I fear that Strange will fail and be the least successful MCU film

[Oscorp]

Who cares about risks as long as the movies are great?

 

[Chesterfield]

Marvel haven't taken any big risks? Ok, it's clear to me that some people don't know what they're talking about.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Exactly, why ditch a winning formula?

Because repetitive and dull?

 

[Stark Bauer]

So, I think you misunderstood my statement. I'm saying that Marvel, like Pixar, or heck, Cheesecake Factory, has gained success by following a tried and true formula. Because of this, saying that they have taken a huge risk, while still following that formula is silly.

If your argument is that GL and BvS were also following a tried and true formula, I would disagree. They were, if anything, trying to follow the TDK formula, which is proven it doesn't work as well for other characters, and even TDKR couldn't match TDK. If your argument is that GL or BvS shouldn't be considered big risks, then I agree 100%, WB/DC failed on something that shold have been easy.

If you're saying that the Marvel formula, which as I said involves a certain type of character and arc is unrelated to the story, then you'll need to explain how character and character arc is separate from story, because everyone else assures me they are deeply connected. If you believe that having good early buzz or critical reception is not connected to having a good story, then you'll have to give some examples of poor stories that had great early buzz or critical reception. From what I understand about the connection between character arc, story, and how that story is received, all these things are connected. The only thing that I didn't mention was familiarity with characters, but since Marvel always adapts characters that are known to comic book aficionados and not very well known otherwise, one would have to conclude that is part of the Marvel formula as well.

The people who thought Guardians of the Galaxy was going to be a stinker were simply ignorant. Their arguments, as I recall, were mostly 'it's not known' but they simply forgot or didn't realize that Iron Man was not known. If they handled Guardians of the Galaxy like Iron Man (they did) they'd get similar success (they did). There was also this weird misbelief that Guardians of the Galaxy was about a talking Raccoon and tree, when in reality, GotG was very much about Star Lord and his journey. Marvel has not made a movie starring a talking raccoon, just like they have not made a movie starring Black Widow. It's not proof of anything beyond the Marvel formula working.

There's a lot of people who think flying in a plane is risky and playing the lotto is a sure thing. We should probably ask them why, and see if their reasons make sense.



Going further into Green Lantern, they did not give Hal Jordan the stereotypical Marvel arc. They didn't really give him an arc at all, and if they did, it was the 'overcoming fear' type arc from TDK. The Marvel arc, the one that has worked so well for Iron Man, Thor, Ant-Man, Star Lord and now Dr. Strange.

1) Guy is super talented charming *****e.
2) Guy gets screwed up because of his own jerkishness
3) Person offers to help guy, kicking off the hero's journey peppered with good humor
4) Guy realizes he needs help/friends, gets their help with a weak big bad
5) Guy realizes he shouldn't be self centered and offers to sacrifice himself

That's the arc, and that's what draws people to these characters. Because we know this story works, then if someone says it's a huge risk, we have to ask: what basis do you have for saying it's a huge risk? Does it not have the thing that made the last movie successful? It gives us all the same thing we liked about the last movies. So how is it a risk? If making Iron Man isn't a huge risk, how is making Iron Man with magic a huge risk?

Marvel takes risks. It took a risk on RDJ, it took a risk on Whedon, it took a risk with Hulk and with Captain America. Some of those paid off, some didn't. But they haven't taken a huge risk yet, and if they did, doing magic or a new character, things that have proven themselves at the box office time and time again isn't it.

I must ask:

1. What is your definition of risk? What differentiates a "huge" risk from moderate risk?

You stated that Marvel is using a formulaic story arc, and so were DC with the TDK story arc. There is no guarantee that simply plugging in the formula Marvel's hero journey or TDK will work for every character.

I believe that takes discernment as to knowing when using that structure is appropriate and when using a different story arc is more appropriate.

It takes an intimate understanding of a character in order to execute this properly - what makes Spider Man appeal to the mainstream for example. Is it simply his appearance and sense of humour? I would say it is a combination of his geekiness as Peter but when he becomes Spider Man it is empowering and it enables him to gain the self confidence and social acceptance that was lacking in his normal life. Also I stress that he should have problems of most teenage boys.

My point is when the writers understand the character and write the story around that character, the formula will be secondary. It is more important that the story be character driven and there is a progression. The Marvel formula you described is common to the comic book genre. It is coincidental that Marvel just happens to use it. That's like saying every horror movie needs a killer whose identity is a mystery. A protagonist rises to defeat them, usually someone that has a common history with the killer, or their fates have been intertwined. The killer is killed by the protagonist. Only to mysteriously come back to life.

