• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

  • Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here

Will Marvel finally do three films a year to compete with DC?

:huh: Your logic is bizarre. There is no specific time for a film genre to be popular. It's popular for as long as the public (not fans) will pay to see it. It's popular until something else comes along which is more popular - which will always happen.

This superhero boom is in so many ways similar to the Universal monster movie craze, even down to the fact that we are now getting team-ups of popular characters/franchises. The Universal horror genre began in 1931 with Frankenstein, peaked in the 1940s, and then declined towards the end of the decade.

But this is a film 'genre' that's been going on since 1951. And it has many 'internal' genres. E.g. no one besides the geeks will be looking a Guardians of the Galaxy as anything but a Sci-Fi or action film. And Sc-Fi/Action's bubble has never burst, and never will. And comic films (lets face it) are mostly sci-fi/action. Superman is from another planet and beats up bad guys in action scenes, Spider Man was 'born' from a radioactive spider-bite and beats up bad guys in actions scenes, ad naseum.

Then there's the flipside to that coin where most comic superhero films don't really have a set genre.

300 to 99% of the non-geeks on the planet wasn't a comic film. Neither was Punisher (any of them). Neither was Rocketeer, Flash Gordon, the Shadow, TMNT (that was that kids animated series right?), the Mask, Wanted, Jonah Hex, Judge Dredd, etc. The general audiences have no idea most of these are comic films unless it's thrown in their face. I.e. even with all the marketing Thor 2 looked like a mix between LOTR and SW: Ep 1. How does the bubble burst on a mixed genre like that when 99% of the film going public don't even know what the actual [umbrella] genre is?

In the end it's down to the story told, not that it was once a comic book. And if the bubble is going to burst on mixed genres, well, I guess we won't be watching films very much longer. :)
 
Last edited:
Exactly, which means if Marvel gets their film rights back from Fox and Sony, we get 4 quality marvel films a year, instead of just 2.

1295.gif


Highest rated movie this year was from Fox
Highest rated 2011 was Fox
Highest rated of all Marvel was Sony
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't call them as being adaptations to be unnoticeable, i think they all have a tone in common, and i do know one or two people who realy disliked superhero films, so, when they see the Marvel logo, they imediately dismiss the trailer of the film that's being shown to them.

You can never really please everybody, these adaptations may bring variety, but can you really do a Marvel film for every genre? Could you do something for the military movies kind of crowd? Or the Bible adaptations? Or Disaster/ Romance? Can you go to these genres and not water them down due to the Marvel label? If anything i think that Manga adaptations would provide a higher variety of stories to tell.

You can only go so far before you reach the bottom, i don't believe the genre will crash and burn, but i think that like with Bond films and the middle of Disney's life, there will be bumpier times when not every film will be a hit, i think Marvel Studios will go on, not sure about DC though.
 
I don't expect Marvel to start rushing things. They would be stupid to do so since most of their competition are the ones trying to catch up.
 
DC won't be doing 3 films a year.

Like I said in another thread about this DC rumor, I'll only believe it once they get on stage at SDCC and announce it.

Anyway I'd only want Marvel Studios to do 3 films a year if they can maintain the level of quality. Part of me wants them to do 3 films a year eventually, just because there are a lot of characters I want to see in the MCU, but I don't want those films to turn out doinky either. Plus they have their TV shows to introduce many characters to the MCU as well.
 
This is insane overkill.

I would say Marvel are drowning their own market, but it's clear that, post-Avengers, Fox and Warner Bros are trying to get maximum money out of the superhero genre while it's hot.

But to think that we're going to get Spider-Man movies every year (Amazing Spider-Man 3, Venom, Sinister Six), new Fantastic Four movies, more X-Men movies, more Wolverine movies, Captain America 3, Thor 3, more Avengers movies, Dr Strange, Wonder Woman, Justice League, Flash/Green Lantern movies, Shazam, as well as the Green Arrow, Gotham, Flash and SHIELD TV shows, and on-demand stuff like Daredevil...all in the next four/five years...is ridicuous.

