Spoilers Doctor Strange - Grading & Discussion

[Captaindemotion]

The makers of TWS set out to make a political thriller, 70s-style and Redford's casting was clearly designed to evoke the likes of All The President's Men or Three Days of the Condor. It's also hard not to suspect that the film's liberal take on issues like surveillance and the war on terror appealed to Redford, who has long been one of Hollywood's best-known progressives.

 

[JD]

Aren't most, if not all of his scenes in an office and a conference room?

If he really wanted the green screen experience he should have signed on to Corporal States: The December Warrior, or whatever the Asylum mockbuster was called.

.A lot of times actors will take a smaller role in a movie, just because they like the script/story/people involved, and they want to involved in any way they can. It was also a villain role, which is something I don't think he's done often, if ever, and so I wouldn't be surprised if that also appealed to him.
At this point Marvel is known for making popular, well regarded movies and that can often be a big draw for actors, just as a point of pride. I think at this point a lot of actors are probably doing them just so they can say they were in a Marvel movie.
I know at least some older actors have been involved in kid friendly stuff because they want to do something their grand/kids can see. I know one of the Dumbledore actors from Harry Potter admitted he did the movies because his grandkids talked him into it.

 

[dahj]

think at this point a lot of actors are probably doing them just so they can say they were in a Marvel movie.

It's not really just a MCU thing though, both DCEU and the X-Men at Fox are pulling equally big names on their rosters. So did The Dark Knight Trilogy before that, so did both previous Spider-Man incarnations.

Even farther back, the original Batman movies 25 years ago had Jack Nicholson, Kim Basinger, Jack Palance, Michelle Pfeiffer, Christopher Walken, Danny DeVito, Jim Carrey, Tommy Lee Jones, Nicole Kidman, Uma Thurman and Arnold Schwarzenegger, and that's not even counting cameos like Billy Dee Williams, Jerry Hall, Drew Barrymore, Debi Mazar, Ed Begley Jr, Paul Reubens, Vivica Fox, Elle McPhearson, John Glover, Rene Auberjonois... if we're talking relative star power those are still unmatched.

Heck, even the 1978 Superman had Marlon Brando and Gene Hackman.

So I really don't get why you're all singling out MCU as some never before seen draw for big names...

 

[Captaindemotion]

It's not really just a MCU thing though, both DCEU and the X-Men at Fox are pulling equally big names on their rosters. So did The Dark Knight Trilogy before that, so did both previous Spider-Man incarnations.

Even farther back, the original Batman movies 25 years ago had Jack Nicholson, Kim Basinger, Jack Palance, Michelle Pfeiffer, Christopher Walken, Danny DeVito, Jim Carrey, Tommy Lee Jones, Nicole Kidman, Uma Thurman and Arnold Schwarzenegger, and that's not even counting cameos like Billy Dee Williams, Jerry Hall, Drew Barrymore, Debi Mazar, Ed Begley Jr, Paul Reubens, Vivica Fox, Elle McPhearson, John Glover, Rene Auberjonois... if we're talking relative star power those are still unmatched.

Heck, even the 1978 Superman had Marlon Brando and Gene Hackman.

So I really don't get why you're all singling out MCU as some never before seen draw for big names...

You're not wrong but on the other hand, Brando's quality threshold was pretty low in the late 1970s and he got a record breaking salary for Superman, while Hackman was also handsomely paid. Nicholson got an even bigger salary for Batman, thanks to his box office royalties.

I love Jack Palance as much as the next movie fan but Batman was before his Oscar and he'd do any old crap in the 1980s (Hawk the Slayer, anyone?) while Basinger was regarded as a pretty face at that time. Jerry Hall is hardly a prestige actress.

And it was thanks to Nicholson - and his paycheque - that the likes of Pfeiffer and Devito were happy to follow suit, while Walken will freely admit to taking any job he's offered. Most of the other names you mention are of interest to us geeks but not really big names.

A lot of the attraction for actors in the Nolan Bat-films was the director himself.

I think part of the surprise at Marvel's ability to attract such big names is that when they first announced plans to make a second Hulk film, it was expected to be a lower budget semi sequel to Ang Lee's movie. Then suddenly, they landed Ed Norton, Tim Roth and William Hurt, to everyone's surprise. Iron Man surprised us all by landing RDJ (even if he wasn't the superstar he is now), Bridges, Paltrow and Terence Howard (just off an Oscar nomination), none of whom were associated with this kind of movie (the occasional King Kong or Sky Captain notwithstanding).

Plus while Batman and Superman were iconic world famous characters, whose big screen incarnations had been lent respectability by Brando etc, the likes of Thor, Ant-Man etc were fairly second-tier by comparison.

But, yeah, with the likes of Jeremy Irons, Russell Crowe, Lawrence Fishburne or Robin Wright turning up in the DCEU, there is no doubt that Marvel is not alone in being able to attract big name acclaimed actors to its projects.

 

[JD]

Sure the DCEU has managed to get some big names, but it's still not the same number of huge names as the Marvel movies. I'm not the just talking about the quality of actors here, more the quantity. Other than maybe Robin Wright, I don't think any of the DCEU movies we've heard about have had the sheer number of major, respected actors the MCU movies have.

