Why are movie studios trying to be like Marvel Studios but yet miss what makes them so successful?

Why are movie studios trying to be like Marvel Studios but yet miss what makes them so successful?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=knCOTgghbhU
i.imgur.com/z1WBK6x.jpg
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Marvel Studios got lucky because all their solo movies pre Avengers did well. And a slow, steady build up is counter intuitive to every other studio's "MONEY NOW" perogative.

Literally because the Marvel Studios as we know now is a pretty young company. They've been around since 1993 but didn't release their first in-house film(Iron Man) until 2008. They haven't had the time to get infected with bureaucracy and shitty egos like other studios have(Sony, Fox, WB, etc). They have pic related at the top who oversees everything and makes the final decisions.

What Kevin wants, Kevin gets. If you dont play ball, he will fire you(Wright, Norton, Howard, etc). You wont see shitty directors like M. Night and Zack Snyder making their way onto Marvel projects because they're golf buddies with some hotshot executive producer. They're not going to throw projects in development hell and get to work on them almost a decade later(Man of Steel and Venom). Kevin's only focus is quality and money.

>They're not going to throw projects in development hell and get to work on them almost a decade later
Ant Man

Marvel have a bandwagon like WWE what do you expect? They don't have to try hard or do anything difference because their sheep will eat it up and accept it no matter what.

The biggest reason that other cinematic universes fail is that they don't have diverse enough material to adapt, and I'm not talking about race. With the MCU, you go from Iron Man in Southern California, to Thor in Asgard, to Cap in 1940's, and so on. The films generally have a different tone from each other and different palette set.

DC went dumb by trying to make all their films dark and bleak. Universal can't really make a franchise of all monsters cause it's the same note over and over.

Unless you tried something like a Roald Dahl shared universe, where his books share themes but are different, then you can't really build it up.

>If you dont play ball, he will fire you(Wright, Norton, Howard, etc).
That was Ike Perlmutter.

Because MCU actually took the time to develop their roster. We see their arcs, see their integration into the team, see their characters and what makes them tick. When Civil War came around, people had no problem choosing a side based on their opinions of the characters and the subject matter. They've made Iron Man and Captain America into beloved huge names to the masses.

And than with something like Batman vs Superman we're jumping in at the tail end of Batman's arc, with only passing nods to his story for slight context. People chose their side based on pre-conceived opinions of these characters. "I like Batman so I'm routing for him" rather than "I agree with Batman."

I forgot that Marvel Studios also made sure to get their actors under control from the get go. Remember after Avengers was crowned one of the highest grossing movies, the cast started threatening to walk if they dont get pay raises? They were doing that prima donna shit they probably do at other studios. Remember how they all shut up after Kevin stated he would "James Bond the MCU" if he had to? Now all their actors(especially Downey, he became Kevin's bitch after Kevin made it clear Iron Man 4 wasnt going to happen) beg to be in the next MCU movie even if it doesn't involve their character.

That movie didn't kick off real tangible development until Wright got hired in 2006, well before the modern Marvel Studios came into fruition.

>And than with something like Batman vs Superman we're jumping in at the tail end of Batman's arc, with only passing nods to his story for slight context. People chose their side based on pre-conceived opinions of these characters. "I like Batman so I'm routing for him" rather than "I agree with Batman."

That brings up something that bugged me about that film. The whole "Robin is dead" thing. They even have it pop up in Suicide Squad. If we haven't been attached to Robin, why keep plastering it like it was a huge thing? In fact, if they were going for the long run, why have Batman start the DCCU so old and broken? Imagine spending 10 years with a Batman who's so busted. He just can't grow and evolve.

>Remember how they all shut up after Kevin stated he would "James Bond the MCU" if he had to?
Again, Perlmutter.

>And a slow, steady build up is counter intuitive to every other studio's "MONEY NOW" perogative.
This.

Kevin Feige reports directly to Bob Iger.

I mean, NOW he does. At the time that was Perlmitter.

