The new trend in how sequels are done?

[Victarion]

The only tag/tease that's bothered me from the MCU was Sterns in The Incredible Hulk. I can only assume the army found a mutated Sterns, took him into custody, and likely gave him to SHIELD. If I were a filmmaker, I wouldn't do the sort of teases in the OP; my works would stand on their own, but be malleable enough that you can elaborate on details in future films.

 

[Ultimatehero]

The only tag/tease that's bothered me from the MCU was Sterns in The Incredible Hulk. I can only assume the army found a mutated Sterns, took him into custody, and likely gave him to SHIELD. If I were a filmmaker, I wouldn't do the sort of teases in the OP; my works would stand on their own, but be malleable enough that you can elaborate on details in future films.

Exactly, that's the only one I can think of that was never really continued (but there was never really a story for it to be unless the Hulk had a sequel). But, for the masses they can just easily assume that and it's no biggie. For comic fans, it's bigger since we know he's the Leader - but the masses don't.

MARVEL has always gone after these inconsequential strands and I see absolutely no reason why they would suddenly change that.

 

[Lord]

Amazing Spider-Man has. That is correct. But that is one of the very few films that have gone that route and was warmly welcomed, it wasn't seen critically as better than any other Spider-Man movie though except the third one. MARVEL hasn't gone that route with its MARVEL films - Spidey is SONY. When I say MARVEL, I mean MARVEL produced.

With each one of the movies released up until now they had the goal of a trilogy in mind, they actully stated this a few times. As for Amazing Spider-Man, well, i too prefered Sam Raimi's spidey 1 and 2, but it's very debatable, and many consider it better than Spider-Man 1

If a Green Lantern happens that would be easy to fix since everything is fluid. Let's say Thor's film is beyond words terrible. Will Thor be cut from Avengers 2? Nope. They'd just make sure to have a great Thor in it. Also Thor is accompanied by Captain America, Iron Man, The Hulk, among others. Thor would cause no dent in Avengers 2. Also the ONLY thing that's transferred is the characters. Say THOR films individually don't do well at box office - well, keep Thor to Avengers and no solo films (look at the Hulk, for example).

Yeah, and that's what i meant with foreshadowing elements for sequels could blow up in their faces, Hulk for exemple foreshadowed the Leader, and now there doesn't seem to be any interest in using him again.

The thing is - you didn't state that until later, that's you back-peddling light as day for everyone here. You said films with post-credit scenes fail in general.

I'm sorry if i didn't make myself clear enough, but aside from MCU's films you can see a big variety of films trying to spawn franchise in similar way that failed miserably.

Dude, only comic fans would like to see The Leader -- the mass audiences have absolutely no idea who he is. For all they know or care he could be locked away or died. That's the thing, these 'tags' are so fluid you can do ANYTHING you want with them. Literally ANYTHING you want. They're that fluid.

Up until now, it's very difficult to keep something of this proportion running for so long, as many franchises have shown before there are allways ups and downs, problem is that if MCu goes through a down phase all they worked on may crumble on their feet, i'm not sure either if in 10-25 years from now people will still be interested in seeing in least 2 connected superhero films per year.

MARVEL is being smart - they are "together, yet apart" - making sure that they all stand on their own two feet without anything you need to see to enjoy any of the films. This is why you're "but, but, but -- strands!" will never come to fruition because MARVEL has thus far made sure that these strands are remarkably small so that these solo franchises have no real major baring on one another except for when they all come together. Name ONE strong stand outside of the cosmic cube that's not the same characters. They are going after things specifically that have no major impact on one another for a reason.

When i talk about forgotten plot points i talk about things like the Leader, which wasn't that bad considering i, who at the time didn't read the comics or know who the leader was, thought the dude was dead and was smiling at his creation (the abomination). Now, in one Phase they left this plot point, this time it wasn't a big deal, but who knows how it will be next time? Or the one after?

The thing is that the MCU is a completelly different film franchise than what we've seen before, there's no clear example from the past for everything that may go wrong, i'm just pointing out some of my worries, as i said this is something we won't be able to know until some years from now.

