The Cinematic Universe Takeover

[wampa1]

think about the shyamalan universe. The only thing connecting those films is a reference.

O'rly?

 

[Iceman]

CUs are a difficult thing to get right but pay big dividends when they work out.

 

[Gabe99]

2017 Box Office: The Year Hollywood Kicked Its Cinematic Universe Addiction

Kenneth Branagh has reason to be cheerful about his first shot at an Agatha Christie adaptation. Fox's Murder on the Orient Express, which stars Branagh as Hercule Poirot, has thus far earned a whopping $311 million worldwide, or 5.65x its $55m budget. So it's little surprise that another round is being ordered, specifically an adaptation of Death on the Nile. But I am, sans any criticism or malice, amused at Branagh's discussions of the project as if it were a so-called "cinematic universe." Let's worry about making sure that folks actually flock to an old-school sequel before we worry about the spin-offs, shall we?

If this year taught us anything, it's that audiences don't care about, or are somewhat turned off by, the notion of a so-called cinematic universe. Yes, the Marvel Cinematic Universe is still flying high, but they did it first and I would argue that folks like the MCU movies more because they like the MCU movies than because they exist in a giant interconnected narrative. And as we saw specifically with The Mummy, The Dark Tower and Transformers: The Last Knight, the notion of launching a new cinematic universe, planting a movie within an interconnected world and/or rejiggering an existing franchise for the sake of spin-offs and tie-ins, either didn't quicken the pulse or actively turned audiences away.

If anything, the franchise movies that popped this year, be it the comic book movies (Logan, Wonder Woman, Spider-Man: Homecoming, etc.) or the fantasy actioners (Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales, John Wick Chapter 2, Kong: Skull Island), were somewhat stand-alone sequels or prequels that served themselves first and the franchise second. Even continuity-entrenched "part 8" installments like The Last Jedi, Fate of the Furious and Jigsaw were relatively old-school sequels. And the likes of It and Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle offered close-door narratives even when audiences knew that a sequel was all-but-guaranteed in the event of financial success.


Now it makes sense that Branagh would discuss his desire to make more Agatha Christie movies as a would-be cinematic universe. It's a buzzy phrase and he's not wrong in terms of the potential of Hercule Poirot movies existing alongside Miss Marple movies. I have to wonder if Hollywood would be willing to actually let a big movie get headlined by an "elderly spinster" (although there are plenty of age-appropriate actresses, like Emma Thompson, Meryl Streep or Helen Mirren who could get folks into the theater in such a project). But yeah, a series of period-piece closed-room mystery movies featuring Branagh as Poirot and a cast of names and outright movie stars as would-be suspects could easily sustain a franchise on a semi-regular basis.

But that doesn't mean that the world can sustain a deluge of Poirot movies, Miss Marple movies, and other related Christie protagonists all in their own world solving their own mysteries. And audiences have, especially this year, shown a clear preference for conventional "What happens next?" franchises and somewhat traditional sequels as opposed to backdoor franchise pilots and sequels that mostly serve to set up the next sequel. And, all things considered, most of the MCU's stand-alone franchise offerings were just that, with only minor tidbits that would connect to a larger universe.

Don't make the Dawn of Justice mistake and turn Death On the Nile into a backdoor pilot to a would-be Agatha Christie cinematic universe. Even DC Films (which, to be fair, was founded upon a singular Zack Snyder trilogy) eventually pulled back on the interconnectivity, making Justice League something of a series premiere with much of the connective tissue landing on the cutting room floor. The success of Murder on the Orient Express means that audiences want Death on the Nile, not that they want a 66-part Agatha Christie expanded universe.

 

[Gabe99]

The End of the Cinematic Universe Began in 2017

We can, and no doubt will, debate which film was the proverbial canary in the coalmine, but there’s little arguing that 2017 marked the beginning of the end of the cinematic universe — or at least the often ill-conceived plans by rival studios to replicate Marvel’s blockbuster success. It was as if Hollywood suffered its own Crisis on Infinite Earths, in which one shared universe after another collapsed upon itself, until only the Marvel Cinematic Universe stood on solid ground.