 

[Captaindemotion]

Sure the DCEU has managed to get some big names, but it's still not the same number of huge names as the Marvel movies. I'm not the just talking about the quality of actors here, more the quantity. Other than maybe Robin Wright, I don't think any of the DCEU movies we've heard about have had the sheer number of major, respected actors the MCU movies have.

Well, MOS had Russell Crowe (Oscar winner, multiple nominee), Kevin Costner (Oscar winner as director, nominee as actor), Amy Adams (Oscar nominee), Lawrence Fishburne (Oscar nominee), Diane Lane (Oscar nominee) and the likes of Christopher Meloni, Michael Shannon (Oscar nominee), Harry Lennix, Richard Schiff and Michael Kelly. That's pretty top-notch.

 

[LJones41]

And BvS had Ben Affleck (Oscar winner), Holly Hunter (Oscar winner), Jesse Eisenberg (Oscar nominee), Jeremy Irons (Oscar winner), and Joe Morton (Emmy winner); along with Amy Adams, Laurence Fishburne, Diane Lane, Harry Lennix, Kevin Costner and Michael Shannon reprising their roles. SS had Will Smith (two-time Oscar nominee), Viola Davis (Oscar nominee and Tony winner), Jared Leto (Oscar winner), and Affleck reprising his role from BvS.


I would say that both Marvel and DC Comics have managed to cast some big names for their movies.

 

[Greg Cox]

Its funny some were saying Strange would be the first bomb of the MCU..now its one of it's biggest hits.

People said the same thing about Thor . . . and Guardians of the Galaxy . . . and Ant-Man . ... .

Marvel will have a failure someday, but so far the internet has a lousy track record when it comes to handicapping these movies in advance.

 

[Reverend]

People said the same thing about Thor . . . and Guardians of the Galaxy . . . and Ant-Man . ... .

Marvel will have a failure someday, but so far the internet has a lousy track record when it comes to handicapping these movies in advance.

At this point the MCU has built up so much momentum that when the inevitable bomb hits, it probably won't even slow them down. They can just take it on the nose and keep cranking them out.

 

[Greg Cox]

At this point the MCU has built up so much momentum that when the inevitable bomb hits, it probably won't even slow them down. They can just take it on the nose and keep cranking them out.

Probably. Lord knows the Bond films--and even the Trek films--have survived a few box-office disappointments.

 

[Reverend]

Probably. Lord knows the Bond films--and even the Trek films--have survived a few box-office disappointments.

From what I've read, I think the reason Trek got away with it (several times!) is because they were relatively cheap to make and were *just* profitable enough to justify another one. It's basically the same economics of horror sequels. They don't need to break records, so long as they make their money back and keep the merchandise train going and a modest budget reduces that risk.
That's only counting the first ten movies of course. Trek '09 onwards are very different animals.

Can't say much about the Bond movies as I've never been much of a fan, but I suspect the circumstances are essentially the same, with the added revenue stream of product placement which became so heavy handed, even a non-fan like me picked up on it!

I don't think this applies to the MCU in the same way though. From what I gather those modest budget spectacle films are more or less extinct. These days it's either big budget tentpole, or low budget comedy/drama/horror etc.
It seems most of the things that used ot be in the middle ground is now being done in television/streaming of all places.

 

[Ethros]

^ Yeah, isn't that basically why the Netflix shows exist? They got the rights back to Daredevil but you can't really make a huge CGI bonanza spectacle of a movie with the character. Same for Luke Cage and co.
I'd say it's one (of the many) reasons they haven't done a Black Widow movie too.

 

[dahj]

^ Yeah, isn't that basically why the Netflix shows exist? They got the rights back to Daredevil but you can't really make a huge CGI bonanza spectacle of a movie with the character.

Not really, Deadpool was done on a budget of $58 million, so it's not impossible to make a popular movie on a modest budget, it would be even easier with the automatic draw of the MCU name.
Also, if they really wanted to there are ways to spend $200 million dollars on a Daredevil movie that don't involve just a massive use of CGI.

Those characters are on Netflix because they don't fit larger MCU plans, their scale and tone is a bit off from the rest of the MCU, and last but not least... they probably wanted to do some TV shows

 

[Noname Given]

^ Yeah, isn't that basically why the Netflix shows exist? They got the rights back to Daredevil but you can't really make a huge CGI bonanza spectacle of a movie with the character. Same for Luke Cage and co.
I'd say it's one (of the many) reasons they haven't done a Black Widow movie too.

The main reason they've really never done a Black Widow film is to my knowledge (once they made her a 'hero' as she was originally a ' villain') she was never really a standalone character. She was a 'Team Up' character or a 'Team' character mostly (she was often teamed up with Daredevil, OR in the 'Marvel Team Up' comic book back in the day.

Also, can anyone name a signature 'foil/nemesis/villain' of the character (like how the 'Red Skull' is for 'Captain America'; 'Doctor Doom is for the 'Fantastic Four')?

