Has Fox hit a dead end with their Marvel Properties?

[Chris B]

At this point, it would be such a struggle to introduce mutants. Like, in all honesty it would make no sense. And even if you alter Magneto's origin (not a holocaust survivor) and the like, it doesn't change the fact that mutants cant just appear overnight.

Like, 30/40/50 year old magneto just comes out of hiding one day and says "I think it's time i start fighting."

While it would be awkward, I do think that there is enough wiggle room to allow them to introduce mutants in the event that Marvel at least got access back to the X-Men.

I've always felt that the MCU has alluded to there being other people with powers that the audience, and probably the public in-universe as well, simply are not aware of. I think you could use that as a basis for mutants having been around the whole time and we just didn't know. And an X-Men reboot set in the MCU could deal with the general public in the MCU becoming aware of it for the first time as well and deal with the subsequent fallout from that.

 

[Chris B]

I grew up loving the X-Men but I've said for a long time that the core of that franchise works better alone than combined with tons of other superheroes. The fear of mutants is so much stronger when you don't have gods, monsters and tons of other super beings walking around, and somehow even many villains aren't as feared as good mutants by some. Even when others are feared as well it's still not the same themes that run through it, and the best X-Men stories I remember never had any of the other heroes in them.

I don't think the MCU needs the X-Men either. I think it's more interesting to focus on other solo hero properties and then weave them together, as far as the movies go. The X-Men are always best together imo.

Personally, I've always liked the explanation that at least with the likes of the Avengers and the Fantastic Four, they got their powers in a freak accident or through technology, so they don't create the same sense of insecurity that a subspecie of humans actually born with powers that may eventually replace normal people through simply natural means.

Granted, I suppose that explanation may only work to a certain point.

 

[Mad Ones]

Considering how irrational bigotry actually is I can see the X-men coexisting in the MCU. Humans fear mutants because anyone can be one and they might replace normal humans and they disrupt their sense of normality. Heroes like the Avengers are exceptions that you see on TV, but a mutant could be your neighbour, co-worker, etc. Also, some mutants are visibly different/strange, in a way the Avengers aren't. There are still a ton of logistical problems with actually implementing the X-men that I don't think they would be able to get over.

I think the X-men movies should have a different tone and deal with different, heavier material than what is typical in the MCU. I don't think I'd like how much the X-men would probably be stifled to make it fit into the MCU and the possibility that their movies might be used as set-up vehicles like some MCU movies. I like the MCU's shared universe as it is, but I am not a fan of other properties trying to copy it.

Luckily the X-men won't be rebooted and DOFP/Apocalypse set up a world of possibilities and Fox seems to really be thinking. I can't wait to see the adventures the new cast gets into and I'm a big fan of the New Mutants. One possibility of a cross over, that could happen years and years down the road, is a very loose adaptation of House of M, where reality is manipulated in a way that allows for a joining of the worlds (even maybe just for a single movie - it would be a "big event" that comic book movies desperately seem to rely on these days). But even that seems unlikely.

 

[Set]

Considering how irrational bigotry actually is I can see the X-men coexisting in the MCU. Humans fear mutants because anyone can be one and they might replace normal humans and they disrupt their sense of normality. Heroes like the Avengers are exceptions that you see on TV, but a mutant could be your neighbour, co-worker, etc.

By a factor of infinity, *Thor* would probably be more controversial than mutants, in a shared universe. Claiming to be an actual god, worshipped by humans thousands of years ago, one that predates Jesus, and one that is still worshipped even today? Pearls would be clutched. Even if whackos assumed he was lying, they'd still be upset that he was encouraging 'false gods' or whatever.

If the Scarlet Witch was thought to be using 'real magic' of some sort, which only comes from the Devil, she'd be pretty darn controversial as well, much more so than some guy who turns into metal, or a woman who can provide her own lighting effects when singing disco music.

 

[Mad Ones]

By a factor of infinity, *Thor* would probably be more controversial than mutants, in a shared universe. Claiming to be an actual god, worshipped by humans thousands of years ago, one that predates Jesus, and one that is still worshipped even today? Pearls would be clutched. Even if whackos assumed he was lying, they'd still be upset that he was encouraging 'false gods' or whatever.

If the Scarlet Witch was thought to be using 'real magic' of some sort, which only comes from the Devil, she'd be pretty darn controversial as well, much more so than some guy who turns into metal, or a woman who can provide her own lighting effects when singing disco music.

Again, I can see these figures being seen as exceptional. I think you're right in that there should be controversy around these people, but hating what is considered a sub categorization of human, most of which aren't heroes, is different. We'd have to suspend the same disbelief we do when reading the comics, though the advantage of separate studios means all of this can be avoided. Have the comics ever addressed what probably would be controversial about Thor?

