Marvel Studios Increases Output = Too Many Superhero Movies?

[MessiahDecoy123]

Marvel Studios will begin releasing 3 movies per year in 2017.

Will this strategy over-saturate the market for superhero movies?

 

[Tanin]

Three action films a year seems reasonable. Kudos if some are more drama or romance.

 

[MiffaLadd_]

I think it depends on the level of marketing. ASM2 level and I think it could be annoying, but we know MS are not particularly bad for that.

 

[cph9fa]

Marvel Studios will begin releasing 3 movies per year in 2017.

Will this strategy over-saturate the market for superhero movies?

So far, Marvel's been good at making their films pretty unique from each other.

But there's only one way to find out for sure... t:

 

[def28]

Will this strategy over-saturate the market for superhero movies?

Nah, as long as the films are good and stand on their own everything will be more then cool. They need to do this.

If they want to release Ms Marvel, Inhumans, Cap, GOTG, Thor, Doc Strange, Ant Man, Avengers etc Then they really will have no choice but to release more a year. They will need more sequels for existing properties. Can't be done with two a year with that many properties. Unless folks want to start waiting 5 years for each story to continue, which would completely slow down the connectivity of the whole connected franchise.

 

[StarkTheProdigy]

The great thing about Marvel is that they mix it up and constantly offer a variety of different films.

 

[OnTheAir]

Let's be honest, it is a lot. Because it's not just the MCU films...it's Sony's Spider-Man and Fantastic Four films, Fox's X-Men films and whatever DC/Warner Bros will be doing in addition to Batman V Superman and Justice League.

They are all running the risk of burning the general audience out on the genre.

But for me? This. Is. Awesome!

 

[samsnee]

I think Marvel is betting on their movies being better critically than the others. Honestly, I feel they need to space them out. If you want to be a studio that lasts 50 years, then this is a quick way to burn out creatively and not make it. It's not like they can make any other kind of movie besides superhero movies.

 

[Eddie]

Marvel's smart. They're not really making the stereotypical superhero film anymore. Iron Man 3 was a Shane Black action movie with a superhero twist, TDW was a fantasy film with a superhero twist, TWS was a political thriller with a superhero twist, and GotG has a raccoon that blows **** up.

I kinda hope they increase the output of raccoon blowing **** up movies, though. The world needs more of those.

 

[samsnee]

But they are still making superhero films. They may have different flavors to them, but they can't make something that isn't based on a comic book they have the rights to. Warner Brothers may never have a successful DC universe, but DC's failure won't mean WB will have to shut down.

 

[Eddie]

I think Marvel is betting on their movies being better critically than the others. Honestly, I feel they need to space them out. If you want to be a studio that lasts 50 years, then this is a quick way to burn out creatively and not make it. It's not like they can make any other kind of movie besides superhero movies.

Nonsense. Marvel can make westerns (Two Gun Kid, Phantom Rider), monster movies (Werewolf By Night, Tomb of Dracula), comedies (Howard the Duck, Great Lakes Avengers), and many other genres. The Marvel Universe is pretty diverse.

 

[Tanin]

But they are still making superhero films. They may have different flavors to them, but they can't make something that isn't based on a comic book they have the rights to. Warner Brothers may never have a successful DC universe, but DC's failure won't mean WB will have to shut down.

They are owned by Disney.... They can shift into non Marvel films if they so wish.

 

[Fincher]

Superheroes can't stay on top forever. It's not a question of whether they'll burn out, but rather when. Increasing the output will speed up the clock, but I'm not prepared to say exactly when the general audience's interest will fade.

 

[samsnee]

Nonsense. Marvel can make westerns (Two Gun Kid, Phantom Rider), monster movies (Werewolf By Night, Tomb of Dracula), comedies (Howard the Duck, Great Lakes Avengers), and many other genres. The Marvel Universe is pretty diverse.

I'll be the first to buy everyone tickets if any of those movies happen. I think if they were created as stand alone movies, they might actually be good. The problem with having a connected universe is that you have to be strategic about what you connect. Otherwise you get into a mess of continuity errors, and unlike the comics, you can't just hand wave them away with a couple of panels.

I love Marvel Studio films. But I just don't see them lasting more than 20 years at this rate, regardless of how far out they've mapped themselves.

 

[samsnee]

They are owned by Disney.... They can shift into non Marvel films if they so wish.

