Since 2008, when Phil Coulson and Nick Fury, Agents of SHIELD, appeared in “Iron Man”, every Marvel Studios production (this does not include Marvel Comics properties “X-Men” and “Spider-Man”, whose rights are held by Fox and Sony, respectively) has shared the same world, collectively known as the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). They’ve even disclaimed that they are planning it out until 2028 (2028!), but I’ll get into the quantity of movies and longevity of the continuum in a bit. While a shared cinematic vision makes sense for the studio (for the most part), fanboys, and diehard comic fans, it presents as possibly problematic for the average viewer.
Throughout Hollywood’s history, there have been examples of movies outside of their own franchises being connected—directors frequently include unique trademarks in all of their films; Disney (who happens to own Marvel) hides Easter eggs and sprinkles references to other movies, indicating a possible shared world—but nothing that alludes to an overall like universe.
The MCU is a different can of worms. Every single entry has a distinct relationship to the rest, which could lead to dependency on knowledge of the other stories, confusion, and (oh no, a cinefile’s worst nightmare!) major continuity errors. As I mentioned, the studio has plans to potentially carry this out to (at least) 2028, which means that, starting with the first “Iron Man”, that will be 20 years of intertwined movies—likely around 40 of them, given Marvel’s goal of releasing two, maybe three, a year.
I am by no means a hardcore-enough fan to even care about all this, not to mention follow it. I actually prefer DC Comics and movies (more on that later), but even with their films, I’m not that serious outside of Batman and Superman. In fact, as far as the MCU goes, I haven’t seen “The Incredible Hulk” or the “Thor” films, and I only really saw and own “The Avengers” because of Iron Man’s inclusion. The next one to be released, the unorthodox “Guardians of the Galaxy” comes out in August of this year, and I will probably see it at some point when it hits Blu-ray. Other than the “Iron Man” franchise, the “Avengers” series (again, because of IM), and—because of the unexpected awesomeness of “The Winter Soldier”—the “Captain America” movies, I really have no interest in any of the other films. I couldn’t care less about “Ant-Man” (although Paul Rudd might convince me otherwise) or “Doctor Strange”. And those just round out phase three, through 2016.
See, the issue here is reliance on outside knowledge to enjoy or even understand what’s going on in the film you are currently watching. My favorite Marvel movie franchise (outside of Fox’s “X-Men”) is “Iron Man”, but the second (which I feel is a lot better than it gets credit for) and the third are simply bookends to the first “Avengers” team-up film: while the first “IM” briefly introduced the idea of SHIELD and the Avengers Initiative, the second was simply a build-up, and the third relied far too heavily on “The Avengers”. That is probably my biggest qualm with that entry (which had potential to be the best in the series), other than every line being a joke or every scene having a punchline:a major part of Tony Stark’s personality (specifically his PTSD) was directly related to a movie not even in the same franchise.
At least I had seen “The Avengers”—so I was familiar with its significant role in “IM3”—and thankfully in that movie, which was my introduction to Thor and that iteration of the Hulk, it didn’t depend too much on those characters’ previous films. Now just imagine a countless number of other franchises that could possibly play a large part in the make-up of the larger picture. It’s madness.
Regarding both the quantity of movies and the story’s longevity, quality and originality are bound to take a hit. While both of these are primarily affected by varying directors and screenwriting teams, there’re only so many similar stories you can tell before the freshness wears off. Another question raised online is what happens with the original cast of characters when the actors move on. Do you recast Tony Stark when Robert Downey, Jr.—the glue of this universe—calls it quits (let’s face it, he’s not getting any younger)? Chris Evans has said that after his contract is up, he wants to retire from acting, which potentially leads to Anthony Mackie taking over as Cap, mirroring the events in the current comic run. If something—God forbid—happens to one of the primary actors over the course of the next 14 years, what needs to be done? I don’t see it as making sense to have Iron Man remain as Tony Stark stuck in time; when RDJ is out, either retire the hero altogether or have another character take up the mantle. In real life, people retire, die, or otherwise move on, so they should do that in this continuity to reflect reality. This would also accommodate the changing demographics—I’m 33 and already have only vested interest in Iron Man, but I can’t guarantee even that much at 47 (my parents watch the movies, but are not invested in the MCU as a shared world, so for people like them, it’s much more beneficial for the films to be standalones). Finally, when series get too long, it becomes overkill; I actually think the current trend of the trilogy is the way to go: beginning, middle, and end.