But they didnt do well, Thor and Cap struggled to break even with marketing included.

Zack Snyder was literally handpicked by Nolan to direct MoS

Snyder wasn't even Nolan's first choice

I guess this means that when Kevin goes Marvel Studios will collapse.

The hardest part to building a cinematic universe is getting it off the ground, finding a particular formula that works.

They struck gold with the first Ironman, which was the hardest part. Had that failed, Cap, Ironman, Panther, GOTG, etc would all be doomed to stay obscure, and all we'd get are shitty reboots of Batman, Spider-man, occassional Superman, and an X-men franchise that goes fucking nowhere.

McDonald's is incredible successful. The MCU is just aping it's formula and the formula of other, similar mass marketers.

If it was easy, Burger King and Wendy's would be McDonald's.

Because they can't really go into that river again.
They want what Marvel did but Marvel isn't really something that can be easily replicated if at all.
Their success is because they did it first which is why Avengers was such a hit while AoU was lackluster. It's not a good movie, it's a good spectacle. AoU had none of that, really it'd be filler if it didn't introduce Vision and Wanda.

These other studios might notice that and are trying to go about it their own ways. Or maybe they just suck and are trying to rush it.

>Marvel Studios got lucky
That wasn't luck user

Slow and steady wins the race and they were the trendsetters to begin with.

Basically what first user said:
>build up is counter intuitive to every other studio's "MONEY NOW" prerogative.

It was a good chunk luck.

The Kong/Godzilla Monsterverse is the only non-Marvel one that's really working for me, though I do gotta question the idea of having Godzilla go from fighting Ghidorah to Kong when the reverse seems more sensible from the perspective of escalating the threat in a trilogy. Unless of course, the inevitable "Kong and Godzilla stop fighting and team up against something nastier" moment is where they go full Showa and have an alien invasion of some kind with a space kaiju leading their forces

By ignoring the source material a lot, you can bring things into movies that make movies popular. It's the same thing with Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter.

If you try to focus hard on source material, like DC, then you get generally one tone, one mood, wooden characters that can't be done in movies.

DC has a lot of problems but respecting the source material too much is definitely not one of them. If anything, DC could stand to actually be more like the source material.

Basically everyone before me has established what they're doing wrong. They don't have any patience.

Really, a lot of big budget studios only gained interest in Marvel's formula post-avengers, i.e, the big crossover box officer hit. So they desperately wanted to get to the money making blockbuster as quick as possible without first establishing their franchise. The Mummy hit the brakes on its pacing just to provide a exposition dump on their future films, and BvS just put in proof-of-concept footage in the middle of the movie without any thought towards cohesion at all. It didn't help that both those movies were crap and didn't do what Marvel managed to do with audiences, have them care for the characters. Nobody's gonna give a shit about Superman when he dies if you don't make him relatable. Legendary's Monsterverse appears to be the only one that successfully captured what Marvel was doing by taking their time and establishing each of the title kaiju before having them crossover.

Thor had a budget of $150 million, with domestic total $181 million and combined worldwide $449.3 million. Even assuming that they only get half of that worldwide total, it'd be enough to break even.

Captain America had a budget of $140 million, $176 million domestic, and combined worldwide total of $370.6 million. Might be kind of break-even.

Incredible Hulk would be the film that they probably didn't make much on ($150 million budget, $134 million in domestic, worldwide $263 million), on account that they let Universal have film distribution money.

And I assume you knew Iron Man 1 and 2 did well at the box office so I don't need to go over that. So two big hits, two decent/break-even films, one not that great but not a box office bomb, and I'd say they still did "well".