Marvel have realized this, hence Guardians of the Galaxy which isn't a superhero movie, it's Star Wars. If Marvel Studios is going to survive, it can't just make superhero movies.


Like what I've stated on #9, they have their own sort of genres it's like a superhero adaptation molded in a certain genre of a film.

They will survive, they are the only one who have plans that is kinda longhaul up to 2028, also I would like to add up, over the past few years they're the only one who has the 'Brand' trust of the people.

They will survive, they have disney on their side.
 
I hope not, i think it would be overexposure, and Marvel has created the game, they need to keep setting trends, not following on others. If these rumors are true, WB may easily fall on their heads, since they don't look near as well prepared to do a Cinematic Unvierse as Marvel in 2007.


Spot on buddy! This, I forgot to mention, they are the trend setters of the superhero genre, love it or hat it, THEY ARE THE ONLY SUPERHERO-BASED MOVIE STUDIO!

What they do is purely for the superhero genre and branching out to different genres in the general art of film making.

If they will always put out fresh ideas and fresh properties (which is what they're doing currently, Dr. Strange, Black Panther, Ms. Marvel, Inhumans, Etc are all under development.)
 
1295.gif


Highest rated movie this year was from Fox
Highest rated 2011 was Fox
Highest rated of all Marvel was Sony

The critics loves drama! Which is somewhat not the FOCUS of the Marvel Studio, there's a lot of dramas films everywhere, they are the oscars, golden globes, etc. front banters for years...we don't need more drama in the superhero genre.


By the way, if you put the HARDCORE FANS and COMIC BOOKS ENTHUSIAST on the critics panel, that's the only time we will see which is which.
 
I see it this way, so far (except for GOTG, and happy to get them) the MCU has told the story of the Avengers' origins and exploits. I could easily see Marvel reasonably making room at the MCU table for another Avenger's tale each year (or other team or hero). I am not even looking at it from a Marvel vs DC perspective. Also, I'm someone who has, in general, been left disappointed by the bulk of the Marvel library produced by Sony and Fox, so I would love more MCU involving the current cast and new additions.
 
The critics loves drama! Which is somewhat not the FOCUS of the Marvel Studio, there's a lot of dramas films everywhere, they are the oscars, golden globes, etc. front banters for years...we don't need more drama in the superhero genre.


By the way, if you put the HARDCORE FANS and COMIC BOOKS ENTHUSIAST on the critics panel, that's the only time we will see which is which.

IMO Sony only produced one truly great film (SM2), while SM1 was good but not great. The rest of their Marvel movies ranged from okay/mediocre (ASM, ASM2), to bad/terrible (SM3, GR1, GR2). Fox made 3 X-Men movies that I felt are great (DOFP, X2, FC), good (X1, The Wolverine), and then awful (XMO, X3, FF, FF2, DD, Elektra).

Judging from this list, I think both Sony and Fox have had more lousy movies than good/great ones. Marvel Studios, by comparison, has batted a higher average than these two. I'm encouraged by Fox's recent commitment to better X-Men movies (but I'm not enthused by the FF reboot at all), while Sony seemed to be on the decline with ASM2 and their announcement of Sinister Six and Venom movies.
 
But this is a film 'genre' that's been going on since 1951. And it has many 'internal' genres. E.g. no one besides the geeks will be looking a Guardians of the Galaxy as anything but a Sci-Fi or action film. And Sc-Fi/Action's bubble has never burst, and never will. And comic films (lets face it) are mostly sci-fi/action. Superman is from another planet and beats up bad guys in action scenes, Spider Man was 'born' from a radioactive spider-bite and beats up bad guys in actions scenes, ad naseum.

Then there's the flipside to that coin where most comic superhero films don't really have a set genre.