 

[KangConquers]

Why the hell does Fox own Kang??
Hasn't he always been pretty much exclusively an Avengers Villain?

The thing is, I agree that X-Men has the best characters in the Marvel U, but as others have said, their inclusion in the MCU would equal a lot fewer risky properties coming out.

It would most likely just be: solos for the big three -> Spider-Man -> X-Men -> FF -> Avengers -> repeat

He debuted as Rama Tut in the Fantastic 4 comics before becoming Kang. Also he's a descendant of Reed Richards and Doctor Doom's, and is named after his Great x 30 Grandfather, Nathaniel Richards, Reed's dad.

So while he's facing the Avengers 90% of the time, his origin is associated with the F4. Chances are they sold him off with the F4 package back before they even had a vision for an Avengers package, because that's where he would logically go, otherwise.

 

[DACrowe]

Marvel doesn't do any worse on their villains than any other studio

they just do everything else so very right, that it's the only thing left to nitpick about, that and soundtracks

Eh, that I would disagree with as well. Marvel Studios has never produced a villain as good as Ledger's Joker, or Nicholson's Joker, or Pfeiffer's Catwoman, or Hardy's Bane. They also haven't produced a villain as good as either movie Magneto or (on a much lower bar) one as menacing as the Sentinels appeared in DOFP. Even Sony at least struck lightning with the Alfred Molina Doc Ock.

Marvel is pretty weak in that regard other than Loki, who is more of a comedic nuisance than a threat to the characters.

 

[Angryfantasyfan]

Marvel is pretty weak in that regard other than Loki, who is more of a comedic nuisance than a threat to the characters.

I thought both Stane and Pierce were good villains. I liked Cross as well.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Marvel doesn't do any worse on their villains than any other studio

they just do everything else so very right, that it's the only thing left to nitpick about, that and soundtracks

This. Marvel has never had a villain anywhere near as bad as Dr. Doom or Electro or Lex Luthor, and that's just what the three competing studios have done in the last two years.

 

[Flint Marko]

I thought both Stane and Pierce were good villains. I liked Cross as well.

Throw Red Skull in there as well. I found him pretty effective.
Not to mention Kingpin and Kilgrave.

This. Marvel has never had a villain anywhere near as bad as Dr. Doom or Electro or Lex Luthor, and that's just what the three competing studios have done in the last two years.

Marvel doesn't do any worse on their villains than any other studio

they just do everything else so very right, that it's the only thing left to nitpick about, that and soundtracks

 

[StormC]

Stane, Pierce, Loki, Red Skull, and Zemo are all genuinely good villains in my book. Ultron is alright too once you get past the schlocky persona.

I think people just notice the weak MCU villains because of the connected continuity; if they were all stand alone series people wouldn't complain as much. A trilogy like Nolan Bats with each movie having a really good Big Bad is really the exception to the rule.

 

[2kt09]

I somehow missed out on the trite vitriol against one studio and walked into an unrelated banal conversation about another studio.

No issues on my end in terms of Fox's characterization of their villains outside of the latest Dr Doom.
Shaw, Francis, Apocalypse, Sentinels...not much dimensionality to them, but they sure left an impression.
Wonder how Vaughn tops Valentine in the next Kingsman.

 

[DACrowe]

This. Marvel has never had a villain anywhere near as bad as Dr. Doom or Electro or Lex Luthor, and that's just what the three competing studios have done in the last two years.

True. But see my previous post. They have never had a particularly memorable villain either, and I think their formula does not really permit one. Hopefully, since the Infinity War movies are meant to be an ending of sorts of everything that came before, it will allow them to finally build something special with Thanos. But I am not holding my breath.

I thought both Stane and Pierce were good villains. I liked Cross as well.

Stane was fine for what they needed, an origin movie villain. But he also felt like a weaker version to me of Norman Osborn (evil business man/bad mentor) and Ra's Al Ghul (also an evil mentor). But who doesn't love Jeff Bridges?

I thought Redford was wasted in The Winter Soldier. Who's Cross, though? Do you mean Crossbones?

Throw Red Skull in there as well. I found him pretty effective.
Not to mention Kingpin and Kilgrave.

I mean opinions are different, but really Red Skull? He is the bottom of the barrel to me after Maliketh. The script treated him like an afterthought and you could see the boredom on Hugo Weaving's face... and Hugo Weaving is a great character actor.

I agree with Kilgrave and Fisk being great villains. But those aren't Marvel Studios, they're Marvel Television, who puts a lot more effort into that than the Feige formula model.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

True. But see my previous post. They have never had a particularly memorable villain either, and I think their formula does not really permit one. Hopefully, since the Infinity War movies are meant to be an ending of sorts of everything that came before, it will allow them to finally build something special with Thanos. But I am not holding my breath.

