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

[Lantern Venom]

Doubting Marvel Studios...

When will people learn.

At this point, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Kevin Feige showed up at a con, farted, and it turned into flecks of gold.

 

[Stark Bauer]

Seeing Doctor Strange made me realize that Marvel can make even a f***ing Squirrel Girl film work.

It also made realize that Warner has really f***ed up with the DCEU. Marvel has now made a Doctor Strange movie, yet it's taken them this long to make a movie for Wonder Woman?!

The Box office is ripe for a Squirrel Girl movie. Deadpool proved that what may appear to be a niche audience, in reality, has a very devoted hardcore cult following that will watch the film multiple times and spread word of mouth and passionately promote it to their friends and everyone they meet. Plus it's just such a unique fresh character that it's practically a foolproof situation if they can nail casting, the direction and most of all the story

 

[Stark Bauer]

Howard the Duck by Marvel Studios would make over 400 m WW.

They would use the best of the source material and make it appealling for the general public.

They have their own screenwriter schools that specialize in this.

This would be achieved pretty easily by Marvel Studios partnering up with Pixar and getting one of Pixars writers to pen the story and possibly direct too

 

[Silver Surfer]

I do want a Howard the Duck movie dammit, someone get George Lucas back on it.

 

[Brian Braddock]

Threads like this are absolute gold when read retrospectively.

 

[horacethegrey]

The Box office is ripe for a Squirrel Girl movie. Deadpool proved that what may appear to be a niche audience, in reality, has a very devoted hardcore cult following that will watch the film multiple times and spread word of mouth and passionately promote it to their friends and everyone they meet. Plus it's just such a unique fresh character that it's practically a foolproof situation if they can nail casting, the direction and most of all the story

And Deadpool was made by Fox of all people. The very studio that wanted nothing to do with the character, and by all reports reluctantly funded it. I guess they're changing their tune now given the box office, no?

Marvel Studios on the other hand, is willing to make movies on even the most outlandish properties. A magic based superhero? A space opera with a gun toting raccoon and a talking tree? If the idea is there, Marvel will pool their resources to make it happen. It's why I scoff at the notion that they don't take risks and are 'safe'. They take incredible risks by introducing new properties for cinema audiences instead of relying on popular stuff like X-Men and Spider-Man (whose film rights they don't own btw). Meanwhile here's DC Warner who's only now releasing a Wonder Woman movie next year.

 

[Stark Bauer]

^ good point, marvel ARE taking huge risks...and they aren't playing it safer...besides GOTG2 we have a risky Spider Man movie which is risky because its no guarantee it will do well since the last Spidey flick bombed

And then skip over Thor we have Black Panther which will be the first major African American super hero film since Blade and then further down Captain Marvel their first female led super hero film. Female led superhero films have a bad boxoffice history..Marvel isn't afraid to take risks and is about exploring new territory

To a lot of industry people and even some of the doubters here, it's like Marvel is playing Minesweeper, pretty soon they will eventually disappoint. But the reality is, they are the ones setting up the board and they are leading us to learn to appreciate their universe. There are no failures in a universe that is built with a solid foundation (Iron Man). Only characters that are loved more or loved less.

 

[Zarex]

Threads like this are absolute gold when read retrospectively.

I often find myself re-reading the old Fant4stic threads before it made its way into theaters. It's shocking the number of posters that were supporting that disaster.

 

[DrCosmic]

Marvel is not taking huge risks. Introducing new properties that audiences don't know all about, even with outlandish concepts is not a huge risk, it used to be normal 20 years ago and it still happens today with films like Inception and Pacific Rim. Not only that, but the properties that Marvel introduces aren't actually new properties at all, but characters who have proven to have popular storylines in other media. Not only that, but they are extensions of a mega franchise, essentially spinoff films. Rogue One is not a 'huge risk' just becuase it's not about Jedi or Skywalker. It's a modest risk, sure, but it's a big budget Star Wars film and it's going to get a lot of eyes on it just for that.

Plus, when they execute these films they make a lot of safe choices. While they occasionally do interesting visuals, and introduce unique characters in support roles, they allow the unique aspects to carry the film. Always spice to help make their archetypical hero's world seem less same-y than the other ones. At the end of the day they make sure to put a white male anti-hero front and center and send him through pretty much the same exact arc as all the others have gone through, and they understand, correctly, that this is the core appeal of Iron Man, Thor, Guardians of the Galaxy, Ant-Man and Dr. Strange alike.