I could reword what you described as The Marvel formula as:
1) Guy is super talented charming *****e. we are introduced to our protagonist, who seems to live a normal life, but is a social outcast
2) Guy gets screwed up because of his own jerkishness something bad happens to our protagonist that is beyond their control, and changes their life permanently
3) Person offers to help guy, kicking off the hero's journey peppered with good humorour protagonist discovers that they have super powers and starts learning to use them for selfish reasons
4) Guy realizes he needs help/friends, gets their help with a weak big badour protagonist is faced with a crossroads decision to take control of their destiny by overcoming the epitome of their greatest weakness/fear
5) Guy realizes he shouldn't be self centered and offers to sacrifice himselfour protagonist makes the decision to overcome by rising to the challenge, realizing their true potential, finding their place in society, but most of all to have control

I don't see this as a formula. It is more of a comic book story telling device. I believe every genre has a particular plot structure. The Marvel one is well known and used by other publishers as well, not just Marvel.

 

[Brian Braddock]

Because repetitive and dull?

To you maybe, but the evidence suggests that scores of other folk think otherwise.

 

[DrCosmic]

I must ask:

1. What is your definition of risk? What differentiates a "huge" risk from moderate risk?

You stated that Marvel is using a formulaic story arc, and so were DC with the TDK story arc. There is no guarantee that simply plugging in the formula Marvel's hero journey or TDK will work for every character.

I believe that takes discernment as to knowing when using that structure is appropriate and when using a different story arc is more appropriate.

It takes an intimate understanding of a character in order to execute this properly - what makes Spider Man appeal to the mainstream for example. Is it simply his appearance and sense of humour? I would say it is a combination of his geekiness as Peter but when he becomes Spider Man it is empowering and it enables him to gain the self confidence and social acceptance that was lacking in his normal life. Also I stress that he should have problems of most teenage boys.

My point is when the writers understand the character and write the story around that character, the formula will be secondary. It is more important that the story be character driven and there is a progression. The Marvel formula you described is common to the comic book genre. It is coincidental that Marvel just happens to use it. That's like saying every horror movie needs a killer whose identity is a mystery. A protagonist rises to defeat them, usually someone that has a common history with the killer, or their fates have been intertwined. The killer is killed by the protagonist. Only to mysteriously come back to life.

I could reword what you described as The Marvel formula as:
1) Guy is super talented charming *****e. we are introduced to our protagonist, who seems to live a normal life, but is a social outcast
2) Guy gets screwed up because of his own jerkishness something bad happens to our protagonist that is beyond their control, and changes their life permanently
3) Person offers to help guy, kicking off the hero's journey peppered with good humorour protagonist discovers that they have super powers and starts learning to use them for selfish reasons
4) Guy realizes he needs help/friends, gets their help with a weak big badour protagonist is faced with a crossroads decision to take control of their destiny by overcoming the epitome of their greatest weakness/fear
5) Guy realizes he shouldn't be self centered and offers to sacrifice himselfour protagonist makes the decision to overcome by rising to the challenge, realizing their true potential, finding their place in society, but most of all to have control

I don't see this as a formula. It is more of a comic book story telling device. I believe every genre has a particular plot structure. The Marvel one is well known and used by other publishers as well, not just Marvel.

Um.... you're generalizing very specific points.

1) Iron Man, Thor, Star-Lord, Ant-Man and Dr. Strange aren't social outcasts living normal lives at all. Their flaw is self centeredness and their redeeming quality is charm. That's a very specific choice that works for them, that they keep making, even if it's not at all based on the characters' comics versions (Star-Lord, Ant-Man).

2) Stark, Thor, Star-Lord, Ant-Man and Dr. Strange are not screwed up by things beyond their control. Stark's own recklessly sold weapons, Thor's warmongering, Star-Lord and Ant-Man's thievery and Dr. Strange texting and driving, things well within their control and directly related to their flaw.

3) Are you sure you're taling about Thor, Ant-Man, and Dr. Strange? Because that only arguably applies to Star Lord and Stark.

4/5) You can restate a specific as a generalization, but that's not a counter to the fact that the specific keeps repeating itself, just obsfuscating. Which is why you don't see the formula.

In this context: A huge risk is something that everything is riding on that does not make sense on paper, i.e. doesn't have a number of successful implementations of something similar that you can refer to. A moderate risk is anything less than that that isn't a sure thing.