Personally I wouldn't give a fuck if they just went for it in the first movie.
Just establish this is a world where cool shit exists and get to our heroes. Then expand on shit as its relevant.
However you still need a game plan going into that. You can't feel like you're making shit up as it goes along, that was one of the problems with BvS. Man of Steel was obviously a world where Superman was alone, BvS shits all over that by not only having Batman exist all this time but be right across the street.
And to make things worse not only does he exist we're catching him apparently decades after a more interesting story.
....what if, a Batman solo movie that wasn't just your typical "Batman fights a specific villains plot" but its his origin and then decades of his career, his rise and fall?
The escalation makes sense in terms of threat but not in terms of spectacle.
Crossover is the pay off, going back to Godzilla's solo shit just goes back to the usual.
What other Kujos does Gozilla bring to the table?

It's all grim, dark, the world is completely fucked, etc.
The characters have no personality that translate well to onscreen. The DC animated movies are good because they try to do more than just make all the characters grim and dark.

Imagine if Captain America was literally just "rawr American pride!". That's what the DC franchise is in movies now - just taking one major character trait and forcing it as much as possible but on all of their characters. In this case every hero is "depressed, angry and generally confused".

I think it's more focusing on the WRONG source material when adapting the characters. What's the point of having the second Superman film be an adaptation of The Death of Superman when he haven't had enough time to relate to him. Not only that, but it's also a crossover with Batman whose based of his Dark Knight Returns portrayal, but that doesn't work either because we haven't seen Batman in another context to compare him to this frail, older version of himself. These would've worked better if they were made later down the line.

Yeah it seems really weird to mix DKR and Death of Superman since a lot of DKR's strength is on how long Superman and Batman have known each other.

I think WB just took the two best-selling DC books they had and mashed them together into a film. It's the only fathomable reason as to the creative process of having Doomsday rock up right after Batman and Superman finished their punch up behind the skate park.

Pretty much.
It's bothering me a lot that on one hand, they tried to stick to source material but on the other hand, they decided to ignore the fact that characters are too depressed

Well that's Snyder for ya. I think they looked at Marvel's films and their generally bright tone and went "Alright, let's make our films dark and gritty, that way, we're different." Unfortunately they didn't realise that the optimistic tone of a genre rooted in power fantasy was what drew people into those films in the first place.

Marvel's characters all have funny moments or awkward moments for the most part. That's what I think is missing.
'Tasha/Bruce's flirting or Tony being a general troll to everyone, Thor being the straight man at times and being unwittingly funny, etc.

DC has none of that. None of what made their animated movies so good

Expansive character is something that needs to be implemented more in superhero media, or the films at least. Marvel's movies have kind of hit this point where people are noticing that they are trying to lean a little too hard on humor. The earlier films had more emotional moments to balance things out, such as Tony's development at the end of Iron Man 3, but due to the cinematic universe formula, much of this had to backpedaled or ignored later on.

WB made the mistake of going too far in the opposite direction. Now it's all dark with no levity to balance it out. Superman can be dour and sad, but that only has impact when we see him being the invincible symbol of hope most of the time. Genuine moments of compassion made by Batman like his scene with Ace in JLU are good because we usually see him being a grumpy guts most of the time. But now Batman is grumpy ALL the time with no genuine moments. Achieving emotional balance would be the best way for the audience to relate to these characters.

and what, pray tell, should they do to "try hard" or do different? Any hypotheticals of your own?

>If you try to focus hard on source material, like DC

They stuck to grimdark always brooding storylines and just went with that as much as possible.

Imagine if Marvel went with Civil War and the entire plot was every character just betraying one another

>I guess this means that when Kevin goes Marvel Studios will collapse.
Apple w/o Jobs, senpai.

>Kevin stated he would "James Bond the MCU" if he had to?
My question is, and always has been, why people think that this is a Bad Thing?

Burton made two very well received Batman movies with two different Batman leads ... in fact people at the time were pretty hyped about "who's gonna play Bruce THIS TIME OUT?" with each new movie.

I mean: I'll admit that they caught lightning in a bottle with Iron Man's casting; but do you seriously think it would hurt them at all to recast Hawkeye or Black Widow or even Thor??

