Right, the writer and director of film isn't the reason for its success. Just like James Cameron isn't responsible for the success of Titanic and Avatar, or Christopher Nolan isn't responsible for the success of The Dark Knight and Batman Begins.
Marvel's 'Avengers' Success: What Can DC Comics Learn From It?
- Thread starter RAMA
- Start date
Right, the writer and director of film isn't the reason for its success. Just like James Cameron isn't responsible for the success of Titanic and Avatar, or Christopher Nolan isn't responsible for the success of The Dark Knight and Batman Begins.
Joel Schumacher's Batman & Robin, Ang Lee's Hulk, and Bryan Singer's Superman Returns long ago proved that working with a popular, established brand is no guarantee of financial success -- and CERTAINLY no guarantee of multi-billion-dollar runaway success like what Whedon has earned with The Avengers.
But it wasn't the story that made Avengers memorable, it was the tone, the dialogue and the balancing of a large cast, capturing each of them and giving them good moments without any one overwhelmingly dominating (and of course the whiz-bang action).
I'm gonna have to go with RAMA on this one. The Avengers was a guaranteed success because the MARVEL Studios movies have a pretty solid track record.
The Avengers was going to make bank because we've been building to it for years, and all it had to do was be as good as Iron Man 1,2, Thor and Cap movies to succeed. It really wasn't any better, story wise, than those movies, but it has the "cool factor" of having all these guys in one film and some whiz bang action.
Joss isn't some brilliant director, or comic movie messiah. If he'd done the Avengers without the benefit of five lead in movies and done the kind of numbers the movie has done, I'd feel the opposite. But he didn't.
Again, the film was very enjoyable, but it followed the "by the numbers" formula for MARVEL films and the humor and dialog wasn't any better than anything we've had in Iron Man 1 or 2. Tone was pretty much the same as the other movies. Yes, he did balance out the characters screen time, but these characters had the benefit of having their own movies, and so didn't really need a POV character like the X-Men movies.
Well, the action in this movie is really well done. Very spectacular, but coherent and enjoyable to watch. Some assistant directors and effects guys no doubt deserve a lot of credit here.
Obviously, Whedon does, too. I would guess especially in terms of revising the script, making the group dynamic work and balancing the characters. So, I agree with you there.
Still, there's no doubt that the massive bank this movie is generating is largely a credit to the whole Marvel studios scheme leading up to this. Great casting, clever marketting, and an innovative/ambitious plan that everybody doubted would work.
They've got a great quality control team to ensure they're putting out a quality product and they've got a formula that works. They had five successful (some more than others, but not a failure in the bunch) lead in movies that made it easier to balance out the movie since we knew all the characters.
By the time Thor came out, I don't think anyone was thinking Avengers wouldn't be an awesome move. And given the above items I listed, Joss would've had to work harder to turn out a shitty movie. The Marvel Movie Machine wasn't going to let him screw up all the success they'd had thus far.
It was always going to make bank....that it made as much as it did is just icing on the cake.
It was, but this movie really does a bit more, I think, than just recreate the successful formula of the prior movies. It raises the bar by a lot. Now, of course, Whedon is not solely responsable for that, by any means, that's largely the studio going all-in. But I think he was clearly the right man for the job. So, another wise move, and a good choice for director.
Marvel had done pretty much everything right setting this up, but they still needed a director who could make it all gel into what is easily one of the most entertaining movies I've seen in a long time.
Also, now that it has worked, it's easy to see success as inevitable. But I don't know... this whole thing could have gone very wrong in so many different ways. Even a moderate financial success would have been a disappointment. This film really had to be huge to be considered a success. It's hard to deliver in those conditions.
I have some far crazier ideas for Justice League...they can't copy the Avengers formula, and really they don't need to.
DC has the benefit of having 3 characters that nearly everyone already knows and has seen in some fashion or another.
They don't need to be introduced in a bunch of new big budget movies.
they just need to re-release the various TV shows, using different formats & advertising. These are things that poeple in each generation have connected with, and have nostalgic feelings for. And there are plenty of avenues to get it out there.
Challenge of the Superfriends could be shown on Saturday mornings
Wonder Woman Batman, & Adventures of Superman could be shown on nostalgia channels like TV Land or MeTV.
Lois & Clark commercials could be shown in Desperate Housewives reruns as "Teri Hatcher's breakout role"
Redbox, Netflix, Hulu & other services can feature re-releases of old movies , with a commercial for Justice League movie in there
Smallville is already out there.