Huh? Do you mean Disney or Marvel? You're saying Marvel can make a romantic comedy without any comic book influence? Marvel is its own movie studio. DC is not.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I think Marvel is betting on their movies being better critically than the others. Honestly, I feel they need to space them out. If you want to be a studio that lasts 50 years, then this is a quick way to burn out creatively and not make it. It's not like they can make any other kind of movie besides superhero movies.

I think Disney wants Marvel to shoot out lots of movies while there's still a superhero craze at the box office.

When it comes to superhero movies the plan is "to get rich or kill the genre trying".

 

[samsnee]

I think Disney wants Marvel to shoot out lots of movies while there's still a superhero craze at the box office.

When it comes to superhero movies the plan is "to get rich or kill the genre trying".

This. If there's one thing Hollywood lives by is: if something works, keep doing it over and over til everyone is sick of it.

 

[Fincher]

I think Disney wants Marvel to shoot out lots of movies while there's still a superhero craze at the box office.

When it comes to superhero movies the plan is "to get rich or kill the genre trying".

It can also be seen as good for the creative types at Marvel. If only so many more superhero films can be made before the genre crashes, then Marvel might want to keep pace with WB so that a significant number of those are Marvel Studios movies. I mean, provided that there are specific stories they'd like to tell for the sake of telling them.

 

[Jasyn]

Marvel Studios was created with the sole purpose to make movies of their own comic book properties, a huge library of characters spanning back to 1939 (under back then named Timely Comics, later Atlas Comics). Marvel Studios didn't come into being to fund art house film school projects or to make Shakespearean Renascence pieces, or Romantic (non-CBM) Comedies, but that doesn't say they can't or won't ever do that. For anyone to argue that Marvel Studios is making or will make too many comic book movies just doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Nah, as long as the films are good and stand on their own everything will be more then cool. They need to do this.

If they want to release Ms Marvel, Inhumans, Cap, GOTG, Thor, Doc Strange, Ant Man, Avengers etc Then they really will have no choice but to release more a year. They will need more sequels for existing properties. Can't be done with two a year with that many properties. Unless folks want to start waiting 5 years for each story to continue, which would completely slow down the connectivity of the whole connected franchise.

I also agree with this.

 

[Spade]

"Too many superhero movies" has been proclaimed many times this decade, and audiences continue to prove it's not an issue. Remember 2011? One slow summer with an outright bomb in the form of Green Lantern, and "superhero movies are finally starting to cool off." 2012? The Avengers, and a 1.5 billion dollar take. Truth is, there are too many superhero movies for people who don't like superhero movies to begin with, so even one is one too much. The closest we'd come to critical mass is if Warner Bros. adopts a similar strategy. For now, they only have one film scheduled two years from now, so it's safe to say we're still a ways off from the foretold Supermoviepocalypse.

 

[Shikamaru]

It shouldn't be a problem assuming they're all good and unique from one another. If we get a Thor 2 every year though, then it would be.

 

[Shikamaru]

I think Disney wants Marvel to shoot out lots of movies while there's still a superhero craze at the box office.

When it comes to superhero movies the plan is "to get rich or kill the genre trying".

I hope not. If they rush these films just to get them "in" before the craze dies out, that's exactly what will make it die out in the first place.

 

[The.Brotherhood]

They're simply doing this to kill the competition.

Marvel / Lucasfilm / Pixar under one umbrella that is the Disney brand.

Won't surprised me when at one point in the future they'll squeeze in something like this:

Fox / WB put out a blockbuster flick like an Xmen film for fox and a Batman/Supe/JLA type of film for WB all in the same date of let say May 5th then disney will put out theirs

Pirates - May
Star Wars / Spin-Off - May
Marvel - May
Pixar - May
Disney movie ala Frozen - May

Suicide but these are FRANCHISES that can take a hit....maybe I'm wrong but the power of the mouse is strong...this is just my take on A SCENARIO.


To put into perspective, Marvel layed out their dates to claim territorial dates per se. Because of these date claims they have this superiority of putting out films first with uber confidence of advantage (yes I know it's childish) but when WB decides to put the BvS dates to the same date of May 6th as a Marvel film (which is Cap 3) they were ridicule by some and that ladies and gentlemen is ADVANTAGE for Marvel.

ONE STEP FURTHER AHEAD OF THE COMPETITION. (since 2008)

 

[psylockolussus]

I don't mind it as long as it doesn't hurt the X-Men film series. The more superhero films the merrier.