>The films generally have a different tone from each other and different palette set.
I just saw BP so I honestly get your point; but Thor III was basicaly GotG III in all but casting.

are you on crack? common wisdom is double production budget to account for marketing, so Captain America and Thor both had to make at least 300 mil to break even. Again, common wisdom says that studios only get a quarter of non-usa profits. Neither Thor nor Captain America broke even. Captain America lost money in fact.

You're retarded.

Marvel Studios is the McDonald's of films. It's garbage. It's bad. But everyone consumes it regardless.

How was MoS grimdark? Zod trying to take over the world like he does in the comcis? Superman crying over being forced to kill Zod a la death by cop to save some humans--which in fact is MORE compassion than he showed when he did kill Zod in the comics.

The irony of course being that Snyder's films are far more optimistic than fake cartoon MCU movies ever could be. Seeing heroes triumph under true opposition is more meaningful than seeing superheroes act like comedians during the heat of battle.

And in Superman 2, Superman kills a weak and defenseless Zod cold-blooded. Nobody minded that. In fact a common argument against MoS Superman is that he's not as good boy scout as in the Donner films. Even though MoS Superman is far more empathetic and was actually hesitant on killing Zod until he was pushed to the absolute limits of his moral beliefs.

This.

It's hard to justify a film being optimistic when the whole film is saturated in a depressing dull blue most of the time, or when copious amounts of destruction is shown on screen, or when Superman hardly goes through the effort to make himself look appealing to the people he's saving. Presentation is key to earning an audience's respect.

Killing the villain has always been a bullshit trope in superhero films and Superman II isn't exempt from taking criticism because of it. But you want to know why nobody talks about Superman killing Zod in that film compared to MoS? He doesn't snap his fucking neck. Superman doesn't go around snapping people's necks, even when he does kill villains, which isn't very often might I add.

Superman is supposed to be a symbol of optimism and hope for people, and in a meta context he's supposed to be the flagship franchise for the DCEU. So why would you be surprised when audiences react negatively to WB's first Superman film in a decade where it shows him graphically execute a villain and you go "well, here's your generation's Superman, hope you like him!"

>yet miss what makes them so successful?
You can't copy the brand of Marvel Studios itself, which is why the movies don't do as well no matter how good they are. All the value is in the brand and marketing, the MCU movies are quite bad.

>when the whole film is saturated in a depressing dull blue most of the time
On a visual level, Man of Steel is an absolutely excellent film. It has a good color tone and the film clearly alternates color tone with the tone of the scene. Just compare MoS to any garbage digitally shot Marvel film of today. They don't look cinematic at all. They look like cheap direct-to-DVD films

>when Superman hardly goes through the effort to make himself look appealing to the people he's saving
He's a superhero, not a PR agency. He wants to save people, not entertain them. Learn the difference.

>He doesn't snap his fucking neck
Instead he breaks his arms in cold blood and then throws him down a pit despite being weak. You're making a big deal out of this when I doubt most non-Cred Forums folks even gave a fuck. Superman has killed in comics and cinema before. Deal with it. And this is the first time he actually has legitimiately a good reason for it.

>Superman is supposed to be a symbol of optimism and hope for people,
Which is exactly why it's necessary to present him as honestly as possible. A hero stops being inspirational when his world is constantly twisted around to fit the character. For MoS it's about Superman learning his role in our world. Not vice versa. This is an important distinction to make and a reminder that Superman CAN exist in our world. And it's a great deal more optimistic having him overcome geniune moral dilemmas rather than the story building a safe space around these heroes shielding them from real life consequences of being superheroes. This is why MoS Superman is more uplifting than any superhero presented in the MCU. MCU insults its own heroes by refusing them an authentic world to act in.

Uh, Keaton was bats in the Burton movies. It was after Burton left that the casting changed.