I guess it comes down to what you think is more important, a high ceiling or a high floor.

Personally, in an on-going multi-film franchise, I think avoiding a franchise derailing disaster is extremely important.

 

[Mad Ones]

I thought both Stane and Pierce were good villains. I liked Cross as well.

Stane was boring to begin with. Pierce and Cross are derivatives of a boring villain. Absolutely no variety.

 

[DACrowe]

I guess it comes down to what you think is more important, a high ceiling or a high floor.

Personally, in an on-going multi-film franchise, I think avoiding a franchise derailing disaster is extremely important.

You might be right. But when they all are swinging for singles, it eventually becomes boring. I mean we are seriously 13 movies into this franchise, if we view it like that, and none of the heroes have felt really truly tested or pushed to their limit. Half of the time the third act plays like a lark.

 

[Zarex]

Stane was boring to begin with. Pierce and Cross are derivatives of a boring villain. Absolutely no variety.

I'll take the performances of film legends Jeff Bridges and Robert frickin' Redford over the recycled baddies prevalent in so many other comic book movies. They are a major reason Iron Man and The Winter Soldier are two of the all time greats.

 

[Angryfantasyfan]

I'll take the performances of film legends Jeff Bridges and Robert frickin' Redford over the recycled baddies prevalent in so many other comic book movies. They are a major reason Iron Man and The Winter Soldier are two of the all time greats.

Businessman whose ambition, greed, and jealousy drives him to plot the death of his late friend's son. Fanatic, who having failed to use a living symbol to further his cause, seeks to discredit and destroy it. I can see what drew those actors to these roles.

What I like about Darren Cross is that his focus shifts from Pym to Lang. His driving motivation is to prove he's as brilliant as the mentor who rejected him, until he finds out that Hank shared his secrets with a new, unworthy apprentice. He puts off killing Pym to set the trap for Lang and later abducts Cassie just to lure Scott into a fight. Hell hath no fury like a scientist scorned.

 

[DACrowe]

Oh that Cross. He's just a reversal of Stane, except instead of being the angry jilted mentor who is jealous of a power suit, so he makes his own evil version of it that he'll sell to ominous foreign powers, he is an evil protege who is jealous of a power suit, so he makes his own evil version of it that he'll sell to ominous foreign powers (and now HYDRA too!).

See what I mean by formulaic?

And yeah, I think Bridges and Redford were attracted by the paycheck and the chance to do one for the grandkids. It was not the screenplays.

 

[Zarex]

And yeah, I think Bridges and Redford were attracted by the paycheck and the chance to do one for the grandkids. It was not the screenplays.

The very wealthy duo were sure lucky to fall bass ackwards into two of the all time best in the genre.

 

[Raiden]

Oh that Cross. He's just a reversal of Stane, except instead of being the angry jilted mentor who is jealous of a power suit, so he makes his own evil version of it that he'll sell to ominous foreign powers, he is an evil protege who is jealous of a power suit, so he makes his own evil version of it that he'll sell to ominous foreign powers (and now HYDRA too!).

See what I mean by formulaic?

And yeah, I think Bridges and Redford were attracted by the paycheck and the chance to do one for the grandkids. It was not the screenplays.

You are really selling these two great actors short. Jeff Bridges absolutely did not phone in his performance as Stane, nor did Redford as Pierce. And how can you to imply that Redford did it for the paycheck? If you look at his Filmography you'll know that Redford always chooses his project carefully, and TWS is the only CBM he appeared in. It's easy to see why he accepted the role of Pierce, when you see that the movie delves into the issues that Redford is interested in. I think they have done a great job with the characters that they played, and I'd take them over other villains you mentioned such as Pfeiffer's Catwoman and Hardy's Bane. In fact, I didn't see anything great about Bane in TDKR, anyway.

 

[DACrowe]

The very wealthy duo were sure lucky to fall bass ackwards into two of the all time best in the genre.

If you asked Jeff Bridges, he might actually say something along those lines. In fact, while he calls the movie great, here are his rather mixed thoughts on the whole experience:

http://www.incontention.com/2009/12/01/interview-jeff-bridges/

“They had no script, man,” Bridges exclaims. “They had an outline. We would show up for big scenes every day and we wouldn’t know what we were going to say. We would have to go into our trailer and work on this scene and call up writers on the phone, ‘You got any ideas?’ Meanwhile the crew is tapping their foot on the stage waiting for us to come on.”

Bridges, director Jon Favreau and Robert Downey Jr. would literally act out sequences during primitive rehearsals, Downey taking on Bridges’s role and vice versa, to find and essentially improvise their way to full scenes, the actor recounts. Bridges says that the entire production was probably saved by the improv prowess of the film’s director and star.