Saying Marvel is taking huge risks by putting out Dr. Strange using their tried and true formula, which has proven to be successful on unknown properties before is like saying Pixar is taking a huge risk by making every single movie it makes about non-humans. But everyone knows when Pixar says it's going to make a movie about feelings, it's going to be a hit. It's not a risk, because they know how to give things feelings - even feelings. Marvel is no different. Them taking their proven formula to different aesthetics isn't a huge risk, and is proven by their box office. But even the fact that it's considered a risk is a huge part of why their formula works so well.

The biggest Risk Marvel has actally taken so far, with the possible exception of the Avengers, is the Winter Soldier. This is a film where a character who does not go through their typical arc at all, and the pacing, players and allegiances move in a way that is substantially different from others. Of course, once they successfully accomplished this, they basically re-did it with more characters in Civil War.

 

[Stark Bauer]

^ I could use the same argument for Green Lantern and BvS...many factors come into play than just a formula.

There's having a good story, the audience's familiarity with a character/s, and generating good buzz early (like Iron Man did at SDCC a year before release), critical reception (both professional and word of mouth), among other factors.

Marvel are on a roll when it comes to story and world building. Guardians was very risky and many were writing and predicting it could and would be Marvels first stinker....simply because the general audience and even comic book geeks like myself didn't know much about them..it's easy to just dismiss it as formulaic after the fact.

 

[SirStrangefolk]

I often find myself re-reading the old Fant4stic threads before it made its way into theaters. It's shocking the number of posters that were supporting that disaster.

I sometimes even go back to the threads of when Iron Man was first announced. It's great to read now what people thought it would be like, who they wanted to cast, people eventually realizing that there might be a chance they'd do a crossover with The Incredible Hulk, etc.

 

[Dark Raven]

Threads like this are absolute gold when read retrospectively.

There was one about how an Avengers movie would never happen.

 

[Limonade]

^ I could use the same argument for Green Lantern and BvS...many factors come into play than just a formula.

There's having a good story, the audience's familiarity with a character/s, and generating good buzz early (like Iron Man did at SDCC a year before release), critical reception (both professional and word of mouth), among other factors.

Marvel are on a roll when it comes to story and world building. Guardians was very risky and many were writing and predicting it could and would be Marvels first stinker....simply because the general audience and even comic book geeks like myself didn't know much about them..it's easy to just dismiss it as formulaic after the fact.

Exactly. Green Lantern attempted the formula Dr. Cosmic just described.

It failed.

So I don't think Dr. Cosmic can say for sure that Marvel is or isn't gambling big on certain superheroes.

All I know is that they're winning most bets they put on the table in regards to their superhero movies.

 

[All-Father]

^ I could use the same argument for Green Lantern and BvS...many factors come into play than just a formula.

There's having a good story, the audience's familiarity with a character/s, and generating good buzz early (like Iron Man did at SDCC a year before release), critical reception (both professional and word of mouth), among other factors.

Marvel are on a roll when it comes to story and world building. Guardians was very risky and many were writing and predicting it could and would be Marvels first stinker....simply because the general audience and even comic book geeks like myself didn't know much about them..it's easy to just dismiss it as formulaic after the fact.

Very well said.

 

[TheVileOne]

Films like Doctor Strange and Guardians of the Galaxy arguably were huge risks.

 

[Wildcard]

Risks that paid off. No way DS is going to be the least successful MCU film. Not when it's off to such a tremendous and promising start. Right now Marvel can make just about anything work. And it's because they approach their projects in a competent manner. That's not changing any time soon.

 

[Stark Bauer]

Don't get me wrong. Marvel DOES have a formula. I believe they are basing it off of what one Jim Shooter (writer of Secret Wars) said that every good comic book must have...

Prescribed story criteria Edit
While Marvel editor-in-chief in 1982, Shooter detailed what he considered the necessary qualities for a good comic book story:

The characters must be introduced.
Their situation must be established.
The conflict must be introduced.
Suspense must be built.
A climax must be reached.
A resolution must be achieved.
. . . When I evaluate a story, should one of the essential elements listed above be missing – say, the characters are not introduced properly when they are brought onstage – I immediately suspect that the author of the "story" knoweth not what he ith [sic] doing.