Also, returns is shit, and generally thought of as okay to eehh,

>On a visual level, Man of Steel is an absolutely excellent film
This is a film that turned the technologically advanced society of Krypton into a joke with technology resembling pin-needle toys and dildos with it's crappy visual effects.
>He wants to save people, not entertain them. Learn the difference.
If that's the case what's with his "it means hope" line. If he's not trying to inspire hope, then why would that line be included? And have you read a Superman comic before. He's whole shtick is trying to set people on the right path through his example. He's even given Luthor the benefit of the doubt numerous times because he can see the good in him.
>Superman has killed in comics and cinema before. Deal with it. And this is the first time he actually has legitimately a good reason for it.
Right on the first front, wrong on the second. Superman has killed before and that's fine because there are plenty of opportunities for story telling there. But unlike pic related, where Superman is forced to kill Mr Myx and sentences himself to his equivalent of death, Superman here shows no sign of remorse later on apart from his autistic yell which can be interpreted multiple ways. Even when Zod is revived as Doomsday, there's no sign of Supes being emotionally challenged by his presence.
>A hero stops being inspirational when his world is constantly twisted around to fit the character. For MoS it's about Superman learning his role in our world. Not vice versa.
Take a look at this clip from Superman vs The Elite.
youtube.com/watch?v=knCOTgghbhU
This clip and several others show that Superman's core ideology can be preserved and adapted to fit a modern setting. If a straight-to-dvd animation can do that, then I expect a multi-million dollar film to do so too.

>yet miss what makes them so successful?
A nerd in charge, b-tier actors and shitty directors to do what he want ....

Because Iron Man 1 was good and they just made the same film over and over again
Plus like the comics they let people think they are part of some hip nerd club even though it's mediocre entertainment

Because based marvel makes a ton of money and those other studios are failing miserably and need that money as quick as possible to keep the lights on

We should all be grateful it's failing and those studios will soon go the way of Fox so we can have nothing but GOOD movies by people with ACTUAL TALENT

Side Money is a big factor.

Movie gross is important, but also consider the products, toys, and cross promotion stuff. My sister used to call me a baby when I read Spider Man comics as a kid. Now she owns an Avengers T-shirt. Think of all the Marvel mugs, TV shows, action figures, etc that would not exist without the movies. Even if the movie struggles, even if a million people watched your movie and hated it, from a marketing perspective a million consumers are now familiar with your product and familiarity will give you a leg up over other products. There is a lot of money in the side stuff.

Pretty much. The moment Feige leaves, you'd need another comic book expert to know how movies work. Look at how Jeph Loeb fucked up Avengers: Earth's Mightest Heroes. He came in and told the staff that "Kids only care about Iron Man, Captain America, Thor and Hulk" and to ditch the other great supporting cast. Some moron could easily do that with the MCU.

"Let's focus entirely on Spider-Man now."

They would constantly try to milk the things that worked to oblivion instead of reaching out and trying new things. Hell, imagine someone who just started doing Jane Thor, Miles Morales, Moon Girl and all of that cause they made a recent blip in the comics, and then realizing that none of them factor in things like Miles and Moon Girl aging up faster than their comic selves.

Or someone who just doesn't know minor characters and is as forgetful as current comics. Which is why Ryan Cooglar and James Gunn have me relieved when they knew their shit. Cooglar was talking about Patriot and wanted T'Challa to fight Kraven. That is who you want in the MCU, not people who would turn it into the Avengers Assemble cartoon.

>AoU had none of that, really it'd be filler if it didn't introduce Vision and Wanda.

The biggest flaws of AoU come from two sources.

1) The Marvel Heads wanted to hype up Phase 3, which lead to a product that doesn't care about itself.

2) Whedon didn't work with the other directors. This should have been so easy. Iron Man 3 had Tony quit being Iron Man? Have Tony working away in Avengers tower on project Ultron, leading to Ultron and then Tony has a story arc of reluctantly putting on the suit again. It would lead into his depressed demeanor in Civil War better.
And why did Whedon take Fury out of hiding?! That was so fucking stupid.

His wife got him the job.

Pretty much this. People don't pay to see movies just to be told better movies are coming. Tease the future films at the end of your film, but don't do it as a fucking cliffhanger. I don't think there is one instance of this that has been popular.