Now about this thread itself, The Avengers does seem to have inspired other studios to do shared universes. Paramount is toying with the idea of a G.I.Joe/ Transformers crossover, Fox wants to do a similar thing with the properties they do control, plans to connect the Evil Dead reboot with Army of Darkness, as well as a crossover between the two are being put into motion, i remember some talk of a Magic Kingdom connected universe but i'm not sure there are real plans for that, DC is entering the game, it will get even more confusing if The Fast and Furious branches out into spin-offs, with that planed solo for The Rock's character.

 

[Ultimatehero]

They had a trilogy in mind but they stood apart as their own films. Amazing Spider-Man really left people hanging out of most. And while yes, many do -- that doesn't negate the fact that critically and box office-wise it is LESS. I'd say that has partly to do with the number of strands it left hanging.

There is absolutely no need to use the Leader. And did it blow up in their face? No. Because it is really that small of the piece of the puzzle.

MARVEL is going about it with inconsequential pieces that can easily be moved and shifted. Maybe this is so easy for me to see because I am a writer - I see a lot of people seeing things as cemented and hard to maneuver, but everything can be maneuvered and everything in these films is beyond easy to maneuver if need be. Maybe it's also easy because I managed a virtual series and had this crop up a number of times, they are seriously beyond easy to patch up if you have the experience how to.

Those films failed because their writing was poor - not because of an end tag. They had an end tag yes. But it is laughable to say that having an end tag is why they failed. They failed because they're generally seen as terrible films and were approached as first entries rather than complete films by themselves. You can see this the easiest with Jumper.

In the end it's all up to the writing -- NOT THE TAGS -- if the writing is good the tags will benefit the sequel. If the writing sucks, well who the hell gives what the tag is?

ADDING: It's really like people saying you can't have this many villains or the movie falls apart. Well, look at the Batman movies by Nolan. That had many villains. That didn't suffer because of too many villains, I'd say it greatly benefit from having a very rich world filled with characters both good and bad. It all comes down to the writing.

 

[Lord]

They had a trilogy in mind but they stood apart as their own films. Amazing Spider-Man really left people hanging out of most. And while yes, many do -- that doesn't negate the fact that critically and box office-wise it is LESS. I'd say that has partly to do with the number of strands it left hanging.

I think it mainly had to do with people being against a reboot so soon after the last one.

There is absolutely no need to use the Leader. And did it blow up in their face? No. Because it is really that small of the piece of the puzzle.

Which is why i said this time they were lucky, but next time they may leave a bigger piece of the puzle hanging.

MARVEL is going about it with inconsequential pieces that can easily be moved and shifted. Maybe this is so easy for me to see because I am a writer - I see a lot of people seeing things as cemented and hard to maneuver, but everything can be maneuvered and everything in these films is beyond easy to maneuver if need be. Maybe it's also easy because I managed a virtual series and had this crop up a number of times, they are seriously beyond easy to patch up if you have the experience how to.

I don't disagree with that, Marvel set their movies in a way that anything can happen, but that's doesn't rule out a bad film being a possibility.

Those films failed because their writing was poor - not because of an end tag. They had an end tag yes. But it is laughable to say that having an end tag is why they failed. They failed because they're generally seen as terrible films and were approached as first entries rather than complete films by themselves.

Why do you insist that i think an end tag is what makes a film bad? I've repeated again and again that that's not the case, the problem that because they were such bad films they set up thing for sequels that didn't happen, making them not stand as single films. Dredd 3D and Pacific Rim were made with the idea of sequels in mind, yet they knew how to work as stand alone films and didn't really live strands for sequels.

In the end it's all up to the writing -- NOT THE TAGS -- if the writing is good the tags will benefit the sequel. If the writing sucks, well who the hell gives what the tag is?

Once again you're disagreeing with me, by saying something i agree with, are you even talking to me? It doesn't seem so.

 

[jmc]

I think it's going to eventually blow up in their face

100% agree.

 

[RockSP]

Lately we've been getting news about how movie franchise sequels are now leading up to something

In the past it's usually been "bigger and better than the first movie"

Now we've got rumor of Spider-man 4 being more than just about Spider-man. Could we see a team up with another Sony marvel hero?

More likely a villain team-up against Spidey. Sinister Six.

 

[psylockolussus]

I think its exciting!

 

[Heretic]

I'm all for the idea of not just having movies tie in...but occasionally having a movie lead right into another one.

