People also rewatch films they really like. Also, movies do allusions to events or stories that happen outside the movie ALL THE TIME. James Bond does it, Indiana Jones does it, and everyone accepts that other adventures happen offscreen that they don't get to see. The only difference is that the MCU gives you the option to fully explore those side stories if you want to.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Fans Have Inherited the Film Industry and It's a Problem for the Rest of Us
- Thread starter Nerdkiller
- Start date
People also rewatch films they really like. Also, movies do allusions to events or stories that happen outside the movie ALL THE TIME. James Bond does it, Indiana Jones does it, and everyone accepts that other adventures happen offscreen that they don't get to see. The only difference is that the MCU gives you the option to fully explore those side stories if you want to.
WaffleTaco
Wants to outlaw technological innovation.
My main problem with the MCU is that if you have only watched a few of those films over the years and want to get caught up on them...you have to spend a lot of money trying to catch up. I have had similar thoughts the author of the article has, but I don't think it's that big of an issue.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Nolan has said that Superman doesn't exist in his movies.
http://www.slashfilm.com/chris-nolan-says-superheroes-dont-exist-in-the-nolanverse/
Doesn't that say a lot about the storytelling impact of forcing all upcoming films into a universe where superheroes do exist? You're not allowed anymore to do what Nolan consciously did with his work.
I also don't care if standalone adaptations get sequels. That's an entirely different beast than forcing all superhero movies, including "new" character-based movies, to appear in one single universe, tone, etc.
Phrozenflame500
Member
Really? Marvel's films are too inaccessible?
There's a lot of fanservice, but aside from the big movies like the Avengers and Civil War I always found the plots fairly straightfoward and easy to understand even without having the entire comicbook industry memorized.
There's a lot of fanservice, but aside from the big movies like the Avengers and Civil War I always found the plots fairly straightfoward and easy to understand even without having the entire comicbook industry memorized.
You wouldn't miss out on Falcon if you watched the 2nd movie in the trilogy though.
I think a valid complaint is that studios are chasing films that are known quantities (sequels, adaptations, cinematic universes) and that comes at the expense of putting efforts into stand alone self contained films. There is a finite amount of money, actors, and theaters to concentrate on.
Look at the difference from 1996 to 2016. I count at least 14 unique films in the top 20 box office in 1996. Maybe 7 in 2016 depending on how you count adaptations from other sources. Obviously fans like it right now, but some more variety would be nice.
And of those 7, 5 are anumated or just CGI characters.
Look at the difference from 1996 to 2016. I count at least 14 unique films in the top 20 box office in 1996. Maybe 7 in 2016 depending on how you count adaptations from other sources. Obviously fans like it right now, but some more variety would be nice.
And of those 7, 5 are anumated or just CGI characters.
The idea that the older films are necessary viewing for the new films to be accessible is the thesis of the article itself. To say, "Well obviously you should have watched xxxx first!" is to pretty much agree to its point.
I'm not the biggest fan of superhero movies being as popular as they are but i've never had trouble following one.
And I know little of the MCU and the DC equivalent and never read any superhero comics.
These are not complicated movies even if they are interconnected.
Also "too many sequels!"/big studios play it too safe!" has been a complaint since forever. Unique movies will always be an exception rather than the rule when it comes to blockbusters.
And I know little of the MCU and the DC equivalent and never read any superhero comics.
These are not complicated movies even if they are interconnected.
Also "too many sequels!"/big studios play it too safe!" has been a complaint since forever. Unique movies will always be an exception rather than the rule when it comes to blockbusters.
Sibersk Esto
Banned
...There are no superhero movies that are straight adaptations.
That's how sequels work though
Watchmen!
Nerdkiller
Membeur
Ending, fella.
Sequels in a franchise do not necessarily have to be interconnected.
You run into the problem here that Civil War is pretty much pitched and marketed as Avengers 3, and thus gets an Avengers-sized audience who may or may not be familiar with the events of Winter Soldier.
Why does domestic gross matter? That only shows what makes the most money. Look at film ratings or even just lists of released films.
MugiwaraCole
Member
Fox is planning on putting Deadpool in an X-Force movie. You can bet that's one of the 6 films they announced today. What are you talking about?
It's a stupid observation, man. "People watching Cap 3 might not know who Falcon is " He was in Cap 2. If they didn't watch that, their bad.
A lot of people watch these movies in between theater releases. We have easier access to media than ever before. That's how franchises grow. Always has been, even when we had to wait for VHS releases. Please. Try harder.