300 to 99% of the non-geeks on the planet wasn't a comic film. Neither was Punisher (any of them). Neither was Rocketeer, Flash Gordon, the Shadow, TMNT (that was that kids animated series right?), the Mask, Wanted, Jonah Hex, Judge Dredd, etc. The general audiences have no idea most of these are comic films unless it's thrown in their face. I.e. even with all the marketing Thor 2 looked like a mix between LOTR and SW: Ep 1. How does the bubble burst on a mixed genre like that when 99% of the film going public don't even know what the actual [umbrella] genre is?

In the end it's down to the story told, not that it was once a comic book. And if the bubble is going to burst on mixed genres, well, I guess we won't be watching films very much longer. :)

I think you're missing the point here. We're not talking about movies adapted from comics, as comics are not a genre, they are a medium. Comics stories include everything from romance to historical to gangster to biographical. We're talking about the superhero genre that is currently the hottest in Hollywood.

Superhero movies are inarguably at the peak of their popularity at the moment, and have been for the best part of a decade. They are peaking. And after the peak comes the fall.

It happens with every single film genre, and always has done.

This is not to say superhero movies will die forever (I have already said I think Batman is evergreen like James Bond), or there won't be another craze in the future. But if anyone honestly thinks the future of cinema forever will be 4/5 blockbuster superhero movies a year, they are either thinking wishfully, naive, or know nothing about film history or the product life cycle.

In the end it's down to the story told, not that it was once a comic book. And if the bubble is going to burst on mixed genres, well, I guess we won't be watching films very much longer. :)

It's not down to the story told, it's down to what audiences want to see. As soon as they tire of superheroes, the bubble will burst. You mention Punisher, Rocketeer, Flash Gordon, the Shadow, TMNT, the Mask, Wanted, Jonah Hex, Judge Dredd - most of which flopped. And we are talking about superhero movies here - the movies making all the money, like Iron Man, Captain America, Avengers, Dark Knight etc - as the genre that will decline eventually.
 
Last edited:
List of television series based on Marvel Comics

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. 2013– Connected to the Marvel Cinematic Universe

Picked for series
Powers-2014-From the Icon Comics imprint

Agent Carter-2015-Connected to the Marvel Cinematic Universe

Daredevil-2015-Connected to the Marvel Cinematic Universe


Potential series
Title
AKA Jessica Jones Netflix series

Luke Cage Netflix series

Iron Fist Netflix series

Defenders Netflix series, mini-series


List of television series based on Marvel Comics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_television_series_based_on_Marvel_Comics


List of films based on Marvel Comics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_based_on_Marvel_Comics
 
WB/DC's upcoming planned slate as per the current rumors looks nice and all. Good luck to them as they execute on their vision for their DC characters.

Marvel Studios, however, should up their output to three films per year, but not because of anything that WB/DC is or isn't planning. They should up their slate to three films per year because otherwise it would simply not be practical to continue to introduce new characters/properties (which is an absolute must) while releasing sequels to existing characters/properties (which is equally important) which are doing well critically and/or commercially. In fact, I think moving to three Marvel Studios films a year is inevitable.

As Feige himself said in an interview from a few months back: ...if [knocks on wood-like table] the next group of movies work and people want to see additional stories - we’ll have too many franchises and you can’t do one of each franchise every two or three years. We’d have to move to three a year, but that would have to be a natural move if it were to occur. We’d have a [script] draft, we’d have a filmmaker, we’d have a character the audience wants to see - let’s slot in a place for a third one. Or a fourth one.

So, of course, the challenge is to maintain the same high level of quality while upping the quantity. But this is exactly what Marvel Studios was created for. With a strong, foundational, creative brain trust that Feige has built, with intimate knowledge of their characters/brand and how best to deploy them, and with Disney backing them financially, I believe they'll be up to the challenge.

Also, I believe the whole "comic book movie fatigue" thing is a bit overblown. Those critics who don't much care for the superhero aesthetic have been singing the death of superhero movies for a decade now. Put out good, well written, well executed movies that aren't simply re-hashes of what has come before and the movies will be successful.

