Guardians of the Galaxy and now Deadpool is breaking box office records? How does Marvel keep doing it? Is there some sacrificial rituals you can make to a blood god that I don't know about?
Tried and true character franchises that people have been begging for for years; finally done with massive budgets.
We're going to look back on these years as the golden age of Superhero movies.
>Just like floptastic 4 huh?
Fantas4stic was done within months of the right reverting to Disney, by a one-hit director who folded under pressure.
By comparison, Deadpool's script has been locked in for five or more years.
That one was just a huge piece of shit.
Honestly I think they're doing this on a dare.
MARVEL decided to do more than stick with it's highest earner. I think that's about it. DC is still trying to do its trinity right . . . MARVEL's way past trying to do Cap right, or do Iron Man right.
You didn't even watch the movie because I can guarantee this movie didn't fancy a few people in the niche department.
Realistically it's easier to just make a good movie. Super heroes on their own are already common ground for a lot of people even before the comic movie boom, so an audience is guaranteed; you just need to make the movie not suck and the people will do the rest.
Who ever wrote the script was smart as shit.
They basically used every trick to keep the budget down by keeping sets to a minimum.
They were able to set numerous scenes at different times in the story in the bar, the lab, the highway.
The musical cues and small cast kept the film slim.
It's fucking batman it's like the safety net for DC you could fuck that all kinds of up and still make a quick buck.
>I dare you to make Guardians of the Galaxy a smash hit
>I dare you to release a Deadpool movie...with an R-rating...in February!
When will they break the ice and dare each other to become best friends?
>they definitely got schooled in how to make a movie.
Marvel has had equal and greater commercial and critical success. Winter Solder and GotG being recent mega-hits. Even AoU made money.
However, Marvel has never never done quite so much with so little, or dared risk an R-rated release.
>Neither Cap or Tony are the Marvel Trinity anyways
They are now. They didn't used to be though. I'm pretty sure it was like Spider-Man, Wolverine and Hulk in the 90s and early 00s
They're not doing them wrong or every film would have ended up like Floptastic or Green Lantern which is an example of something actually not being done right
>Yes no shit I loved it too but I sure as fuck wouldn't bring my kid to that
Well duh, it's Rated R. I meant general audience as in non-comic readers
I think part of the reason the last couple of years have been so successful (barring Fant4stic which everyone knew would be shit for so many reasons) is that the movies are slowly diversifying.
Winter Soldier, Guardians of the Galaxy, Ant-Man, Deadpool, they're all very different movies (although you could argue that Ant-Man and Deadpool have surprisingly strong similarities, but that's irrelevant). The one Marvel movie that wasn't universally well-received was Age of Ultron - the one that stuck to the formula the closest.
We're at the point where they need to break new ground to stay afloat, because after dozens of cape flicks, a hero punching shit isn't enough to keep audiences interested. These movies are successful because they're putting new spins on the superhero framework - spy thriller, anti-hero space opera, small-scale heist movie, R-rated violent comedy/surprisingly good romance, etc.
Doctor Strange will hopefully do something new. The rest of the movies this year seem more cookie-cutter and less envelope-pushing.
None of the MCU movies ever do 1:1 adaptations. They take pieces and make it into something else. It's what they do in all of their movies.
This better be some bait I'm biting, I don't want to think that someone is this stupid to have an opinion this dumb.
>I dare you to release a Deadpool movie...with an R-rating...in February!
this is the most baffling part for me.
i didn't really think gotg would flop but kept feeling sorry for the people behind deadpool because i was sure dropping an r-rated cape movie in feb of all months was a shit idea.
i'm wondering if fantastic four would have been a success if it was a horror film.
>Winter Soldier was a shit adaptation of anything from Brubaker's run.
And it was a better movie for it. Slavish devotion to the source material gets you inferior clones like Watchmen.
The only MCU characters that have successfully made the jump from the big screen to the little screen are Coulson, Fury and Maria Hill. And in the case of all three, Marvel would have you believe that the Agents of Shield series exists in it's own little canon bubble.
>i'm wondering if fantastic four would have been a success if it was a horror film.