“You’ve got the suits from Marvel in the trailer with us saying, ‘No, you wouldn’t say that,'” Bridges remembers. “You would think with a $200 million movie you’d have the **** together, but it was just the opposite. And the reason for that is because they get ahead of themselves. They have a release date before the script, ‘Oh, we’ll have the script before that time,’ and they don’t have their **** together.

“Jon dealt with it so well,” Bridges continues. “It freaked me out. I was very anxious. I like to be prepared. I like to know my lines, man, that’s my school. Very prepared. That was very irritating, and then I just made this adjustment.. It happens in movies a lot where something’s rubbing against your fur and it’s not feeling right, but it’s just the way it is. You can spend a lot of energy *****ing about that or you can figure out how you’re going to do it, how you’re going to play this hand you’ve been dealt. What you can control is how you perceive things and your thinking about it. So I said, ‘Oh, what we’re doing here, we’re making a $200 million student film. We’re all just ****in’ around! We’re playin’. Oh, great!’

 

[DACrowe]

You are really selling these two great actors short. Jeff Bridges absolutely did not phone in his performance as Stane, nor did Redford as Pierce. And how can you to imply that Redford did it for the paycheck? If you look at his Filmography you'll know that Redford always chooses his project carefully, and TWS is the only CBM he appeared in. It's easy to see why he accepted the role of Pierce, when you see that the movie delves into the issues that Redford is interested in. I think they have done a great job with the characters that they played, and I'd take them over other villains you mentioned such as Pfeiffer's Catwoman and Hardy's Bane. In fact, I didn't see anything great about Bane in TDKR, anyway.

I never said they phoned it in. You're probably right the paycheck line is too far. But I suspect it was more that they wanted to experience the superhero wave. I sincerely do not think it was because the screenplay or characters spoke to them because their characters were rather two-dimensional thin, especially Pierce.

I am making myself the bad guy here, so I'll probably stop pushing the point (or as some read this: digging my grave). But I will say that Pfeiffer and Hardy had a noticeable impact on pop culture. Both their Catwoman and Bane performances became iconic, and influenced the comics and video games, and cartoons that came after them to smaller or major degrees, and will still be referenced in news, comedy, or other pop outlets.

The only people who know who "Stane"or "Pierce" are are us, the very nerdy and obsessive about the genre. That is because they left no discernible impression beyond the movies they were in to have a cultural life beyond them.

 

[Angryfantasyfan]

I am making myself the bad guy here, so I'll probably stop pushing the point (or as some read this: digging my grave). But I will say that Pfeiffer and Hardy had a noticeable impact on pop culture. Both their Catwoman and Bane performances became iconic, and influenced the comics and video games, and cartoons that came after them to smaller or major degrees, and will still be referenced in news, comedy, or other pop outlets.

The only people who know who "Stane"or "Pierce" are are us, the very nerdy and obsessive about the genre. That is because they left no discernible impression beyond the movies they were in to have a cultural life beyond them.

You don't think their costumes have a lot to do with it? Pierce and Stane are villains; Bane and Catwoman are supervillains.

Redford on the role:

There's no mustache twirling needed, Redford says. In fact, Pierce doesn't see what he's doing as villainy at all.

"I love the argument where he's saying, basically, it's almost like Malthusian law: He says, 'Look, we're wasting 20 million people to save 7 billion,' " Redford says. "He thinks it's a brilliant idea. I enjoyed taking a point of view that was so dark by standard thought and yet putting it forward in a way that seemed totally logical."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2014/04/09/robert-redford-captain-america/7434737/

 

[PelvicSorcery]

Marvel's villains are definitely weakened by having solo films within a shared universe. With that formula you know most villains are going to be one and done, which greatly diminishes their threat and their screentime. Loki is the main exception and it's no surprise he's singled out as the best.

You're rarely going to get a Darth Vader or even a Magneto without having multiple films to develop them as characters and threats to the main characters. If Darth Vader only had Episode IV, he wouldn't be the iconic poster child of the perfect blockbuster villain. It was the followup films that added dimension to his characterization, strengthened his ties to the protagonist, and raised the stakes by showing how menacing and powerful he can be by having him "win" one of the battles.

Maybe they can accomplish that with Thanos, but I think there have been too many films in this franchise to really sell him as the "marquee villain" of the series. We'll see.

I think Batman films seem to be the exception to this, but his rogues gallery is so strong and already culturally iconic that it's hard to make them dull. They're costumed supervillains, not nefarious businessmen like Marvel has used. This is also true of Spider-Man to a lesser extent, but The Avengers don't have as many instantly recognizable villains to choose from.