You do make one good point while ignoring mine though. A formula doesn't work for every hero. That's true, and DC still hasn't figured that out. Marvel did, and so they ended up prioritizing heroes who work with that formula, even if twisting them out of their comics form a bit. Ant-Man, Guardians of the Galaxy and Dr. Strange are not the foremost B/C-Listers in the MCU's catalog, but they have movies out before the likes of more demanded characters like Black Panther, Captian Marvel and the Inhumans. So while formula is secondary to character, formula is a way that we can correlate how Marvel prioritizes characters, and I've never seen any others. It certainly isn't the characters that determine what characters are produced, but the formula.

This, again, is not to say that the MCU doesn't take risks. I think they take very smart calculated risks in their talent choices, evidenced by how some of them don't work out. Films that fall outside of this perennially successful formula like: TIH, CATFA, CATWS are hit and miss. I think though they've discovered a formula for the Avengers in CATWS, which they expanded to make it Avengers-sized in CACW. People weren't vocal about Avengers 3/4 until after Civil War, when people experienced a functional non-origin Avengers dynamic, and they loved it. It also gave them a formula for sequels in terms of having your principal charcter be static and turning it into a team up film to expand that corner of the world. IM2 was on the right track, but people had backlash against the SHIELD bits, so they tried to instead only expand into what people wanted most in Thor 2, and that didn't land, but Cap 2 struck the sweet spot, and so that seems to be what they're doing with Thor 3, Ant-Man and Wasp, GotG 2 and even Dr. Strange 2 promises [blackout]a hunt for more sorcerors. [/blackout]

But this idea that the popularity of a film is in any way limited by the popularity of the comic book, thus making Dr. Strange "risky" just hasn't been paying attention to the response to superhero movies. If anything, the most popular comic book characters are the riskiest, judging by how often they fall short. The real risks, based on what has legitimate reason to fail are Black Panther and Captain Marvel, though even those characters aren't entirely beyond the Marvel Formula, but even them not being white males puts them outside of it and would be received differently in society, honestly. It'll be interesting to see what happens with those films, and you'll be able to tell within the first five minutes whether they're twisting these characters to fit the Marvel formula or doing something differently. If the latter, proven banner characters like Black Panther and Captain Marvel will be a much greater risk than supposedly risky characters like Guardians of the Galaxy and Dr. Strange.

Exception that proves the rule: Spider-Man homecoming. Which is following the Breakfast Club formula instead of the typical Marvel one.

 

[Darkraid]

Because repetitive and dull?

It won't be when you mix use and new ideas together.

 

[Stark Bauer]

Um.... you're generalizing very specific points.

1) Iron Man, Thor, Star-Lord, Ant-Man and Dr. Strange aren't social outcasts living normal lives at all. Their flaw is self centeredness and their redeeming quality is charm. That's a very specific choice that works for them, that they keep making, even if it's not at all based on the characters' comics versions (Star-Lord, Ant-Man).

2) Stark, Thor, Star-Lord, Ant-Man and Dr. Strange are not screwed up by things beyond their control. Stark's own recklessly sold weapons, Thor's warmongering, Star-Lord and Ant-Man's thievery and Dr. Strange texting and driving, things well within their control and directly related to their flaw.

3) Are you sure you're taling about Thor, Ant-Man, and Dr. Strange? Because that only arguably applies to Star Lord and Stark.

4/5) You can restate a specific as a generalization, but that's not a counter to the fact that the specific keeps repeating itself, just obsfuscating. Which is why you don't see the formula.

In this context: A huge risk is something that everything is riding on that does not make sense on paper, i.e. doesn't have a number of successful implementations of something similar that you can refer to. A moderate risk is anything less than that that isn't a sure thing.

You do make one good point while ignoring mine though. A formula doesn't work for every hero. That's true, and DC still hasn't figured that out. Marvel did, and so they ended up prioritizing heroes who work with that formula, even if twisting them out of their comics form a bit. Ant-Man, Guardians of the Galaxy and Dr. Strange are not the foremost B/C-Listers in the MCU's catalog, but they have movies out before the likes of more demanded characters like Black Panther, Captian Marvel and the Inhumans. So while formula is secondary to character, formula is a way that we can correlate how Marvel prioritizes characters, and I've never seen any others. It certainly isn't the characters that determine what characters are produced, but the formula.

