Now that Avengers Buildup is Done, is Marvel Studios Taking More Risks?

[Shadowlord X]

I am so tired of this totally fallacious "MARVEL STUDIOS" don't take risks crap. It is such complete and utter BS. It's main proponents are supporters of rival companies who are jealous of what MARVEL is accomplishing, bitter that their company didn't do it first, and fustrated that they cannot find genuine complaints about a series of films that have ranged from good to excellent and have all been financially successful.

[Shadowlord X]

Let's look at the MCU

IRON MAN:
Risk 1 - $140 million big budget movie about a C-list character (wrt to knowledge by the GA)
Risk 2 - A director whose success has only been moderate and has no experience with big budget summer blockbusters.
Risk 3 - The main lead at that point had a relatively washed up carreer.
Risk 4 - Launching an Cinematic Universe.

THE INCREDIBLE HULK
Risk 1 - A big budget sequel to a commercial and critical failure of a film.

THOR
Risk 1 - Another big budget ($150 million) movie about another C-list character.
Risk 2 - Completely unknown actor in the lead.
Risk 2 - A director who is completely unassociated with big budget blockbuster filmmaking.

CAPTAIN AMERICA
Risk 1 - Same as above.
Risk 2 - Going for an actor noone thinks can play this sort of role and is rather B-list in Hollywood.
Risk 3 - Maintaining iconic aspects of the mythos that would be seen as cheesy to the modern cynical audience.

THE AVENGERS
Risk 1 - $300 million budget on an untested property with relatively inexperienced director.
Risk 2 - It's an AVENGERS movie.


This whole project has been a HUGE risk by a small novice studio. With some aspects they are not going to take wild chances to be different. It's like bunji jumping for the world record drop distance then having people criticise you for not taking chances and doing it without the rope. WTF!!!

[jab1118]

Id say the whole concept of putting out 4 different superhero movies in 4 years that connect and share a universe only to join together as a team in a 5th movie a year later is pretty risky.

[The Morningstar]

Indeed. This whole "cinematic universe" experiment could have gone terribly wrong. To be fair it still could, if Avengers is a disaster both critically and financially.

[OB12]

Yeah, it could still go sideways, but from everything we've seen I think it is going to live up to its promise. That said, I don't see how anyone can assert that Marvel Studios has played it safe. They are doing something that has never been done in cinematic history, so it is inherently risky from that point of view.

[chamber-music]

Marvel did a great job considering five years ago people were saying they would struggle to even general audiences to see a Thor or Captain America movie let alone an Avengers one.

It was brave alone to start a movie studio that has just made superhero movies although Marvel was later brought by Disney it still shows ambition.

[MarvelKnight]

Barring a catastrophic flop with the Avengers - the success of this entire concept will just enable them to take MORE risks. Whether it be that they adapt lesser known characters to the big screen or take on more ambitious stories, the possibilities are pretty much endless.

[WildcatNC]

Well we know that Dr Strange is on the block soon as well as who knows what else.

Feige has said that they have a plan all the way up through 2018.

[Silvermoth]

Hmm, I'll believe Marvel's taking more risks when I see it. I don't see it at this moment.

I just wish if they make another Captain America origin story that they would take it a bit more seriously and not try and modernise or kiddify it too much.

[redhawk23]

While its not well loved its inaccurate to say that Hulk 03 was a critical and commerical failure.


Though some may consider it mediocre it has a "fresh" tomatoscore rating and it made back it's production budget domestically. Grossed about as much as the Fantastic 4 films.

[RocknJock]

They really haven't taken a significant "risk" with their characters or movies, yet. In fact they have all been fairly similar and by the numbers, comerciall successful enough, great production value. But I'm sure they have plans for an Avengers 2 movie and things of that nature, if that's what you mean.

[Quasimod0]

I wouldnt say that captain america and thor are C-list.

[RocknJock]

Originally Posted by Quasimod0

I wouldnt say that captain america and thor are C-list.

Thor most definitely was before the major motion picture. Captain America is a B-lister. Iron Man was a B or C-lister, but after the way RDJ OWNED and re-defined the character ... he might be in terms of popularity thrust into the ELITE category of Batman, Superman, and Spider-Man.

[Gamma Ra]

I expect from Marvel Comic Book movies what I expect from their Comic Books in general. Hopefully Marvel Studio Movies will get back to the point of the first Iron Man film in terms of complete story, great characterization, drama and action. My problem with the films after have been the lack of compelling characters which seemed to have been filmed but edited out of the final cuts.

If anything Whedon is a great story teller, so my hopes are that if this is a bigger success than the IM movies, maybe MS will have deeper driven character based movies, they seem to be headed in the right direction as far as the action scenes go.

[R_Hythlodeus]

I don't have the feeling that any of the movies were somewhat incomplete.

[xeno000]

Originally Posted by Shadowlord X

Let's look at the MCU

IRON MAN:
Risk 1 - $140 million big budget movie about a C-list character (wrt to knowledge by the GA)
Risk 2 - A director whose success has only been moderate and has no experience with big budget summer blockbusters.
Risk 3 - The main lead at that point had a relatively washed up carreer.
Risk 4 - Launching an Cinematic Universe.

THE INCREDIBLE HULK
Risk 1 - A big budget sequel to a commercial and critical failure of a film.

THOR
Risk 1 - Another big budget ($150 million) movie about another C-list character.
Risk 2 - Completely unknown actor in the lead.
Risk 2 - A director who is completely unassociated with big budget blockbuster filmmaking.

CAPTAIN AMERICA
Risk 1 - Same as above.
Risk 2 - Going for an actor noone thinks can play this sort of role and is rather B-list in Hollywood.
Risk 3 - Maintaining iconic aspects of the mythos that would be seen as cheesy to the modern cynical audience.

THE AVENGERS
Risk 1 - $300 million budget on an untested property with relatively inexperienced director.
Risk 2 - It's an AVENGERS movie.


This whole project has been a HUGE risk by a small novice studio. With some aspects they are not going to take wild chances to be different. It's like bunji jumping for the world record drop distance then having people criticise you for not taking chances and doing it without the rope. WTF!!!

You nailed it. The entire Marvel Studios venture has bee nothing more nor less than the highest-risk venture in recent years. The fact that the films have been successful leads some to the conclusion that they were all safe bets to begin with. Nothing could be further from the truth.


Now that Marvel stands poised on the verge of launching what will surely be its most successful movie, it is easy to forget that the venture began with the company scraping for the money needed to make movies. Hollywood insiders doubted that any of the properties that Marvel hadn't been forced to auction off to other studios could be a hit with the general public. Iron Man was a blockbuster, but up until it was released most in the industry (along with fans) thought it had a good chance of being a flop. It was no safe bet, no sure thing. Neither were any of the other films Marvel made.


The interconnected Marvel Cinematic Universe was just as much a gamble. Had any one of the movies been a complete failure, it might have scuttled the entire concept.


The fact that Marvel's multiple gambles paid off does not negate the fact that the studio took a lot of risks along the way.