OK so according to your wisdom:
>Thor: $300mil budget, $441mil gross, gross $141mil
>Cap: $280mil budget, $370mil gross, gross $90mil
Neither of these films broke even then?

>It's all grim, dark, the world is completely fucked, etc.
I think this is the big thing that bothered me about the DCCU. What was there to care about in a world so bleak?

Batman was always meant to be the grimderp foil to Supes' optimism.

When both are pessimistic fuckwads why do I give a fuck about them fighting each other.

>Whedon didn't work with the other directors
I miss Cred Forums pretending to know what they’re talking about. Brings back memories.

After Ragnarok? Heimsworth is everyone's Thor.

You say that, but there's something that splits GOTG and Thor apart. GOTG has a bunch of assholes and troublemakers as an ongoing tone, where Thor 3 is pretty much the world shitting on Thor in his journey. They are similar, but there's just something that makes them feel different for me personally.

Yep. Feige is a one of a kind producer.

Sure, Whedon has a little line thrown out there, but it's very obvious that Whedon wrote Avengers 2 before really talking it over with the other writers.

Iron Man blowing up all his suits in IM3? Ignore it.
Fury on the run? Have Fury show up again with a helicarrier, a line about cleaning off the cobwebs. Ignore that SHIELD is gone.

There's just a feeling that Whedon was trying to pull a Bendis and just do his own thing and ignore what the other films were setting up.

The part about SHIELD and Fury was covered in Agent of SHIELD in the leadup to the movie's release though.

But I bet you're going to call that non-canon just because you didn't watch it and only the things you watch and care about are canon.

Did SHIELD set it up, or did SHIELD just have a quick set up for it? Do you really think Whedon went out of his way to validate SHIELD or did SHIELD just see the script and wrote around it?

Bullshit. There are ton of interviews where Nolan says he hand-picked Snyder because of his Watchmen.

There is nothing optimistic about a jar of piss.

Maybe it's better when one is made a Reagan puppet and the other a Gary Stu?

Oh give it up DChumps even your "actors" know who's better

There is nothing particularly insightful taking a scene out of context to make a snide comeback comment to fuel a fanboy fight.

>DC went dumb by trying to make all their films dark and bleak
That's not entirely true with Suicide Squad and WW, and I guess JL having different tones, but even still, those movies tried to capture the more light-hearted Marvel tone. The DCEU's problem is more that WB doesn't know how to fucking pace their cinematic universe, in addition to putting awful directors in charge of individual movies as well as the whole thing, and finally executive meddling. It's a shame, because a DC cinematic universe in theory should write itself, but WB has done nothing but flounder so far. It's looking up now that Snyder's gone and WB seem to have learned from their mistakes though.

It's crazy to me that so far the Monsterverse is the second best cinematic universe. It's been pretty damn good so far. I'm really looking forward to the next Godzilla movie and the Kong crossover. God, it's going to be so great to see King Ghidorah.

Thing is, all DC films are desaturated with color and look so bleak. They start to run together in terms of look.

Maybe the MCU is the reason the others can't do the same. there is only one slot

I geniunely believe you'd have to be a complete cinema illiterate to think anything in the MCU is good.

That is unless you're confusing good with monetary success. At that rate you'd also be there putting MCU next to Justin Bieber and Call of Duty. Which I guess is fitting.

Because MCU movies don't have that cheap ass digital flat look that makes their films look like TV shows.

Like someone shot it on a fucking iPhone.

This. MCU is to film what Bieber is to music. Cred Forums celebrating the death of blockbuster cinema is equally tragic sight.

SS didn't have that issue. Granted, it was still shit. WW had a desaturated look but it could also be pretty diverse visually, although most of that was towards the beginning of the movie. JL was fine.

>#Borglife
poor guy trying to believe it will go anywhere

Id compare the MCU to Rihanna than Justin Bieber. Been in pop for over a decade and is still popular with very digestible music modified to fit the times.