This, again, is not to say that the MCU doesn't take risks. I think they take very smart calculated risks in their talent choices, evidenced by how some of them don't work out. Films that fall outside of this perennially successful formula like: TIH, CATFA, CATWS are hit and miss. I think though they've discovered a formula for the Avengers in CATWS, which they expanded to make it Avengers-sized in CACW. People weren't vocal about Avengers 3/4 until after Civil War, when people experienced a functional non-origin Avengers dynamic, and they loved it. It also gave them a formula for sequels in terms of having your principal charcter be static and turning it into a team up film to expand that corner of the world. IM2 was on the right track, but people had backlash against the SHIELD bits, so they tried to instead only expand into what people wanted most in Thor 2, and that didn't land, but Cap 2 struck the sweet spot, and so that seems to be what they're doing with Thor 3, Ant-Man and Wasp, GotG 2 and even Dr. Strange 2 promises [blackout]a hunt for more sorcerors. [/blackout]

But this idea that the popularity of a film is in any way limited by the popularity of the comic book, thus making Dr. Strange "risky" just hasn't been paying attention to the response to superhero movies. If anything, the most popular comic book characters are the riskiest, judging by how often they fall short. The real risks, based on what has legitimate reason to fail are Black Panther and Captain Marvel, though even those characters aren't entirely beyond the Marvel Formula, but even them not being white males puts them outside of it and would be received differently in society, honestly. It'll be interesting to see what happens with those films, and you'll be able to tell within the first five minutes whether they're twisting these characters to fit the Marvel formula or doing something differently. If the latter, proven banner characters like Black Panther and Captain Marvel will be a much greater risk than supposedly risky characters like Guardians of the Galaxy and Dr. Strange.

Exception that proves the rule: Spider-Man homecoming. Which is following the Breakfast Club formula instead of the typical Marvel one.

Regarding your Marvel formula, it cannot be applied to all the Marvel Studios films, specifically the origin stories. Yes there are similar story beats and arcs, but I am going to have to stick by my original statement that I believe this is a storytelling device related to plot structure that is shared by superhero comic books. Perhaps we can boil the argument down to hermeneutics; you want to call it a formula and I want to call it something else. I appreciate You discerning these common structures and why they are effective.

I too perceive that Marvel Studios' films share some formulaic cinematic plot devices and stylistic choices in terms of common thematic elements, common motivations for their protagonists, as well as the tone of their scripts. I am not sure where this discussion is going but it has been a pleasure to read your insightful thoughts on this topic.

 

[ernesth100]

300million in the BO and counting. I think we're safe.

 

[DrCosmic]

Regarding your Marvel formula, it cannot be applied to all the Marvel Studios films, specifically the origin stories. Yes there are similar story beats and arcs, but I am going to have to stick by my original statement that I believe this is a storytelling device related to plot structure that is shared by superhero comic books. Perhaps we can boil the argument down to hermeneutics; you want to call it a formula and I want to call it something else. I appreciate You discerning these common structures and why they are effective.

I too perceive that Marvel Studios' films share some formulaic cinematic plot devices and stylistic choices in terms of common thematic elements, common motivations for their protagonists, as well as the tone of their scripts. I am not sure where this discussion is going but it has been a pleasure to read your insightful thoughts on this topic.

I think it's entirely possible that the MCU formula, for lack of a better word, may have grown out of a Marvel Comics formula, but it's not necessarily intrinsic to comic books, from my observation. We see it in many popular films, like Jerry Macguire, and we don't see it many popular comic books, like Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman. We *do* see the beginnings of it in Iron Man, Spider-Man, Thor and Dr. Strange's origin stories in comics though, so it's not entirely unprecedented, but I think the way it plays out in comics differs much more widely, and naturally so, than it does in the MCU, and we also see it totally missing in cases of characters like Star Lord or Scott Lang in the comics.

 

[Set]

The Heroes Journey story structure/'formula' predates comic books by at least 3000 years.

As long as humanity retains the capacity to tell and enjoy stories, it will not suddenly magically go stale and stop putting asses in seats, whether the 'hero' of the story is named Odysseus, Flash Gordon, Dr. Strange or Rey totally-not-Skywalker.

 

[Batmannerism]

This is absolutely spot on:

The Heroes Journey story structure/'formula' predates comic books by at least 3000 years.

As long as humanity retains the capacity to tell and enjoy stories, it will not suddenly magically go stale and stop putting asses in seats, whether the 'hero' of the story is named Odysseus, Flash Gordon, Dr. Strange or Rey totally-not-Skywalker.

