The Marvel Cinematic Universe: America's answer to the Potter films?

[I Grok Spock]

Re: The Marvel Cinematic Universe: America's answer to the Potter film

Another reason Trek and Bond don't compare to HP and Marvel is that the first two came out intermittently, planned and produced one film at a time and released only every few years, while HP and the Avengerverse films are the result of systematic master plans with successive films being made back-to-back and released in quick succession.

While the Bond films may have not had a master plan from the perspective of storytelling, Broccoli and Saltzman's EON Productions definitely produced "successive films...back-to-back and released in quick succession."

There was a Bond film every year from 1962 to 1967 with the exception of '66. Then they were released on average every two years until 1989 (with the exception of Live and Let Die and the Man with the Golden Gun, done '73/'74, then the 3 year gap to Spy Who Loved Me).

I think its accurate to say that when EON acquired the rights to adapt Fleming's novels, they certainly had long-range plans similar to Warner's plans when they signed the contract with Rowling.

 

[Christopher]

Re: The Marvel Cinematic Universe: America's answer to the Potter film

^Okay, thanks for the clarification.

 

[JD]

Re: The Marvel Cinematic Universe: America's answer to the Potter film

And actually Fox does have Fantastic Four and Daredevil reboots in development. The way these licensing deals work is that the rights revert to the owner if the licensee doesn't use them within a certain amount of time. So it's in the licensees' interest to keep making films based on these characters so that they don't lose the rights. That's why Sony is rebooting Spider-Man so soon after the Raimi films ended.

Do they actually have to make the movies, or just plan/try to make them?

 

[ManOnTheWave]

Re: The Marvel Cinematic Universe: America's answer to the Potter film

Unless something has changed, they have to make them or at least begin shooting before they lose the rights.

That's why the world got the 1994 Fantastic Four movie and the Wolverine movie was called X-Men Origins:.

 

[Christopher]

Re: The Marvel Cinematic Universe: America's answer to the Potter film

That's also why we got a new Star Trek movie in 2009 even though conventional wisdom was that the franchise needed to "rest" a while before being revisited. When Paramount and CBS split into separate companies, CBS got ownership of all the TV properties including Star Trek, but Paramount was allowed to hold onto the movie license so long as they got a film into production within a certain amount of time (18 months, I think).

 

[Broccoli]

Re: The Marvel Cinematic Universe: America's answer to the Potter film

^ Yeah, that seems about right. At the time, I didn't realize Trek was essentially "under a gun" to get produced.

 

[Kegg]

Re: The Marvel Cinematic Universe: America's answer to the Potter film

I saw that AV Club video, and I don't think the Marvel films fit the context of the original question because they were also discussing a book component: The novel series Twilight and Hunger Games were their suggestions as possible Potter successors.

Now, obviously the Marvel films are based on comic books, but so far as I know not on specific graphic novels, just something kind of culled from the sort of stories that have accrued to a given character over several decades... so no, not really comparable.

Alternately, if we're looking something comparable to Potter as a phenomeon - which they also hinted at (in the sense lots of people were reading them or watching the films in a communal-type experience), the only thing that comes to my mind is Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy, which certainly increased interest in reading Tolkein. That of course obviously didn't last as long as the Potter films, although its return to the silver screen in the Hobbit duology after a long sabbatical might count for... uh... something.

Don't forget the Universal Monsters movies of the 1940s, in which Frankenstein, Dracula, and the Wolfman shared in the same foggy, black-and-white, vaguely Eastern European universe, eventually crossing over into each others' films in movies like HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN, HOUSE OF DRACULA, and FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLFMAN . . . .

And what about a fifteen film movie universe, the Showa era of the Godzilla series?

When we define a film as having a 'universe' in the sense it has continuity with other movies - rather then telling stories about the same characters and the same overarching narrative, which I presume the Harry Potter films did - we're getting into flexible territory.

 

[Anwar]

Re: The Marvel Cinematic Universe: America's answer to the Potter film

I'm not sure Potter is a proper comparison, because those movies are all about the same folks from film to film.

What the Marvel folks are trying to do is a tad ambitious, I'll admit: Trying to have several films about different people that all co-exist in the same world with recurring background elements or supporting characters in all the films and keep it tied together.

 

[ClayinCA]

Re: The Marvel Cinematic Universe: America's answer to the Potter film

There are only two other examples of this kind of thing that I can think of (someone's already referenced the View Askew films, which Kevin Smith has expressly said were his homage to the Marvel Universe):

In Out of Sight, Michael Keaton does a one-scene reprise of his Ray Nicolette character from Jackie Brown (both films are based on Elmore Leonard books). And although it's never expressly stated on screen, Pulp Fiction's Vincent Vega (John Travolta) is the brother of Vic Vega (Michael Madsen) from Reservoir Dogs.

Also, the character of Castle Rock Sheriff Alan Pangborn appears in both Needful Things and The Dark Half (both adaptations of Stephen King novels), but he's played by Ed Harris in Needful Things and Michael Rooker in The Dark Half.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Re: The Marvel Cinematic Universe: America's answer to the Potter film

I'm not sure Potter is a proper comparison, because those movies are all about the same folks from film to film.

Yeah, it's just one story, and the franchise dies with that story. (Ditto for LOTR, I can't imagine that series moving beyond the existing books, even if anyone had the unmitigated gall to try.) Marvel is even bigger than Star Trek, and neither is dependent on any one character, set of characters or even time period.

What the Marvel folks are trying to do is a tad ambitious, I'll admit: Trying to have several films about different people that all co-exist in the same world with recurring background elements or supporting characters in all the films and keep it tied together.

So far, they're pulling it off great! It's like a TV series being played out in movie theaters, but bigger and more ambitious than any TV series could ever be, not to mention with a far bigger budget. Very exciting. Even when I don't care too much for one character (Thor), another one will come along that I totally love (Captain America).

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Re: The Marvel Cinematic Universe: America's answer to the Potter film

That's also why we got a new Star Trek movie in 2009 even though conventional wisdom was that the franchise needed to "rest" a while before being revisited. When Paramount and CBS split into separate companies, CBS got ownership of all the TV properties including Star Trek, but Paramount was allowed to hold onto the movie license so long as they got a film into production within a certain amount of time (18 months, I think).

I'd never heard about that before, interesting. I never believed any theories about Star Trek needing to rest to revitalize interest, because that's not how interest is generated. Interest is generated by stuff being made and given a big-ass marketing budget, that can cut through the noise of everything else with a big-ass marketing budget. Stuff that "rests" dies.

But I'd blithely assumed that the movie happened based on JJ Abrams' personal interest in the material. Maybe he just happened to be interested at the same time Paramount needed someone to be interested, and we're lucky it was Abrams and not Michael Bay.

So, is there any hope that CBS's rights to Star Trek on TV are running out and they need to rush something into production?