Other shows (even the bad stuff, like the live action Justice League stuff of the 70's & 90's) could be shown on YouTube or Hulu, with ENCOURGEMENTS to post links...maybe a message including "Remember when..."
Looking at the success (?) of Yamato in Japan, and the recent X-Men & Spiderman movies...while totally different continuity than what fans grew up with, people will still accept the new format, and newer people weren't confused.
So what i'm saying...the old shows will just build up hype to seeing what a "modern" version will look like. While it was nice to have bryan Singer try & tie in the Donner films with Superman Returns...it wasn't necessary. A few winks and nods to previous stuff, like Spiderman did, would have been just fine.
They can also introduce NEW material as YouTube segments (like a web series), On demand Exclusives, web graphic novels, etc. Especially the minor heroes (especially if played by actors who wouldn't mind such a "lowbrow" acting gig, could have origins or other slice of life segments filmed.
As for the movie itself...the Big 3 might be hyped in the commercials or ads (i.e. the symbols for them appearing on individual posters), but they'd be more like supporting characters. A few scenes which highlight their abilities, and how they are connected with the other heroes.
But the movie should focus more on 2 or 3 supporting characters. These characters would be the glue of the team, the reason why all the characters are connected, and provide the vision of the team. They don't need a whole origin movie...a few throwaway lines or flashback scenes would suffice.
You guys can come up with who would be the best fit....but i am thinking they need:
What do ya think?
DC has the benefit of having 3 characters that nearly everyone already knows and has seen in some fashion or another.
They don't need to be introduced in a bunch of new big budget movies.
they just need to re-release the various TV shows, using different formats & advertising. These are things that poeple in each generation have connected with, and have nostalgic feelings for. And there are plenty of avenues to get it out there.
Challenge of the Superfriends could be shown on Saturday mornings
Wonder Woman Batman, & Adventures of Superman could be shown on nostalgia channels like TV Land or MeTV.
Lois & Clark commercials could be shown in Desperate Housewives reruns as "Teri Hatcher's breakout role"
Redbox, Netflix, Hulu & other services can feature re-releases of old movies , with a commercial for Justice League movie in there
Smallville is already out there.
Other shows (even the bad stuff, like the live action Justice League stuff of the 70's & 90's) could be shown on YouTube or Hulu, with ENCOURGEMENTS to post links...maybe a message including "Remember when..."
Looking at the success (?) of Yamato in Japan, and the recent X-Men & Spiderman movies...while totally different continuity than what fans grew up with, people will still accept the new format, and newer people weren't confused.
So what i'm saying...the old shows will just build up hype to seeing what a "modern" version will look like. While it was nice to have bryan Singer try & tie in the Donner films with Superman Returns...it wasn't necessary. A few winks and nods to previous stuff, like Spiderman did, would have been just fine.
They can also introduce NEW material as YouTube segments (like a web series), On demand Exclusives, web graphic novels, etc. Especially the minor heroes (especially if played by actors who wouldn't mind such a "lowbrow" acting gig, could have origins or other slice of life segments filmed.
As for the movie itself...the Big 3 might be hyped in the commercials or ads (i.e. the symbols for them appearing on individual posters), but they'd be more like supporting characters. A few scenes which highlight their abilities, and how they are connected with the other heroes.
But the movie should focus more on 2 or 3 supporting characters. These characters would be the glue of the team, the reason why all the characters are connected, and provide the vision of the team. They don't need a whole origin movie...a few throwaway lines or flashback scenes would suffice.
You guys can come up with who would be the best fit....but i am thinking they need:
- A jokester, who comes into conflict with Batman's seriousness, maybe even Superman's Boy Scoutness
- A Mr. Spock-type who isn't "strong" enough to be leader, but has lots of wisdom
- The brash kid who has to learn (maybe humbled by Wonder Woman in some way)
- The actual leader -- while the world might see Superman as the leader, this person actually has the vision to connect all the heroes. Batman might make the strategic plan, but the leader helps the others buy into it.
What do ya think?
I haven't read this thread--and apologize in advance.
But the answer is really simple and I don't think anyone can really argue with it.
Smart scripts. Great actors and directors. Stories that focus as much on the human element of the characters as on the super-hero action. Finally, faithfulness to the spirit of the characters if not all the details. Don't change their stories and backgrounds but don't try to include all kinds of fan boy pleasing in jokes.
