Are Marvel Studio Film's 'Safe' or are they Imaginitive?

[Gamma Ra]

Reading what a few posters have said about Marvel's films as compared to DC's???

Is Marvel Studios playing it safe with popcorn films or are they making truly imaginative thought provoking films?

Which do you prefer?

 

[kedrell]

Goddammit! I had something like a 7 paragraph response to this and went to spell check it and it got erased.

I'll just sum up then as I am not rewriting it: Both are popcorn movies, both play it safe. The main thing that is different about Marvel(and this only applies to Marvel Studios movies) is that they are doing it for a good reason and have a long term strategy in place to make it pay off so I'm fine with that.

 

[GhostPoet]

Hmm. I would say they are playing it safe to a degree. I say that because Thor was very fantasy based and was a bit of a risk but turned out amazing. But they are putting quality into their films so playing it safe is fine with me.

 

[Majik1387]

I'll say they're imaginatively safe.

I think they realize that most of the time, superhero movies are supposed to be entertaining for the audience, and while they know a lot of things would have to change in translation from comic to screen, they don't try to ground everything down so much where it's barely recognized as the comic property.

DC is just far behind in that sense, and it is sad because they can be just as good as the Marvel movies, they just seem to not want to be.

 

[akfj]

Goddammit! I had something like a 7 paragraph response to this and went to spell check it and it got erased.

I'll just sum up then as I am not rewriting it: Both are popcorn movies, both play it safe. The main thing that is different about Marvel(and this only applies to Marvel Studios movies) is that they are doing it for a good reason and have a long term strategy in place to make it pay off so I'm fine with that.

Money?

 

[The Morningstar]

The introduction to the characters are pretty safe, plot wise. Hollywood is built on cliches... it's the execution of the cliches that elevate it. And all the "dressing".

Although Iron Man 2 was quite unusual. It wasn't "safe". Perhaps that was part of it's problem. Too many ideas going on. Got too tricky for it's own good.

 

[kedrell]

Money?

Well all these films need to make money to continue to exist but I was more refering to 'universe building' and 'making sure you're established with the basics/foundation so you can do even better work later'.

 

[akfj]

Well all these films need to make money to continue to exist but I was more refering to 'universe building' and 'making sure you're established with the basics/foundation so you can do even better work later'.

...and earn even more money.

 

[kedrell]

...and earn even more money.

That too. Nothing wrong with making a profit, IMO. I'm not a commie, after all.

 

[akfj]

That too. Nothing wrong with making a profit, IMO. I'm not a commie, after all.

I know, it's just that in your original post it seemed as if you were alluding to them being above that.

 

[kedrell]

Hmm, didn't see how I implied that but it's clarified so

And DC wants to make money too.

 

[Gamma Ra]

Goddammit! I had something like a 7 paragraph response to this and went to spell check it and it got erased.

I'll just sum up then as I am not rewriting it: Both are popcorn movies, both play it safe. The main thing that is different about Marvel(and this only applies to Marvel Studios movies) is that they are doing it for a good reason and have a long term strategy in place to make it pay off so I'm fine with that.

Isn't that the worst when that happens? $######!+!!!

I guess I should have explained Imaginative better, I mean risky in that the stories are more complex than say hero goes after villain.

 

[kedrell]

Yeah, I hate that. I always need to remember to copy my text before checking it, I guess.

With the exception of something like Unbreakable(which is just the 1st 1/3 of an origin story blown up to an entire film), isn't it always about the hero going after the villain? I think so.

 

[misjuevos]

i think it's imaginative. they are trying to make a comic book universe. where the characters all exist together. dc is more safe with their bubbled worlds, like this is the only hero in the world so he has to be everywhere.

look at from the general audiences point of view.like in thor when a giant robot appears(destroyer), they must be thinking iron man. then to actually have a reference to tony stark really reiterates that this is actually the same world. we never get a mention of superman or batman in each others movies because then that would raise too many questions as to why they are alone fighting this threat. you could ask this of the marvel universe as well but it is an over arcing story throughout various movies. so eventually they will come together, whereas superman and batman we knew will not. if and when they do,it will be a different set of actors and a different world we will have to learn all over again.

we are going to see the avengers and know most of their individual origins prior to the film. because it was laid out for us with bits and pieces intertwined or nods or references to each other. that seems pretty imaginative to me.

if you don't like that sort of thing, or think its done wrong and dc is doing it better by being one world one hero, you still can't deny that the grand story arc trying to be told is anything but imaginative for film.

 

[Gamma Ra]

I definitely give Marvel Studio's and especially Kevin Feige credit for having the balls and the vision to bring their movie Universe together. Something I feel WB and DC should have had peculating since the success of Superman The Movie.

As origin stories and introducing Marvel characters to the world, I think Marvel Studios has done an adequate job. I just hope IM2 is not the standard for the direction that they will take with their sequels. IM2 was just cliche' at best, not a horrible movie, it just had no substance and the human dramatic moments sub-par comparred to IM, TIH and Thor. I chalk it up as the studio trying to capitalize on the success of the franchise and pushed a film out before their big release of the Avengers.

I didn't like the fact that they edited so many quality dramatic character and substantive moments from TIH, I just hope that won't be the norm. Thor at moments seemed as if they did similar editing, and cut characters in conversation mid thought.

I hope that Marvel Studios future films will hit us with better thought provoking scripts, without sacrificing the fun and action they have been dishing us.