When a new installment of a series comes out, I like to revisit the previous entries before the new one’s release. I did it when “IM3” came out, including “The Avengers”, and will rewatch those movies again before the second one, “The Age of Ultron”, hits theaters (or possibly home for me). If I were hardcore, I’d be watching every MCU movie up to that point. Can you imagine when that number of films hits 25? I don’t have time to sit down and watch movie after movie, so that would probably mean watching them all over the course of a year before the next annual pair hits, and that’s not mentioning the boatloads of money I would drop because I would simply have to have all the movies. I have other things to do—and, honestly, other types of movies to watch. Fortunately, I’m not that hardcore…but some people are. With the “Dark Knight” trilogy, I did that, and I will rewatch “Man of Steel” before “Batman v Superman” (and probably the trilogy again, even though it’s not connected, because it’s awesome). Same with “X-Men”.
Speaking of “X-Men”, shared continuities are seemingly becoming the new trend. Whereas the X-franchise had its own series with a bit of Wolverine solo films thrown in, there are now talks that it might crossover with the (unnecessary) “Fantastic Four” reboot, as well as spinning off into solo releases. The (also unnecessary) “Spider-Man” reboot is going to have villain-centric “Sinister Six” and “Venom” movies (that’s if this series doesn’t crash and burn first, even though they have already set the release dates for the next TWO sequels). The third “Star Wars” trilogy is going to alternate years with solo character films.
Now, onto DC. As before mentioned, though I like Marvel, I’m a DC guy first and foremost (look, you can like both and be civil about it!). Actually, I’m a Batman guy first and foremost, and am definitely feeling this new incarnation of Superman. Honestly, I didn’t feel we needed to see any more Batman for a long while (there’s that overkill I mentioned, although from what I’ve heard and seen about Ben Affleck’s take, I’m really excited) after Christopher Nolan’s movies, but money talks. (I read that they were talking to Affleck months before “Man of Steel” “bombed” (i.e., didn’t make a billion dollars), so although it looks purely financial on the surface, that might not be the case.) Although I’m not as opposed to Bats and Supes sharing the screen as I once was, I’m a bit skeptical about “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” transforming from a “MoS” sequel into a Justice League introduction. As much love as I have for the Caped Crusader and the Last Son of Krypton, I am kind of hesitant to invest into anything outside of their little circle: I honestly don’t see myself watching a Wonder Woman movie, or a Cyborg movie, or a Flash movie, or an Aquaman movie (especially Aquaman…that’s for my boy Jake!). The thing is, though, as long as Batman is involved in any JL projects, I will be watching. Like I said, I don’t feel there was the need to reintroduce him in the first place (as I was really focusing my attention on the new Superman storyline), but, since they did, I’d prefer they keep it solo (with a few Affleck-centric films with him as an aging Bruce Wayne, culminating with him passing the torch to Terry McGinnis for a “Batman Beyond” finale to the series).
Wow. That’s a lot to take in. Whatever happened to a movie being a movie (or a series simply being a series)? There’s nothing wrong with standalones; not everything has to be connected. Why must everything be remade or rebooted? Leave things as they were and appreciate them like that: the “Fantastic Four” movies were atrocious, but that doesn’t mean we should give it another go (and who’s to say the new ones will do any better?); and, although not the pinnacle of superhero films, the original “Spider-Man” franchise was successful financially and critically, so what’s the purpose in revisiting it? And, no, “X-Men” does NOT need to be rebooted when the rights “revert to Marvel” (stupid fanboys).
In the future, I hope filmmakers consider these three words: Keep it simple.
No comments:
Post a Comment