It is not axiomatic that an increase in quantity automatically implies a dilution of quality. Yes, quality can often get diluted due to indiscriminate, short-term-greed-based expansion. However, that does not have to be the case... good planning, smart execution and strong creative vision would result in the quality of these films being maintained, even at a rate of three MCU films per year.

In a vacuum, audience fatigue is associated with quality and not genre. If the genre itself becomes associated with poor quality, this will result in genre fatigue. This is what the naysayers are talking about without understanding the underlying dynamics in play. In Marvel Studios I trust.
 
In the 50's there were a ****-ton of westerns. The western hasn't died(though it's pretty bare right now), but it quit being the main Hollywood genre by the 1970's. This will probably happen to the superhero genre. It's not going to die, but it isn't going to be dominating Hollywood in twenty years. People want good films. If a superhero film is good, people will like it, regardless of any fatigue towards the genre. Again, the western was thought to be dead, but 3:10 to Yuma, True Grit and Django Unchained all did very well in recent years because they were good.

I think Fixxxer is right for the most part. It's only natural that the MCU would eventually expand to three films a year.
 
In the 50's there were a ****-ton of westerns. The western hasn't died(though it's pretty bare right now), but it quit being the main Hollywood genre by the 1970's. This will probably happen to the superhero genre. It's not going to die, but it isn't going to be dominating Hollywood in twenty years.

Yes, exactly.

People need to stop kidding themselves and look at film history. And just history, period.

Everything which comes into fashion, goes out of fashion.
 
Quality over quantity. If they feel they can stretch themselves a little further for an extra movie then give it a shot, but there's no need to push it further just for the sake of doing it just to "compete" with DC, especially since they've had a several year (and movies) head start.
 
Quality over quantity. If they feel they can stretch themselves a little further for an extra movie then give it a shot, but there's no need to push it further just for the sake of doing it just to "compete" with DC, especially since they've had a several year (and movies) head start.

I don't see why most people talk about these as if they're mutually exclusive concepts.

I'd prefer both; it's not as if they're straining the same film crew to adapt several different properties to which they aren't suited.

Either way, nobody knows if any of this is true.
 
Of course both would be great, but often if you lean towards one of these you lose the other. They've already got their hands full with multiple movies, now multiple shows, and always looking ahead to where things can go next. It's a lot to take into consideration, but thus far Marvel has done a great job of juggling it all.
 
You know, the phrasing of the original post is, itself, kind of deceptive. It creates the impression that its *Marvel* that needs to do catching up. Until such time as DC actually establishes a strong track record, its WB that is the one playing catch up.
 
Technically Marvel studios have done 9 movies. Warner Brothers have done 17. So Marvel is catching up to WB in the overall output of CBMs
 
Technically Marvel studios have done 9 movies. Warner Brothers have done 17. So Marvel is catching up to WB in the overall output of CBMs
Technically doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things, as WB doesn't plan on resting on their laurels to make money going forward.

That comment is relevant to contemporary times. Love them or hate them, it's tough to deny that Marvel is the top dog right now. Everyone is paying attention to see what they'll be doing next. Will it last? Probably not, but nobody really knows how long, do they?

WB does have the advantage of having the rights to all of their characters under one umbrella, so I'd say that they do have exponentially higher potential in the long run, now it just has to be realized.
 
Last edited:
In the 50's there were a ****-ton of westerns. The western hasn't died(though it's pretty bare right now), but it quit being the main Hollywood genre by the 1970's. This will probably happen to the superhero genre. It's not going to die, but it isn't going to be dominating Hollywood in twenty years. People want good films. If a superhero film is good, people will like it, regardless of any fatigue towards the genre. Again, the western was thought to be dead, but 3:10 to Yuma, True Grit and Django Unchained all did very well in recent years because they were good.

I think Fixxxer is right for the most part. It's only natural that the MCU would eventually expand to three films a year.

Difference between Western and Superhero genres is that Superhero movies can have sub-genre, like WWII, tech, Mythology, and even sorcery and horror. Westerns are just westerns.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"