Interestingly, both Kung Fu Panda and Speed Racer are totally "hero's journey" films, particularly Kung Fu Panda. Set is correct, the formula works, and will probably work for Dr Strange as it's a "magic" formula ha ha ha -okay that pun sucked, sorry.

But also, have you seen Dr Strange ? It's amazing ! If it was ****, it would be something to be nervous about. However, nothing could be further from the truth, it's Marvel's best origin movie since Iron Man - and with visuals that will blow your mind.

 

[OcStat]

^ Hi5!

 

[Stark Bauer]

I think it's entirely possible that the MCU formula, for lack of a better word, may have grown out of a Marvel Comics formula, but it's not necessarily intrinsic to comic books, from my observation. We see it in many popular films, like Jerry Macguire, and we don't see it many popular comic books, like Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman. We *do* see the beginnings of it in Iron Man, Spider-Man, Thor and Dr. Strange's origin stories in comics though, so it's not entirely unprecedented, but I think the way it plays out in comics differs much more widely, and naturally so, than it does in the MCU, and we also see it totally missing in cases of characters like Star Lord or Scott Lang in the comics.

Well said. I appreciate your analysis. I would like to know your thoughts on the hero's journey that is used in so many films...A New Hope in particular executed it flawlessly...how come it works for some but fails in other instances? Have you noticed this structure being used in CBMs? I want to see John Carter because I have a feeling they may have used this plot structure

Best examples of The Hero's Journey:
The story of Joseph in Genesis
Original Star Wars Trilogy
Spartacus
Lawrence of Arabia
Gladiator
Robocop
Lion King
The Matrix
Lord of the Rings Trilogy
Iron Man

 

[OcStat]

Characters.

If you don't give a damn about the hero on the journey, that film is dead in the water.

And I can second that yes, the formula, tone, what have you, in the MCU is directly pulled from the pages of the source material. Back up to the first three mainstream Marvel films. Blade, X-Men, Spider-Man. All of them strike that right balance between action character and drama that was inherent in the pages they were adapting from.

 

[Batmannerism]

Characters.

If you don't give a damn about the hero on the journey, that film is dead in the water.
.

Good point - and probably why nobody liked Ryan Reynolds as Green Lantern.

Still, that's not a problem for Dr Strange. Marvel has got around this possible flaw in the formula with good (sometimes great) casting choices, and stories that entertain.

 

[daddydivine]

To answer OP's question. You were wrong... because Marvel.

 

[ehh]

Well your fear can be put to rest, because Doctor Strange is a success. Marvel just keeps on killing it!

 

[Flint Marko]

GOAT

Spoiler

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

one year later and with everything we know now, don't worry. this movie will be the CBM of the year

I was not wrong

 

[Wildcard]

Funny that people were worried about this failing & it's going to end up making more money than Deadpool and Suicide Squad. Ha!

 

[ehh]

"Sorry Marvel, ‘Batman v. Superman’ Transcends Superhero Movies."

 

[Silver Surfer]

"Sorry Marvel, ‘Batman v. Superman’ Transcends Superhero Movies."

Dat Marvel Flavor of the month eh? Where you at Snyder?

 

[ehh]

Dat Marvel Flavor of the month eh? Where you at Snyder?

Now Snyder is eating his own words. He had 2 of the most popular superheroes ever and failed to make a movie that could compete with the quality of B and C list characters like Ant Man or Doctor Strange.

 

[Set]

Now Snyder is eating his own words. He had 2 of the most popular superheroes ever and failed to make a movie that could compete with the quality of B and C list characters like Ant Man or Doctor Strange.

So true.

As a comic book fan (not a 'Marvel fan' or a 'DC fan' any more than I'm a Comico fan, or an Aircel fan, or a Top Cow fan), I *want* there to be a great Superman movie. Marvel can make me love movies about characters I *don't* want to see on-screen, and end up watching them over and over, like Iron Man or the Guardians of the Galaxy.

I'll be going into the theater to see Wonder Woman thinking 'please don't suck, please don't suck' instead of 'this is going to be great!' and that's annoying.

But I *will* be going to the theater to see it, so apparently I never learn...

(Thank goodness DC are so darn invested in their holy trinity or big seven, or whatever, and won't get around to releasing a terrible Legion of Super-Heroes or Teen Titans or Young Justice movie any time soon. Let the DC animation side of things keep getting it so, so right, as they did with Young Justice and Justice League Unlimited.)