For instance, in Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back...in the end of the movie, Luke has lost his hand, Han is frozen in carbonite...the rebellion is getting their butts kicked. That is AWESOME because we all can't wait to see how they pull a victory out of sure defeat. Of course, if a superhero movie were to end like that now, the public would be outraged at not getting a complete story. That is how we end up with Loki being defeated in Thor and the Cosmic Cube being defeated in captain America, and then a loser villain getting a loser weapon for Avengers.

My personal hope was for Thanos to be the villain in Guardians of the Galaxy, kill all or most of the team, and then set his sights on Earth for Avengers 2. Of course, that won't be happening...but I wish we could get a real threat built up at some point.

 

[Ultimatehero]

l.Reboot, may effect audiences - doesn't effect critics. So, that's just an excuse.

The Leader was never meant for an Avengers film, it was only meant for IH2 which now they've deleted which is MAJOR. But it also isn't because they aren't making decisions that would blow up in their faces. They haven't before, they haven't now, they have good business sense which is the only thing your "theory" isn't taking into account. Their whole approach is one in which these strands are so small you'll only pick up on them if you watch carefully, that you can jump into one without needing to see any others and get the same experience. Their approach isn't "let's have this HUGE bridge in this film" - if it was, they would have done so already. Why haven't they? It goes against their together apart motto of handling things. The only way it can blow up is if one film is required viewing, which due to their approach - that will never be the case.

So, now, you're finally going against what you originally stated - "films with tags are known to fail"

 

[TheDreamMaster]

l.Reboot, may effect audiences - doesn't effect critics. So, that's just an excuse.

The Leader was never meant for an Avengers film, it was only meant for IH2 which now they've deleted which is MAJOR. But it also isn't because they aren't making decisions that would blow up in their faces. They haven't before, they haven't now, they have good business sense which is the only thing your "theory" isn't taking into account. Their whole approach is one in which these strands are so small you'll only pick up on them if you watch carefully, that you can jump into one without needing to see any others and get the same experience. Their approach isn't "let's have this HUGE bridge in this film" - if it was, they would have done so already. Why haven't they? It goes against their together apart motto of handling things. The only way it can blow up is if one film is required viewing, which due to their approach - that will never be the case.

So, now, you're finally going against what you originally stated - "films with tags are known to fail"

I agree with this, because yes there was a tease in Hulk, but it was never a guarantee. and while Marvel can now say Hulk just isn't that profitable on his own, TIH was necessary. If he'd just shown up in The Avengers, most of the GA would have assumed we were still counting Ang Lee's Hulk in this continuity, when this would have been a new take on the character. Overall, the nods don't upset me, they are some loose ends but I think Marvel will roll out something whenever they're ready.

That said, I doubt they'll keep teasing these other films or sequels in anything but the type of films already using them. I'm sure we'll see a lot of after credits scenes, but I'd bet most we'll see will be an extra scene, bloopers, etc., rather than building towards anything.

 

[Thundarr]

The only films I've ever seen do this (sequel teaser) have been the successful franchises -- the MARVEL films, MATRIX II, and the recent Fast and the Furious. How did these films lose money exactly by having these scenes? And I've never seen it in more recent years in anything apart from those films. And if a film does have one -- it's just finishing up a gag, not a sequel-tag. Also James Bond has been doing this since the beginning. So, what recent films have sequel-tags after the credits that have failed in box office?

Green Lantern comes to mind.

 

[jmc]

I just prefer studios worry about the film at hand, I honestly could care less, and I assume the vast majority of film goers don't care either, about what's happening in 2-3 years time.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

don't forget all those little teases that lead to nothing because plans change in the MCU can easily be closed in one of the short films. the Marvel One-Shots are a very smart idea. The only thread open from Phase 1 is the Leader and I wouldn't be surprised if he gets a One-Shot one day.

 

[Ajendo]

Even James Bond films stoped advertising "Bomd will be back in (put sequel name here)" at one point.

That was/is because they had used up the titles of Fleming's official novels. So, it only made sense if the subsequent movies were original stories/screen plays.

 

[dark_b]

I just prefer studios worry about the film at hand, I honestly could care less, and I assume the vast majority of film goers don't care either, about what's happening in 2-3 years time.

i agree.

 

[Project862006]

Once a film they give a post-credit scene to fails in the box-office, it's quite common for films that beg for sequels in end and post-credits scenes to fail.

this already happened

 

[Lord]

l.Reboot, may effect audiences - doesn't effect critics. So, that's just an excuse.