I don't know why they tried going so derivative with the F4. That whole thing was a recipe for disaster. Even if Trank made a good movie, I feel like it would have still been a bad Fantastic Four movie.
>Marvel is beyond shit
Dude, I don't want to alarm you, but the entire concept of costumed vigilantism is a joke.
>Winter Soldier, Guardians of the Galaxy, Ant-Man, Deadpool
Winter Soldier and Deadpool are the only valid examples you listed. Guardians and Ant-Man have different themes and casts of characters, but the MCU formula is unchanged regardless.
Most casuals and newbies to comics have bought into the idea that CW is a definitive story. They will either read more comics and learn they're wrong or won't read more comics and keep that belief.
This. It's clear Trank was a one trick pony, like Blomkamp.
It's also clear he didn't give a shit about the FF at any point, and wanted a spiritual sequel to Chronicle, but they made him throw in FF elements into the script to keep the rights.
The movie failed because it wasn't a movie anyone wanted to make, it was done to maintain the rights.
>Marvelfags seriously trying to associate Fox success with themselves as if they werent shitting on everything Fox just a month ago
This insecurity is both hilarious and sad tbqh. Company wars to the point of transitive property corporate dicksucking. "S-See it has the Marvel logo in front of it!!"
Winter Soldier is an equally inferior clone to the source. The only reason it gets any praise around here is because the rest of the MCU is so incredibly mediocre that a diet Bourne movie makes you wet.
Eh, Ant-Man is the most formulaic of the four, but I still think the whole heist aspect is new.
I can't see how Guardians follows the formula - it's a team movie, it's not an origin story for any of the characters except for Quill in the broadest of strokes, the heroes lose every engagement they fight (contrast with AoU, where the Avengers win every single battle) and only win by basically pure luck, and instead of a climactic personal battle, it ends with the much-memed dance-off.
While the tone was similar, the story was very different from the MCU formula.
Fox even cut 7m from the budget just before approving it. The writers had 48 hours to cut things and get the budget down. What was lost/changed:
-3 villains combined into one (Angel Dust)
-Motorcycle chase scene removed
-Scaling back the final battle (which is why
Deadpool leaves his guns behind again)
>horror cape film
That could definitely work since Batman Returns was close to achieving it with the parents being worried about kids having nightmares.
But I don't think anyone is ever going to do a straight horror cape film.
>>Winter Soldier is an equally inferior clone to the source
It's nothing like the source story it's loosely based of
Seriously not a single one of these cape movies, neither Marvel, Fox, DC or Sony or any of these companies are direct adaptations, why are you looking at them as such?
I mean, it's not, but sure, keep generalizing. There are similarities but "beat-for-beat" is ludicrous.
By that logic every action movie from the same era is beat for beat every other action movie. Genre conventions are a necessary evil.
Then we have different definitions for MCU's formula. I don't consider winning or losing fights to be relevant. MCU's formula involves safe comedy, and a high frequency of comedy. Combine that with a bright and saturated color pallette, an extremely basic plot, as well as cardboard cutout villains, and you have yourself a winning MCU formula.
Galaxy's "dance off bro" scene is the epitome of what MCU has become.
This meme needs to stop. The MCU has turned every character in Spider-Man lite and are nothing like the comics they adapt from. BvS looks like the most comic booky comic book movie we've ever gotten.
Look at how much it stuck to the source material
It made back its budget in a day and a half and for an R rated movie, not even a superhero movie in February is amazing.
It made 47 mil in a single day. That is largest amount times 4.
All right, I see your point. I still think it's different in several aspects (a higher focus on comedy, for one), but the framework as you've defined it is adhered to.
I don't consider that to necessarily be a bad thing, though. But it's not something that can go on forever, as the death of 80s OTT action movies (and Seagal's career) have shown us.
>Yes, marvel is doing something
You're right, you can see Ant-man at 80% right there.
But Marvel isn't taking credit. Everybody knows Fox made this except for retards like yourselves. The 2nd and 3rd posts even point out that it is Fox. Are you really out of shitposting material that you need to act retarded?
>Galaxy's "dance off bro" scene is the epitome of what MCU has become.