The appeal of such shared worlds to studio executives is obvious, as they help to feed the same commercial hunger for the familiar that’s sated by sequels and remakes. When done “properly,” as in the case of Marvel Studios, a cinematic universe develops into a brand strong enough to provide tent-pole after tent-pole, and weather the occasional modest-performing release with no ill effects.

But a poorly conceived cinematic universe — one whose reach far exceeds its fumbling grasp — can result in disaster, sometimes a slow-motion train crash, and other times a quick, shocking explosion. This year we experienced a bit of both, as studios learned Marvel made creating a cinematic universe look easier than it actually is.

DC Extended Universe

Warner Bros.’ so-called DC Extended Universe stumbled out of the gate, with director Zack Snyder’s divisive Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (or maybe it was with his divisive Man of Steel), and it never really regained its footing. However, it’s not the poor critical and commercial performance of Justice League that may have doomed this shared cinematic universe, but rather the success of Wonder Woman.

Set primarily during World War I, director Patty Jenkins’ acclaimed film wasn’t moored to the continuity established by its predecessors — in fact, it retconned a troublesome detail from Batman v Superman — and it didn’t need to shoehorn in a cameo from the likes of Ben Affleck’s Dark Knight or Ezra Miller’s Barry Allen. Wonder Woman could to tell its own story, and develop Gal Gadot’s heroine, free of the constraints of the studio’s multiyear franchise plans. It’s a lesson DC Entertainment learned quickly, with President Diane Nelson explaining earlier this year, “Our intention, certainly, moving forward is using the continuity to help make sure nothing is diverging in a way that doesn’t make sense, but there’s no insistence upon an overall story line or interconnectivity in that universe.”

Add to that talk of an emerging separate banner for DC Comics-based films, including a 1980s-set Joker origin, and remarks by The Batman Matt Reeves that his project “wouldn’t be filled with cameos servicing other stories,” and what was presented in late 2014 as a “cinematic universe” begins to look more like a loose assembly of superhero features.

Dark Universe

Universal Pictures’ long-gestating dream of a shared universe featuring updated versions of its iconic monsters may have seemed like a good, even logical, idea; after all, the original Universal Monsters films boasted recurring actors and characters. But when the Dark Universe finally launched in June with The Mummy, starring blockbuster machine Tom Cruise, those plans quickly imploded … spectacularly.

The finger-pointing was immediate, with much of the blame for The Mummy’s failure laid at the feet of Cruise, whose contract granted him broad creative control. But no matter who was at fault, the results were the same, with The Mummy delivering a projected $95 million loss for Universal, and seemingly unraveling the Dark Universe. By November, its chief architects, Alex Kurtzman and Chris Morgan, had left Universal, and the studio is now reportedly considering approaching producers and directors with monster films that would effectively stand alone, and share no continuity. Meanwhile, director Bill Condon’s planned remake of Bride of Frankenstein, originally set for release in 2019, has been postponed but is said to remain in development.

Fox’s X-Men ‘Universe’

Never really a shared cinematic universe in the true sense, Fox’s X-Men franchise has always been a relatively straightforward film series, with prequels, a handful of Wolverine spinoffs, and the semi-related Deadpool, which doesn’t exist in the same continuity. The latter can also be said for the property’s expansion into live-action television in 2017 with Legion and The Gifted, which share some characters but not necessarily the same timeline.

That growth will continue in 2018 with X-Men: Dark Phoenix, Deadpool 2, and The New Mutants, which trades superhero adventure for horror tropes and Charles Xavier’s school for a secret facility (how connected it might be to the rest of the franchise remains to be seen). The long-promised Gambit and X-Force movies are also in the pipeline, bringing with them the potential for an actual “universe.” However — and it’s a sizable however — the recently announced purchase by Disney of 21st Century Fox’s key assets raises countless questions, including how the X-Men film rights will be integrated into Marvel Studios’ larger plans. This time next year, or however long it takes for federal regulators to approve the deal, will spinoffs like Gambit or X-Force still be in the cards?