Once again you're starting an argumente for something little, i'm not giving any excuse, just saying why it didn't do very well in the box-office, i think it did like that mainly because people didn't want a reboot so soon. Spider-Man did bad critically but very well in the box-office.

The Leader was never meant for an Avengers film, it was only meant for IH2 which now they've deleted which is MAJOR. But it also isn't because they aren't making decisions that would blow up in their faces. They haven't before, they haven't now, they have good business sense which is the only thing your "theory" isn't taking into account. Their whole approach is one in which these strands are so small you'll only pick up on them if you watch carefully, that you can jump into one without needing to see any others and get the same experience. Their approach isn't "let's have this HUGE bridge in this film" - if it was, they would have done so already. Why haven't they? It goes against their together apart motto of handling things. The only way it can blow up is if one film is required viewing, which due to their approach - that will never be the case.

BUT THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING! With blew in their faces it's things like the Leader i refer to, plot points they give that never pay off. Go back and read some of my posts please, i'm tired og you disagreeing with something i never said.

So, now, you're finally going against what you originally stated - "films with tags are known to fail"

Not really, i am saying exactly what i meant, and it's true, just because you don't know some of the films i stated doesn't mean it's not true that many films like this are known to fail.

Know what? I'm tired of having to argumente with a wall that bounces everything back, i've had to repeat myself over and over again, yet you keep insisting on things i already said i also agree with. Not to mention you didn't even answer my most critical question:

When i talk about forgotten plot points i talk about things like the Leader, which wasn't that bad considering i, who at the time didn't read the comics or know who the leader was, thought the dude was dead and was smiling at his creation (the abomination). Now, in one Phase they left this plot point, this time it wasn't a big deal, but who knows how it will be next time? Or the one after?

 

[Eggyman]

Green Lantern failed because it was a bad film. Nothing to do with a pc scene. I don't see the point in the distinction. And because it was a bad film, most don't care about the tease and what they had planned for its sequel. It's blown up in their face as much as any bad film does, regardless of if it has a scene after the credits or not.

 

[dark_b]

even the editing was bad in GL. nothing to do with the story from the comics.

 

[Lord]

Green Lantern failed because it was a bad film. Nothing to do with a pc scene. I don't see the point in the distinction. And because it was a bad film, most don't care about the tease and what they had planned for its sequel. It's blown up in their face as much as any bad film does, regardless of if it has a scene after the credits or not.

Once again, THAT is what i'm saying. The film being bad made the promised story not happen, that's how the Post-credits scene can blow in their faces.

 

[Eggyman]

Once again, THAT is what i'm saying. The film being bad made the promised story not happen, that's how the Post-credits scene can blow in their faces.

The film being bad is what blew up in their faces. They want a good film and a fanbase for a sequel. It makes no difference if they have a post credit scene or not.

 

[Lord]

The film being bad is what blew up in their faces. They want a good film and a fanbase for a sequel. It makes no difference if they have a post credit scene or not.

The problem with the post-credits scene is that no matter how bad the film was a window is left for a continuation that never happens, making the film not able to stand well on its oun, that's what i mean with blowing in their faces.

 

[GENERAL RAAM582]

It only bothered me in Prometheus where the last 15 minutes or so of the film was just setting up for the sequel and there was no real ending for me.

TASM dropping the parent storyline sorta abruptly was also a little bothering but then again he forgets it once he gets bitten by the spider and becomes Spider-Man. I think I'd drop everything I was focused on if I was suddenly becoming a superhero.

 

[Marvin]

For decades.....there have been multiple movies that said something about a next movie at the end of that movie (the first that comes to mind for me is DOC SAVAGE:ARCH ENEMY OF EVIL from 1975, 38 years ago)....some were made, some weren't. Since they have continued doing this for decades...with some of them not happening....I see no reason for the trend to suddenly end if one doesn't happen.

Hard to tell if that what the thread starter was talking about(MOS didn't hint anything of the sort, and ASM hasn't implied anything about the 4th film). But if this a discussion about films ending with some sort of stinger or next film hints, than I too am curious how this is a new tread.

As for sequels getting bigger or leading up to something...also don't see how that's new. I mean looking at TDK trilogy for example, Terminator...etc.