In a world where a ton of people consume media illegally online, no, you don't. Especially when, in that same world, odds are these people are already paying for a subscription service or movie channel that will air the movies eventually.
What are we even doing here?
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Nah, it counts. Changing the ending and some other stray details doesn't stop it from being the only live action superhero adaptation to faithfully adapt source material. It's about 80% identical to the book.
Nerdkiller
Membeur
How does 300 compare to its source, though? Because that was also supposed to be a panel for shot adaptation.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Not a superhero book!
(Also probably close to 80%. They added a whole political subplot that wasn't in the book iirc)
It's Captain America 3, of course they are going to reference stuff from Captain America 2. It's more than reasonable, it's common sense to expect that.
MugiwaraCole
Member
Like, Butterbeer isn't even a plot point. It's just something that exists in the universe. Not even Polyjuice potion. Fucking Butterbeer.
You're drunk.
They're referring to the connected universe though. Out of all the things to be confused about going into the 3rd Captain America film, one of them shouldn't be Falcon, a character that was prominently featured in the 2nd movie.
Or are we just gonna go ahead and throw in sequels/trilogies into the mix as well?
Considering the title starts with Captain America, whose fault is it if they don't recognize events from the previous films? Yes, Civil War does have stuff from other films, but again, at the very least, no one should be surprised that it builds off of the first two movies in the trilogy...
It's been a long time since I read 300, but I think the movie added more fantastical stuff as well.
Also, I just watched a 300 clip, and had no idea that McNulty was in it. He was invisible to me as an actor until The Wire I guess!
People are weirdly inconsistent with that sort of stuff. I know more than one person who binges shows, but will refuse to watch movies because "they are too big a time commitment"
Maybe they mean active time commitment. When a lot of people I know binge a show they've got their laptop/phone out because the pace is often much, much slower and you don't need to pay as much attention as with a movie to follow along.
Still silly.
Well, I'll admit that I have little to no patience when it comes to doing a movie marathon or some shit, but I can binge a TV show easily for some reason. Movies on the other hand, I'll stick to watching like one a day.
Why does the writer cite Wonder Woman as a positive, when she is going to be all up in what DC is setting up.
I feel like the writer would be complaining about Wonder Woman, just like the MCU, if they had to watch years from now, after a JL movie or two.
Get in on the ground floor, "This is great!"
Missed the boat, "This sucks!"
I feel like the writer would be complaining about Wonder Woman, just like the MCU, if they had to watch years from now, after a JL movie or two.
Get in on the ground floor, "This is great!"
Missed the boat, "This sucks!"
Bobby Roberts
Banned
I think binging a show is easier than doing a movie marathon largely due to pacing.
42 minute serialized stories that (depending on what network they're made for) have a set structure determined by commercial (act) breaks are easier to roll with as one becomes two becomes four. There's a rhythm involved.
Movie marathons are two hour narratives that sometimes eschew solid structure, and even when they adhere to it, by necessity stretch out those acts and also those arcs.
(that's assuming that in both cases, the attention span is focused enough that the viewer is actually watching what's on the screen in front of them as opposed to just having it on in the room as they do other shit simultaneously)
42 minute serialized stories that (depending on what network they're made for) have a set structure determined by commercial (act) breaks are easier to roll with as one becomes two becomes four. There's a rhythm involved.
Movie marathons are two hour narratives that sometimes eschew solid structure, and even when they adhere to it, by necessity stretch out those acts and also those arcs.
(that's assuming that in both cases, the attention span is focused enough that the viewer is actually watching what's on the screen in front of them as opposed to just having it on in the room as they do other shit simultaneously)
I personally watch TV shows or movies while doing something else like being on my phone. But hell I've been just sittin and watchin movies in a row since I ain't workin right now. Been easier for me than binging tv because I can burn out on the show itself quickly ya know?
There are sequels, even Marvel sequels, that don't lean on continuity as much. The Iron Man films can pretty much stand alone once you're familiar with the hero's basic premise. Generally the model for most sequels is to try and fill in the gaps for new viewers, or tell 1-shot stories. Civil War's approach is notably different.
I am kinda curious to see how accessible they choose to make Thor Ragnarok. I skipped Thor 1 & 2, so it should be interesting haha.
Hell the trailers even kinda set it up
Thor doesn't know where the fuck Odin is, his hammer gets blown the fuck up, he ends up stranded on a gladiator planet, meets hulk there while fighting
Literally need no other knowledge tbh
I might as well have skipped Thor 2 by this point. I can remember some broad strokes, but that film didn't make a very lasting impression.
