (yet) own the rights to 'Spider-Man', 'The Fantastic Four' or 'X-Men', because I do think they're integration with the Avengers characters would over-complicate things.  One would be constantly wondering why the Avengers are nowhere to be seen whilst the Fantastic Four or Spider-Man is tackling an all-destructive threat to New York.  At least so far the various characters' adventures have been relatively contained to their own environments and milieus (the Guardians of the Galaxy will be fighting intergalactic threats, Iron Man tends to fight characters with their own vendetta against Stark Industries, Captain America was within a WWII context in the first film and was up against Washington D.C. insider agencies in the sequel which is a world he is now part of, and Thor has his own problems to sort out on Asgard, and even Hulk faced up against a relatively contained down-town New York threat in 'The Incredible Hulk').  They only got together when the enemies at hand threatened an entire city, New York, in 'The Avengers', and I suspect it's right to presume that the threat in the upcoming 'Avengers' sequel will be similarly colossal and will therefore require the entire Avengers team's unique skills.

[johnnygobbs]

I don't think the films have been confusing to follow at all so far, unlike the joke that is the X-Men franchise. 

Having said that though, I think the real issue is the risk that new characters may not really impress the audience. I thought Iron Man 2 was absolute rubbish and the worst MCU film by far, but Marvel Studios managed to dodge the bullet thanks to Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger, in my opinion. But it's unlikely that every character they'll adapt on screen will meet the same positive reception like the Avengers.

What if Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man fails to impress the general audience to the point that those movies end up bombing at the box office? If one movie failed miserably, how would that affect Marvel's plans to tie events to an under-performing movie to an Avengers movie and the rest of their future films altogether? And if you take into account that the Ant-Man production has been a mess so far, the concern of one mess of a movie affecting the rest of the franchise could be happening sooner than we think. Edgar Wright was supposed to direct Ant-Man but left because Marvel wanted to make changes to script, and the film STILL hasn't gone into production yet, despite it's scheduled to be released around this time next year.

I share your concerns about 'Ant-Man' even if I don't agree with you about the much-maligned 'Iron Man 2', which may not be the best MCU film but is not, IMHO, the complete lemon its critics claim.

Where I unequivocally do agree with you is in your comparison to the 'MCU' films and the 'X-Men' films.  I'll see the latter when they're screened on TV but as far as catching any of the 'X-Men' films at the cinema, I've given up.  Those films are a mess, particularly in terms of continuity, and they treat many of the various characters quite shoddily expect (*yawn*) Wolverine, and maybe Professor X and Magneto.  Everyone else is at best a supporting character, and more likely a disposable bit-player.  At least the Avengers films treat all of their characters with a modicum of respect (give or take 'The Mandarin', who I still think made for a fun reveal), even finding fresh ways to use z-listers like 'Batroc the Leaper' for quite substantial cameos.

[riddler]

Here's an interesting article about a topic I've wondered aloud about; why the hulk had been buried since the Norton fiasco

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Could-Another-Team-Up-Hulk-Future-Avengers-2-43682.html

[The Laughing Fish]

I hate to say it, but I'm becoming worried about the MCU's future, for different reasons.

I'm finding the MCU to be very up and down for me in the last couple of years. I loved The Winter Soldier, and I enjoyed Doctor Strange, Ant-Man, and even Guardians 1. But I don't believe either Avengers follow-ups - Age of Ultron and Civil War - have held up that well. I don't think they're terrible, but they're not that good either. I can't stand Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, and I'm not enthused by what I've seen from Spider-Man and Thor. The only movie I've got confidence in turning out fine is Black Panther at the moment.

It's bizarre. In the last decade, I've always criticised Nolan for taking the material so seriously because I thought it makes everything even more ridiculous. I thought you more you analyse these sort of films seriously, it only makes you realise how poorly-written his films are. Mainly because his films pay lip service to a lot of the purported themes, as opposed to the exploring how people would react to superheroes in the real world in the DCEU films. If there's one thing I can criticise Zack Snyder for, it would have to be copying Nolan's serious tone for MOS and BvS. But at least those films explore the themes they present on screen, instead of talking about it through dialogue.

But now I'm beginning to see the opposite extreme in the MCU. If you take everything less seriously to the point you've got jokes undermining the tension of a scene every five minutes, you realise how ridiculous everything is and ruins the tension that's meant to be going on. As I said before, one of the biggest issues I had with Civil War was the goofy tone during the second half didn't blend with the rest of the film, which was more or less sombre. GOTG2 was a sh*tshow of crappy jokes and idiotic pop culture references that undermined what was meant to be a tragic father-son story. And now with Spider-Man: Homecoming is getting positive early buzz, because it's "funny". The point I'm getting it at is cheap thrills is taking preference over story. It might delight deadbeat fanboys who enjoy participating in pissing contests over critical reviews and box office, but I doubt it will help make the films memorable in the long run.

I thought starting with The Winter Soldier, Marvel would become more ambitious, but so far, it's becoming more cartoonish. I hope Marvel get things right for Infinity War and do something special, because a merely entertaining film won't cut it this time.

[thecolorsblend]

Marvel's trick seems to be doing a really solid first entry and then the sequels end up lackluster.

Yeah. The Winter Solider is the exception. But it's the exception that proves the rule.

Iron Man? Best of that franchise.

Thor? Best of that franchise.

Avengers? Best of that franchise.

Guardians? Ibid.

And honestly, even that rule is kind of fallible inasmuch as Ant Man was fairly enjoyable, I guess... but it didn't knock my socks off. In the unlikely event it gets a sequel, I shudder to think how far it'll crater.

On and on and on.

So the bottom line here is that there's good reason to be concerned with the MCU's future. And I haven't even really discussed what a conveyor belt of fluff Marvel Studios has become. Say whatever you want about the DCEU but they're making ACTUAL FILMS.