>JL was fine.
Is this some inside joke I'm missing on? I guess you fucks rate films based on how many colorful shots there are than actual composition, tone and general lightning. JL was filled with hack Whedon's TV shots. You were just too dumb to spot it.

>If you try to focus hard on source material, like DC

>Justin Bieber
am i in 2010 again

Bieber and MCU are about the same though. Very popular with kids. It's awful but also the most successful. Constantly going on about how many "records" they're breaking but nothing to show for in actual quality.

just like DC

Why did you use that reaction image in a different post, then deleted that post then posted this reaction image to a different post?

>nothing to show for in actual quality.
like a bullshit oscar for makeup?

Kids still like Bieber? Thought he's aiming for the same demographic as Drake.

MCU is about the lowest form of cinema. Atleast blockbuster films used to be audiovisually well made. But now they're not even that. Now they look like fucking this. It has the visual qualities of a TV show and the writing that makes morning cartoons look sophisticated.

Because I can.

I take it you haven't seen Gods of Egypt or Geostorm?

alternate take
few people genuinely defend CoD or transformers or biebers
they are under no illusion what they walk into the theatre for, and get exactly what they want
they are the subject of intense and widespread ridicule for every single thing they do

marvel not only rakes in dough, but achieves high critical praise from nearly all audiences of all demographics
even bieber mostly hit teen girls, while marvel manages to get praise from young and old, male and female
broad demographic appeal that is not subject to wide internet hate is indicative of some kind of very good quality

Why would Whedon not go out of his way to validate the show he himself wrote for?

So really the only difference between Bieber and Marvel is the 100 or so critics on RT who give their films a 6/10.

...

please cry more

...

>Agents of Shit

Literally not canon and even if it was, the directors of the MCU don’t pay a lick of attention to it.

Nolan only put his name on the project to promote the movie. It is very well known that Snyder’s wife pulled strings to get him in the DCEU because she’s a big producer who knows people at WB.

It is well known that you're pulling shit from your ass to fuel your shitty agenda nobody is buying into.

i.imgur.com/z1WBK6x.jpg

>Being a retard even when your retardation is specifically called out before you committed it

Kill yourself.

bieber tends to attract attention of the wrong sort
primarily teenage girls, whose mere presence incited the anger of everyone else

marvel is a lot more universally acclaimed, not just by critics, but also by fans of every kind
you go "i like beiber" and the other guy says "what are you a girl?"
go "i like marvel" and other people go "me too"

its kind of like star wars, where nearly everyone but that trekkie sulking the alley and alec guiness like really hate it
whereas beiber or transformers are despised by everyone outside their target demographic
or in transformers case, especially the target audience

RT scores and audience scored dont always align
but marvel gets both

>Iron Man
>Iron Man 2
>Hulk
>Thor
>Captain America
And finally
>Avengers

Five films used to build up to the team-up movie. Alternatively, you can fling two bad films out and crash land into a JL movie which no one's interested i .

Cause not every company is as rich as Disney

because they put out nothing but shit

There is literally no difference between Marvel and Transformers outside of those 6/10 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. None. Nobody thinks MCU is high-brow art. They consider it the same level of entertainment as Bieber and Transformers.

Marcel movies can breathe. They have three or four big action pieces that are joined together with the cartoligonous tissue of character scenes.

Transformers is a series of unending climaxes so that by the end you just stop giving a shit.

whatever helps you sleep at night

Meanwhile Black Panther is making $2 billion at the box office and DC is somewhere below Uwe fucking Boll

>Bieber and MCU are about the same though. Very popular with kids
Pretty sure MCU's popular with every demographic

That's your personal opinion. In terms of audience reception, Transformers and Marvel are about the same. Transformers has a slightly higher box office average actually. So it's even more successful than MCU.

transformers is hated and maligned even by its own fans
marvel is about as well beloved as star wars or terminator 2

you could call star wars low art as well
but really, calvin and hobbes does point the arbitrary and meaningless difference between high and low art

Pretty sure anyone 30+ would be embarrassed to see capeshit with quips films. Maybe when they want to take the kids to soemthing.