 

[kedrell]

I agree with you about TIH/Thor in the editing. But I can also sorta justify it with Thor being a hard one to get the GA to wrap their minds around so they didn't want to push it before they had closed the deal on selling the character & his mythos to the public. Thor 2 should have more of a free hand. And with TIH they were kinda gun-shy after AngHulk. I can see their points and not disagree much with their choices because of that.

I disagree on IM2 being cliche' though. In fact, cliche' is about the furthest descriptor I'd use with IM2. Usually in the 2nd film, the hero wants to give it all up for the girl(supes2, spidey2 & TDK did this). THAT is the 2nd movie cliche'. IM2 didn't do that. It's all about him having very little time left. Death and not BS romance is threatening to make him give up the Iron Man gig in that movie. Also, daddy issues are usually dealt with in the 1st movie. IM1 touched on that ever so slightly but they saved it really for IM2.

 

[Gamma Ra]

As far as the editing of The Incredible Hulk and Thor, Hulk was already a known character and I think to a degree Ang's movie did hurt the way Marvel decided to approach the movie. They didn't want it to drag. In order for the movie to move they kept Banner on the run, literally. I think Feige has suggested that Mark Ruffalo was his choice for Hulk before Norton, and I feel because he sees Bill Bixby in him, which I don't mind because Bixby's Banner was INDEED interesting. Hopefully Ruff comes off, but that takes a good script. Banner needs to be resourceful, like his early Stan Lee days and Greg Pak's run.

I agree with you about Thor and this is why I stated sequel wise I desire more. I loved Thor more than I did IM and just as much as TIH. The scene where he called Odin an old fool was great, but they didn't give the emotion enough time to build. I thought Anthony Hopkins was awesome as Odin. All in all Thor's editing is forgivable.

You're right about IM2, but I meant cliche' as in bad guy. Comic book movies have so much source material to draw from, did we really need to see another story based around someone using Tony's chest piece to create the ultimate armor, that's based off his design? Albiet in the story, Whiplash's father helped Stark's father design it. I just thought that the villain could have been more original. Why not have the villain come up with his own unique design of armor? I'd have preferred to see Whiplash as he appears in the comic or Ghost or another minor IM character. Obadiah already did stealing armor bit.

 

[kedrell]

I agree about Whiplash in IM2. They went to all the trouble of taking a C-list villain and making him look and seem really cool, bad-ass and threatening and played by a great actor to boot...and then they just didn't use him enough because they were too busy shoe-horning War Machine in(largely but not completely for fan service). That's why I rank IM2 a full 1/10 point down from the first. But the Iron Man movies aren't like, oh say...the Batman movies in that they are all about the villains. They are all about the main character, Tony Stark. I appreciate that because over-reliance on villains(at the expense of the main character) has been the downfall of too many superhero franchises.

 

[Gamma Ra]

I dig Mickey Rourke's acting and I wish that he'd been used in a different roll.

I have to admit that I am a Nolan Batman film fan, and part of the reason, is because his villains are so well rounded and...villainous. They are actual personalities and not just plot devices. He makes it so that the audience just can't wait to see Batman take them down.

I've always stood by the belief that it takes well portrayed villains to make a character heroic, in any movie genre. It, however should never be at the expense of taking away from the heroes light.

 

[GhostPoet]

The introduction to the characters are pretty safe, plot wise. Hollywood is built on cliches... it's the execution of the cliches that elevate it. And all the "dressing".

Although Iron Man 2 was quite unusual. It wasn't "safe". Perhaps that was part of it's problem. Too many ideas going on. Got too tricky for it's own good.

Funny enough. I thought Iron Man 2 was better than the first. We got more scenes of Iron Man at full power. IM1 we barely got to see Iron Man at his best.

 

[kedrell]

I dig Mickey Rourke's acting and I wish that he'd been used in a different roll.

I have to admit that I am a Nolan Batman film fan, and part of the reason, is because his villains are so well rounded and...villainous. They are actual personalities and not just plot devices. He makes it so that the audience just can't wait to see Batman take them down.

I've always stood by the belief that it takes well portrayed villains to make a character heroic, in any movie genre. It, however should never be at the expense of taking away from the heroes light.

I consider myself a fan of Nolan's first Batman movie(which is a monumental achievement since I have never found the character appealing at all). But not his second Batman film. Too many leaps in logic that just didn't add up with those villains and ultimately tainted the movie for me.

But I agree with the rest of what you said. And I thought the villains we've got so far in the IM movies are stellar. I just wished we'd had more of them.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

No poll?

 

[Gamma Ra]

I consider myself a fan of Nolan's first Batman movie(which is a monumental achievement since I have never found the character appealing at all). But not his second Batman film. Too many leaps in logic that just didn't add up with those villains and ultimately tainted the movie for me.

But I agree with the rest of what you said. And I thought the villains we've got so far in the IM movies are stellar. I just wished we'd had more of them.

I like brawlers no matter how weak or strong they are and I love thinkers and resourceful characters, and Batman is the best of both for me.

I think BB was better than TDK, but I give Ledger credit for doing an amazing job.

No poll?

It came to mind, but I never tried to set one up before and I really wanted to read eveyone's thoughts on the subject.

 

[Spider-Fan]

No poll?

There is now

 

[jmc]

Safe, imaginative is probably not the word I'd use because ultimately the films are fairly simple in their narrative and don't really strive to be anything other than what they are. If they had the balls they would try and push things further, it really bugs me how small in scale Thor feels. Maybe now that Disney owns their arse they might chance their arm a bit more, but with this whole single universe thing it's hard to see them doing it, I think ultimately that's what has decided the fate of how these film are now presented.