Deadpool has almost the same thing with
Ajax getting headshot while Colossus gave Deadpool a moralizing speech
Quippy, lighthearted, kid-friendly jokefest with a forgettable, underdeveloped villain is the stereotypical MCU formula. And everything else is little more than a skin or palette change. For whatever reason I went into GOTG expecting more and ended up with "avengers IN SPACE." I genuinely think that people who rave about how varied the MCU movies are need to watch some films that aren't from the MCU; something like Alien, Die Hard, Leon the Professional, Bourne Identity, or the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly if they're interested in action movies. I don't feel like most have.
>Can't read his own post
Retard autist confirmed
Why is marvel so afraid of it's source material?
>BvS looks like the most comic booky comic book movie we've ever gotten.
Sin City only came short of speech bubbles.
Putting panels from the Dark Knight Returns into the film isn't profound. It's jut Snyder falling back on the same bad habits.
>Go to watch Deadpool in theater
>Get to the sex montage and strip club
>A mom next to me tells her kid to cover his eyes
I mean come on, it's a rated R movie what did you expect? It's like those people who watch or play something they hate and then complain about it.
>Why is marvel so afraid of it's source material?
Because they know limiting themselves to the strict canon of the comics, particularly for esoteric characters no one really likes can make make a film worse.
Like say how, reinventing Negasonic Teenage Warhead into a completely different character was beneficial to Deadpool.
No, just that Marvel understood that different people had different taste and they could reach more audience by using lesser known character, when DC thougt that making a 13254th movie with Batman or Superman would be enough.
>being faithful and respecting the source material is bad because DC is doing it
>Marvel movies not resembling anything from their source material is praised because it's Marvel
>Since when is being faithful to the source material a bad habit? Is this what we've come to, /co/?
Because this shit ain't rocket science, dude.
Snyder is an inferior director to the current talent pool. He likes to copy+paste comic panels to the big screen, while not focusing on underlying script or tone problems.
What would be enough for me is to wait for a movie to actually release or get reviews before judging it for the 13254th time in a shitpost.
Apparently you have lower standards. OP didnt even mention DC but you had to throw in your little obsessive jab
>DC movies aren't like the source material
I'm curious about the logic behind this, though I sort of expect the answer to be, "they made superman gritty" or "the movies take themselves seriously," both of which are the sort of assessments expected from people who don't actually read comics, who regularly describe camp and comedy as "comic booky" (whatever that means).
Yeah, I guess that's why Marvel delayed a bunch of movies so they could shoehorn in a second Spider-Man reboot into their slate. They totally care about their lesser known character.
>So explain fantastic four
Fox hired Tim Story, a mercenary director known for studio-driven comedies. Back in 2000-whatever comic book movies were still fresh and daring so the film was a financial success done in good faith.
The sequel was PG-rated and clearly pulled for a tone like Spider-Man 2 by having an underlying morale "You always have a choice" vs "If you're smart you have an obligation to contribute"
Fantast4stic was done in haste, with no strong idea, solely to keep the rights from reverting from Fox back to Disney. It was a clusterfuck from the start.
Adults are insecure about watching a movie with superheroes waxing philosophical or having internal struggles. Marvel has convinced people that these movies should be treated as jokes and nothing else when even their own source material is at times very dramatic.
you haven't experienced this before?
I was watching Harold & Kumar pretty young with even younger kids next to me and their dad saying to cover their eyes, of course we peeked.
the most specific ones possible
explain how faithful Fant4stic was to UF4?
>>being faithful and respecting the source material is bad because DC is doing it
>>Marvel movies not resembling anything from their source material is praised because it's Marvel
Zack Snyder, a single specific director responsible for 2/3ths of the DCCU, has bad habits when it comes to making a movie. He favors art over story and consitentl fumble the tone and message of his films, by arrogantly favoring visuals over covering storytelling bases.
Marvel referencing Ant-Man riding one of Hawkeye's arrows in Civil War is a fun homage to a silly novel concept, Zack Snyder aping Dark Kngith Returns when he's also supposed to be setting up Justice League is another problem entirely.
>They only did it because they wanted cool sounding names to use in the movie. There was no artistic reasoning for doing it.
It's amazing that you can read words but not learn their lesson.