Transformers the Last Knight underperformed and China hated it.

Dude why is it so hard for you realize that millions upon millions absolutely love Transformers? Even more so than MCU given how Transformers films breaks the billion barrier consistently. The world doesn't revolve around fucking Cred Forums opinions. The average person doesn't give a shit about what some nerd on the Internet thinks. This is movies they absolutely love.

JUSTshit League underperformed everywhere and EVERYONE fucking hated it

Snyder's fine. I mean comic nerd complain about the Watchmen movie but to the masses it was a hit (especially since the only other cape competition was X-Men Origins Wolverine).
The problem is WB are idiots. I mean why point to Snyder for blaming when you can point to the company that gave us Steel, dropping Tim Burton at peak popularity from your Batman movies, canning a Superman movie to make Wild Wild West, and other nonsense mistakes.
Hell some previous thread posted news that the ONLY reason we got a Green Lantern movie was because someone at WB saw Iron Man, thought the reason it was a success was the airplanes in it, and wanted to make a Top Gun superhero movie.

>Avengers 1 and 2 are among the top 10 highest grossing movies of all time just because of kids

Then why didn't The Last Knight break a billion? Why did it make less than the first movie?

Yes? Families have always been the most lucrative audiences. Disney Pixar films consistently break the billion barrier. The MCU is certainly not gunning for the adult audience given the infantilization of the universe since IM1.

>t. DChump retard who hasn't seen Black Panther probably because she's also an alt-right retard

not an argument

The examples of what you’re talking about I can think of from the top of my head would be DCU, the dark universe and they also apparently wanted to make a cinematic universe from that ghost busters reboot
Was their any other examples of failed cinematic universes failing? If not I highly doubt they will be the last

there it is

During all viewings of MCU films in the theatres I have been, the demographic is usually 60% teens/young adults, 20 % Older adults and 20 % kids. Mind these are usually on the premiere day.

My father enjoys the movies since he grew up with the comics during the 60s-80s. (Mind he is a big DC fan aswell but he is craving a League of Superheroes movie the most rn so he is not a casual) and even my late grandfather really enjoyed the first 2 cap movies, especially the first avenger since its structure and arcs are similar to old war movies he grew up with.

*sorry meant Legion of Superheroes, my countrys translation of the team is something akin to "Heroes of Space."

Literally all the 30+ people I've ever met fucking love Marvel movies and were hyped as fuck to watch BP. Get your head out of your fucking ass.

Marvel has always been New York centric. DC makes up new cities for their heroes, and the main ones get their own ie Metropolis, Gotham, Central City. DC doesn't lack for diverse material.

It was his brother who wrote it.
And that set up for Avengers 2 was quick and pretty dumb.
"Oh, Coulson is hiding something! He is doing something! Be excited!" for 10 episodes and one quick "oh, I got it, call the Avengers on that... thing!" literally in an episode before the film premiere.
Such an amazing set up!
And next episode they have first minute showing Patton Oswald preparing that helicarrier.

Jesus Christ, it was just an equvalent of __________ in a document before and a few quick shots with green screen you could do in afternoon.

Could say the same thing for John Lassiter. You can clearly see a shift at disney's in house animation department when he came to helm of the whole department. Its literally night and day between before he was around and after he was around. If he goes as well you can say bye bye to the second golden age of animation by disney (obciously unless someone else as good as lassiter steps in the seat). Really shows how important a competent head can do for a company like disney or well any studio. Conversly we are seeing how a bad head like kathleen kennedy can be for a franchise and how much brand recognition alone can take a series to.Star wars brand is clearly being hurt at the moment from the second star wars and the contrast to how much the movies have made between the first main series movie vs the second one. however this isn't fully set since its only one movie but if the solo film does tank as what people here are saying and the third main line movie doesn't hit above a billion then yeah its a sure sign she is bad for star wars.