Second, I look for how well the story is told. Is the conflict worthwhile? Is the climax exciting? Is the resolution satisfying? Is the plot good? Are there interesting twists and turns? Is there a theme? Is there character development? Is it dramatic? Is it entertaining? This is the really important stuff. It should go without saying that a writer or a prospective writer should know enough to meet the fundamental requirements of a story. It's the power and the passion and drama and characterization that I really look for.[51]

I feel like the Marvel Studios films execute this for the most part and are largely successful at this because of someone with Feige's vision overseeing the whole universe. To be honest you need that visionary to ensure quality. It's the same thing Walt Disney brought, what James Cameron does and Kevin Feige has this too.

As an aside, DC has too many heads and their vision is not a unified, unique (different from Marvel) singular focus. I believe they had that with Chris Nolan.
Right now, judging from Justice League and Wonder Woman trailers, it looks more like they are playing catch up and trying very hard to imitate the Marvel brand of humour but not truly understanding what gives them personality:

it's because they make us care about the characters. Marvel makes the stakes personal to their hero, it isn't just about saving the world, it's about saving their own, and overcoming a personality flaw that we all can relate to. We don't just see them as far removed stoic cold blooded gods. We see a little bit of ourselves in them and the possibilities of what we could be if given the opportunity/powers.

 

[TheVileOne]

I think Incredible Hulk is going to be the biggest BO disappointment at Marvel for a while.

A lot of things Marvel has done are risky and to deny as such is just ignorance. No one's done a shared movie universe on this scale ever really. And carry it not just across the movies, but TV shows as well. You could argue that the Netflix initiative was risky as well, but it's turned out to work, but you can argue that risks were taken there because the Netflix shows are so different and they are much darker and more violent and edgy. They are pure TV-MA shows. Yeah we can say because they are enormously successful that it all made so much sense, but you can also argue that the undertaking itself was also a risk.

Look, five years ago, DC and Warner Bros. didn't even want to entertain the idea of a shared movie universe. Avengers single-handedly changed their minds. But no matter what DC does, their shared universe doesn't extend over to TV as well.

You can say it's not risky but this is really uncharted territory in many ways to have a movie franchise that's filled with a bunch of other solo franchises and then a group franchises that comprises all the main characters.

 

[Darkraid]

People always say that Marvel's weakness is the Marvel formula. I hope they NEVER ditch the Marvel Formula. It is important to build brand identity. MCU got their success base on the Marvel formula.

 

[Stark Bauer]

Forgot to mention that the first Iron Man was probably the BIGGEST risk.

They chose a C/D list superhero that wasn't known to the general audience.

Chose an actor who was infamous for his personal life more than his on screen life.

The way the movie was produced written and executed was closer to an indie movie than a Hollywood blockbuster. This was pretty risky to do given that most blockbuster movies were known more for sticking with the genre tropes and clichés. Iron Man broke the mold.

Marvel invested a lot of money and if Iron Man wasn't successful, it would have snuffed out the MCU before could even bud.

 

[Stark Bauer]

People always say that Marvel's weakness is the Marvel formula. I hope they NEVER ditch the Marvel Formula. It is important to build brand identity. MCU got their success base on the Marvel formula.

Marvel's formula = creating a characters who give a damn and that we can give a damn about

They don't all need to be funny. Look at Jon Bernthal's Punisher. He's the most unfunny protagonist in the MCU but he probably has the most passionate fan base out of all the Netlfix heroes.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Films like Doctor Strange and Guardians of the Galaxy arguably were huge risks.

Not as huge as Ant-Man.
We've seen the genres of space exploration and magic numerous times before MCU decided to adapt their characters set in these environments.

 

[DrCosmic]

^ I could use the same argument for Green Lantern and BvS...many factors come into play than just a formula.

There's having a good story, the audience's familiarity with a character/s, and generating good buzz early (like Iron Man did at SDCC a year before release), critical reception (both professional and word of mouth), among other factors.

Marvel are on a roll when it comes to story and world building. Guardians was very risky and many were writing and predicting it could and would be Marvels first stinker....simply because the general audience and even comic book geeks like myself didn't know much about them..it's easy to just dismiss it as formulaic after the fact.

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.

Exactly. Green Lantern attempted the formula Dr. Cosmic just described.

It failed.

So I don't think Dr. Cosmic can say for sure that Marvel is or isn't gambling big on certain superheroes.

All I know is that they're winning most bets they put on the table in regards to their superhero movies.

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.

 

[AlluAllu]

I'd say that Thor: Ragnarok will be at least next year's riskiest Marvel product. Taika Waititi seems crazy. In the best way.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

People always say that Marvel's weakness is the Marvel formula. I hope they NEVER ditch the Marvel Formula. It is important to build brand identity. MCU got their success base on the Marvel formula.

Exactly, why ditch a winning formula?