Yes, a bunch of feminists say, 'she's a great female hero...' and in the MCU they've done a good take on the character overall - BUT (IMO) it's also because they've used her in the same way the comic books have for years. Plus, any film with her would just turn out like your average Bourne/Bond type film <---- And yeah, it's not going to be your MCU CGI spectacle.
^^^
And that primarily is why we'll probably never see a solo 'Black Widow' MCU feature film.

 

[Reverend]

Plus, any film with her would just turn out like your average Bourne/Bond type film <---- And yeah, it's not going to be your MCU CGI spectacle.

You mean those enormously popular action spy movies that been raking in piles of cash, spinning off dozens of sequels for decades? Yeah, that's totally a thing Marvel would try to avoid. So run-of-the-mill!

No. I'm afraid the reasons we've not seen a Black Widow film as of yet is because 1) Historically, female lead superhero movies don't make money. No, it doesn't matter that it's because they all sucked for reasons other that the main character's gender, the bean counters are incapable of that kind of thinking. 2) They don't have a script.

The second one is actually a problem because without that, it's a bit of a non-starter. In order to get this off the ground they need a good story pitch from a talented writer and to attract a director that can get on board with said pitch, play well with Marvel's oversight and one assumes win the approval of Johansson since it's a fair bet she's going to want script and director approval and probably an exec producer credit. To get all of that lined up isn't anywhere near as simple as it sounds.

Oh and I also forgot 3) they have a full slate up until about 2020. There is a limit to how many movies even a juggernaut like Disney can make in a year before they start competing with themselves. So that means giving Lucasfilm & Pixar a nice wide berth.
To do a Black Widow movie they'd either have to wait almost half a decade (by which point Johansson may have lost interest/box office pull) or bump one or several of the upcoming movies out of the way. There's no way they're shifting either of the next tow Avengers movies and Black Panther is already in pre-production, so that leaves 'Ant-Man & the Wasp' and 'Captain Marvel'. The former is a proven brand and features a female co-star and the latter almost certainly directly ties into the Infinity War plot so it's where it needs to be and also features a female lead.
So who should they sacrifice to give Widow her own movie? Hope or Carol?

No I think the only chance of a Widow centric story before the turn of the next decade is something along the lines of the Netflix shows. Whether that happens or not probably depends on whether or not Johansson feels it would be worth her time.

^ Yeah, isn't that basically why the Netflix shows exist? They got the rights back to Daredevil but you can't really make a huge CGI bonanza spectacle of a movie with the character. Same for Luke Cage and co.
I'd say it's one (of the many) reasons they haven't done a Black Widow movie too.

Yes and no. Yes, they exist to fill a modest budget niche that simply didn't exist until just the last few years and no, it's not because they don't require crazy amounts of CG. As the Nolan Batman movies demonstrated, you can absolutely have an exciting movie with all kinds of stunts and effects even though the main character is basically a martial artist who swings between rooftops. Totally doable.

Not really, Deadpool was done on a budget of $58 million, so it's not impossible to make a popular movie on a modest budget, it would be even easier with the automatic draw of the MCU name.
Also, if they really wanted to there are ways to spend $200 million dollars on a Daredevil movie that don't involve just a massive use of CGI.

Deadpool got made mostly though sheer force of personality. Whether it's success has changed the entire industry's attitude on the subject remains to be seen (I doubt it) but the real test will be if that can do it a second time and prove they didn't just get lucky with the first one.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Doc has the Time Stone...it's entirely possible that he may do something in his future that involves getting on HYDRA's radar in the past.

the original Batman movies 25 years ago

Tsk, tsk...and this from somebody who's running a "50th anniversary" thread in another forum...!

he'd do any old crap in the 1980s (Hawk the Slayer, anyone?)

I'll see that and raise you a Gor.

At this point the MCU has built up so much momentum that when the inevitable bomb hits, it probably won't even slow them down.

It didn't...it was called The Incredible Hulk.

 

[Venardhi]

TIH did make about twice its budget, plus merch, DVD, distribution, etc. sales, so it wasn't a huge bomb on the scale we've seen so often the last few years. It just didn't make much.

 

[Reverend]

It didn't...it was called The Incredible Hulk.

Yeah, as Venardhi points out, it wasn't an commercial disaster, just a critical disappointment. the real setback there was the behind the scenes falling out with Norton.
Besides, that was back when they were still testing the waters. The MCU wasn't going full steam until after Avengers when it started branching out into television and the pace picked up to three movies a year instead of one a year.

 

[dahj]

Tsk, tsk...and this from somebody who's running a "50th anniversary" thread in another forum...!

I'm just following the official Voight-Kampff nomenclature, the '89-'97 is the original movie series, the '66 one is the primeval movie, and the '49 and '43 serial films before that are primordial and pre-primordial.

 

[Ethros]

The MCU wasn't going full steam until after Avengers when it started branching out into television and the pace picked up to three movies a year instead of one a year.

Do you mean two a year, seen as it's not going three till next year-

2013- Iron Man 3 / Thor 2
2014- Cap 2 / Guardians of the Galaxy
2015- Avengers 2 / Ant-Man
2016- Cap 3 / Doctor Strange