The point is that Fox changed a minor character and it made the movie better.
Marvel changing the Mandarin is perhaps polarizing but not an inherent storytelling failure. It is not embarrassment with the source material that they omitted a Yellow Peril Fu Manchu knockoff into a bumbling scapegoat for the real villain, Killian.
>Yeah, I guess that's why Marvel delayed a bunch of movies so they could shoehorn in a second Spider-Man reboot into their slate. They totally care about their lesser known character.
Marvel changed their schedule for Ant-Man & The Wasp, because it was an unexpected success that warranted a sequel being fast-tracked.
>It's still marvel right?
None of the Fantastic Four films have been done by Disney/Marvel.
All of them are Fox Studios produced films. Especially the most recent one directed by Josh Trank released in 2015.
No, it's under Marvel Studios lineup now. It's just a joint effort with Sony, but Marvel did indeed delay Black Panther, Captain Marvel and Inhumans so they could make another Spider-Man movie.
>it's a people fall for Ladderbro bait for 500 posts episode
I sure do love these blatant compay wars threads that the mods keep up.
It's still Sony's egg to break. It'll be their director and script.
And can you blame Disney for knowing Spider-man is a billion dollar property all on his own and wanting a piece?
No. So don't spout bullshit like DC only cares about making Batman and Superman movies when Marvel has been salivating to make their own Spider-Man movie and pushed a bunch of their movies out of the way to make room for him.
Did they get little bits of help from Marvel themselves for this? Honest question, I'm seeing some earlier videos that suggest they had some input early on. Though I suppose they still made their own script in the end.
>No. So don't spout bullshit like DC only cares about making Batman and Superman movies when Marvel has been salivating to make their own Spider-Man movie and pushed a bunch of their movies out of the way to make room for him.
Oh woah is me, I only get to live in the world with three Iron Mans, three captain americas, three Thors, two ant-mans, one hulk, four Avengers, all while black panther and captain marvel and inhumans get delayed a bit.
Think of the children!
>literally implying quantity > quality
Get some new material ladderbro.
>woah is me
I hole-hardedly agree, but allow me to play doubles advocate here for a moment. For all intensive purposes I think you are wrong. In an age where false morals are a diamond dozen, true virtues are a blessing in the skies. We often put our false morality on a petal stool like a bunch of pre-Madonnas, but you all seem to be taking something very valuable for granite. So I ask of you to mustard up all the strength you can because it is a doggy dog world out there. Although there is some merit to what you are saying it seems like you have a huge ship on your shoulder. In your argument you seem to throw everything in but the kids Nsync, and even though you are having a feel day with this I am here to bring you back into reality. I have a sick sense when it comes to these types of things. It is almost spooky, because I cannot turn a blonde eye to these glaring flaws in your rhetoric. I have zero taller ants when it comes to people spouting out hate in the name of moral righteousness. You just need to remember what comes around is all around, and when supply and command fails you will be the first to go. Make my words, when you get down to brass stacks it doesn't take rocket appliances to get two birds stoned at once. It's clear who makes the pants in this relationship, and sometimes you just have to swallow your prize and accept the facts. You might have to come to this conclusion through denial and error but I swear on my mother's mating name that when you put the petal to the medal you will pass with flying carpets like it’s a peach of cake.
>I dare you to stick a strap-on in Green Lantern's ass!
>not before you have the guy behind Hot Fuzz write half of a movie, and have the guy behind Nude Tayne write the other half of the movie!
And Guillermo del Toro is just trying to get invited to their cocaine and crazy dares party so he can make Justice League Dark happen.
Apparently I've been ladderbro all along? Or he must be using images that I commonly use. Because I don't actually hold any grudges against DC, Fox, or Disney.
I read less of DC and I'm more optimistic about Suicide Squad than BvS, but I hope both films are actually good.
Marvel by volume simply has a greater range of films to discuss, and Fox is highly inconsistent in their output of x-films.
I feel like most of my talking points can be seen as reasonable.
>tfw director of the first 2 Shrek movies also directed the first 2 Narnia flicks
>tfw Brad Bird will die before he does a live-action cape flick
>tfw there's a sizable number of shit movies done by decent-good animation directors