The Thor movies are literally the only ones I never got around to finishing. They'd come on TV, but I always ended up tuning them out, even moreso after learning that the consensus is they're mediocre. The first one in particular for me is funny; somehow over the years I've seen like 2/3rds of it, but not the entire thing. Thor 3 is the first time where I'm legitimately interested.
hardcastlemccormick
Banned
The only Marvel movie I struggled with in terms of plot continuity was Civil War. It leans very heavily on previous films.
But just about all of the other ones I've seen were relatively standalone. It's not like it takes a film studies major to understand who the characters are in Thor 2: The Dark World. Sure, you're filling in some gaps in your brain, but it's rarely central to the plot anyway.
I did chuckle at the article wanting to have its cake and eat it too, complaining that these films leave viewers lost when they haven't seen them all but also complaining that they're all the same film underneath.
But just about all of the other ones I've seen were relatively standalone. It's not like it takes a film studies major to understand who the characters are in Thor 2: The Dark World. Sure, you're filling in some gaps in your brain, but it's rarely central to the plot anyway.
I did chuckle at the article wanting to have its cake and eat it too, complaining that these films leave viewers lost when they haven't seen them all but also complaining that they're all the same film underneath.
14 unique films is actually off, given your count probably doesn't account for Ransom and Birdcage both being remakes. Though, actually breaking the two lists down:
1996
Remakes (4)
101 Dalmations
Ransom
The Birdcage
The Nutty Professor
Franchise (3)
Mission Impossible
Space Jam
Star Trek: First Contact
Adaptations (4)
A Time to Kill
The English Patient
The First Wives' Club
The Hunchback of Notre Dame
Original (9)
Broken Arrow
Eraser
Independence Day
Jerry Maguire
Michael
Phenomenon
Scream
The Rock
Twister
2016
Remake (1)
The Jungle Book
Franchise (12)
Batman v Superman
Captain America: Civil War
Deadpool
Dr. Strange
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them
Finding Dory
Jason Borne
Kung-Fu Panda 3
Rogue One
Star Trek Beyond
Suicide Squad
X-Men Apocalypse
Adaptation (2)
Hidden Figures
Trolls
Original (5)
La La Land
Moana
Sing
The Secret Life of Pets
Zootopia
Mind Space Jam as franchise and Trolls as adaptation is admittedly a tad bit arbitrary, but I'd argue for those being the cases as Space Jams ties into Looney Toons as an existing film property, while Trolls was largely just a toy line that briefly dabbled with TV in the past. Moana also technically adapts existing mythology, but otherwise tells an original story (compared to the Disney movie of 1996 being a loose but otherwise direct adaptation of a book).
So, yes, franchise movies in 2016 definitely own the box office compared to 1996, but it's not like 1996 was a bastion of originality, given it had more remakes and adaptations. Furthermore, when breaking down the actual original films between the two, you end up seeing that half of the original movies of that 1996 were the kind of big dumb blockbusters that aren't the sort of art house films that people are whining about franchise films edging out, while two John Travolta fantasy films. Meanwhile, of 2016's "original" films, yeah, most of them are kids films, but you do get significantly less overlap between them.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Space Jam is an adaptation of/sequel to a sneaker advertisement.
It's interesting to see.
As you said, The Ironman films are heavily stand alone. 1, 2 and 3 don't really intersect much at all. Some references and returning characters, but it's not the same villains, plot points, etc.
While Capt films are heavily reliant on the previous. With Capt 3 being Avengers 2.5 and the sequel to Capt 2. You're missing a hell of a lot jumping into Capt 2 without 1, and Capt 3 without Avengers and Capt 1/2.
Thor is definitely closer to Ironman, though since Loki is so prominent. It helps more to have a passing knowledge in comparison to Ironman, where the biggest take away would have been Pepper from previous, who doesn't really have much to do with the story at all as a whole.
I stay awake at night wondering what the world might look like if Space Jam became a franchise, with sequels and spinoffs. We would be seeing a reboot/long awaited sequel right about now.
itwasTuesday
He wasn't alone.
The world would be a better place with more Space Jams.
That isn't even something you should query.
That isn't even something you should query.
Subpar Spatula
Banned
At least Space Jam has memorable music.
I counted adaptations as original just because it is still a self contained story. But it's still a greater variety I feel 20 years ago compared to now for popular movies. Of course theres the whole chicken and the egg to why these are popular if it's because that's what people want or people go because that's what is made.