Sony’s Spider-Man ‘Universe’

Nothing illustrates the fragility of the concept better than Sony Pictures’ ambitions for a Spider-Man “universe,” which now theoretically exists without the wall-crawler himself. There’s an inescapable irony in the very co-production agreement that enabled Tom Holland’s Peter Parker to be introduced into the Marvel Cinematic Universe and the Spider-Man series to be successfully rebooted (again) hinders Sony’s own plans for the ancillary characters.

You see, Holland’s web-slinger won’t appear in Venom, filming now with Tom Hardy, or in the planned Silver & Black (featuring Silver Sable and Black Cat), or, presumably, in Kraven, Mysterio or Morbius, which have also been mentioned. They’re Spider-Man spinoffs only in the loosest sense, in that all of these characters are part of the larger film license. Still, that doesn’t prevent fans or news outlets from repeatedly pressing producers about how, or whether, those projects relate to the world depicted in Spider-Man: Homecoming. The short answer is, they don’t, at least for the time being; however, the longer answer can get a bit … comical.

Transformers

The reception for Transformers: The Last Knight wasn’t what Paramount Pictures and Hasbro envisioned when they announced plans in 2015 to convert the blockbuster action franchise into an “expanded universe,” Characterized by director Michael Bay as both “a final chapter and a new beginning,” the fifth film in the series was intended to lay the foundation for this ambitious new universe. Bay himself boasted there are 14 Transformers stories already in development, although only a 2018 Bumblebee spinoff and an untitled sequel have been announced.

Hasbro Universe

Announced in 2015, the planned Hasbro Universe evokes childhood memories of upending the toy box and pitting action figures from one property against those of another. In this case, however, it’s Hasbro and Paramount Pictures mixing and matching toy franchises (G.I. Joe, Micronauts, Visionaries, M.A.S.K. and ROM) in what’s envisioned as an interconnected movie universe.

Even if it’s almost impossible to imagine what form such a universe might take, it’s difficult to deny the concept’s underlying genius: It strikes a chord of nostalgia among viewers of a certain age while making use of four lesser toy brands from the 1970s and ’80s by pairing them with the more widely recognized G.I. Joe. Paramount staked out release dates last week for G.I. Joe (March 27, 2020), Micronauts (Oct. 16, 2020) and an untitled Paramount/Hasbro event film (Oct. 1, 2021), which certainly suggests that development of a Hasbro Universe continues apace. However, a lot can happen between now and 2020.

 

[Deck Rickard]

Hey people can say what they want but I know for a fact that the Expanded Robin Hood Universe will be even bigger than Marvel.

 

[Mandon Knight]

The MCU staked everything on two films and ensured they took the 'moment' presented to them, from there they began a template that many have not been able to follow. Fair play to them.

 

[Chesterfield]

All these silly studios thought/think that just because Marvel did it that they can do it and it doesn't work like that. Marvel took this VERY seriously and took the time to cultivate talent, good stories and use the characters available to them; creating enough goodwill to the point where full grown adults are crying on youtube out of happiness. Marvel did the work and are still doing the work. The rest of Hollywood have learned nothing.

 

[Thundarr]

All these silly studios thought/think that just because Marvel did it that they can do it and it doesn't work like that. Marvel took this VERY seriously and took the time to cultivate talent, good stories and use the characters available to them; creating enough goodwill to the point where full grown adults are crying on youtube out of happiness. Marvel did the work and are still doing the work. The rest of Hollywood have learned nothing.

The difference between Marvel and all those other studios is that Marvel made sure that they were making good movies first, with the intent of adding them to a cinematic universe being secondary. Every one else seems more interested in making an expanded cinematic universe, and any thoughts on making a good movie is secondary (if it even comes into consideration at all).