Batman Begins had this in spades. Superman Returns altered too many basic elements of the character. The first two of the X-Men and Spider-Man movies followed this. The third in the trilogies strayed too far. The FF movies were too camp and changed too many elements. The Green Lantern movie was just badly written and directed.
DC just needs to follow this advice. There is no "formula" or specifics that is going to work.
But the answer is really simple and I don't think anyone can really argue with it.
Smart scripts. Great actors and directors. Stories that focus as much on the human element of the characters as on the super-hero action. Finally, faithfulness to the spirit of the characters if not all the details. Don't change their stories and backgrounds but don't try to include all kinds of fan boy pleasing in jokes.
Batman Begins had this in spades. Superman Returns altered too many basic elements of the character. The first two of the X-Men and Spider-Man movies followed this. The third in the trilogies strayed too far. The FF movies were too camp and changed too many elements. The Green Lantern movie was just badly written and directed.
DC just needs to follow this advice. There is no "formula" or specifics that is going to work.
They tried to include a human element with the Transformers movies and that didn't go over so well. People complained that there was too much focus on Sam and not enough on the autobots. It's been argued though, that the stuff with Sam wasn't done very well, so you could say that that was the real problem.
Tony Stark/Iron Man was altered significantly and that actually helped the franchise.
What doesn't seem to work in comic movies:
1. Concept bad guys (Galactus, Parallax)...just a get a guy(s) with a plan and let it be clobbering time for the climax...that seems to work.
2. Retro heroes, ie Superman. I liked the most recent Superman movie, but I still feel it could have been updated more, and someone who is the most powerful hero needs an equally powerful villain, Brainiac should be that nemesis.
3. Too much humor. You have to strike a balance where the humor is there, but not laughing AT the heroes or absurdity of it all.
4. Too much seriousness....go too far in this direction and you have Woo's Hulk, and although Dark Knight was pretty serious, it had a bad guy called the Joker!
5. Exposition, if you can't sum it up in 90 secs, don't bother, people will wonder if The Avengers is still playing.
RAMA
1. Concept bad guys (Galactus, Parallax)...just a get a guy(s) with a plan and let it be clobbering time for the climax...that seems to work.
2. Retro heroes, ie Superman. I liked the most recent Superman movie, but I still feel it could have been updated more, and someone who is the most powerful hero needs an equally powerful villain, Brainiac should be that nemesis.
3. Too much humor. You have to strike a balance where the humor is there, but not laughing AT the heroes or absurdity of it all.
4. Too much seriousness....go too far in this direction and you have Woo's Hulk, and although Dark Knight was pretty serious, it had a bad guy called the Joker!
5. Exposition, if you can't sum it up in 90 secs, don't bother, people will wonder if The Avengers is still playing.
RAMA
^ Retro heroes don't work? What about Captain America? Or the success of the 1960s-set X-Men First Class?
I also think a Superman-Batman teamup would be the way to go. Anything else would already be done with Avengers. Pick your two best heroes and build on their relationship. THAT would make it different than a big-cast film project and enable DC to carve a niche without being seen as been-done. If that works, do a sequel with a guest hero. Also be careful not to split the focus with too many villains. The Nolan films kept the focus on one big bad with other familiar names in lessser roles. I never liked the earlier ones in part because of the big names fighting for scenery-chewing rights as the evildoer.
Mark
Mark
I mean, obviously Captain America: The First Avenger was meant to help set up The Avengers--it says so right in the title. But that doesn't mean that the Captain America character isn't strong enough, or that the movie wasn't good enough, to stand on its own even if there had been no Avengers film in the works. Retro superheroes can work, but they have to be done well.
(Really, considering that Batman was created in 1939 yet The Dark Knight was the biggest film of 2008, I don't know how anyone could conceivably argue that reto superheroes don't work. Batman is the very definition of retro--the only major superhero older than him is Superman--yet he remains as popular and vital as ever.)
I believe that there's a difference between showing that your superheroes are actual people with real lives and tacking some annoying kid onto the team and making him super-important.
The Autobots were human enough on their own. There is plenty of material out their exploring their personalities and hints of civilian lives before and after the war.
Look at Optimus Prime. He was basically a normal guy with a blue collar job and a girlfriend who got dragged into a war that he didn't want to fight and somehow rose to the top post. There is a lot of humanity to him.