Don't get me wrong, I have watched marvel movies. So what does that tell you? But while I can appreciate watching something to turn of my brain for a couple of hours, there is quite a sedative quality to MCU that could be dangerous. If you've been brought up on Marvel movies, I wonder how that would affect you as you grow up. Plus even as I dislike of Cameron's blockbusters, at least you'd get cinematic experiences that feel totally different. But with all the money being pummelled into MCU, it's quite disappointing like we lost a generation of movies to it. Having said all that. There are 4 movies that I can say actually stand for its own artistic merit: Infinity Wars End Game (I hesitate on this one, but as you say there is some cinematic achievement here) Thor ragnorak Shang chi - (honestly geeked out by seeing Chinese depictions brought to life) So not all bad.
I think I found another evidence of the problem with why they are so interchangeable. They are emotionally hedging; if they need a character to be quipping jokes to lighten the mood or be serious they undercut their own tone throughout the movie. It also explains why I've enjoyed the parodies like ragnorak or gotg better with this style more so than the other marvel movies.
It's weird that you say both of these things in the same post. I feel like James Gunn was able to handle the extreme humor without undermining the dignity of the characters (possibly because the Guardians don't really have any dignity? ), but while I really like certain things about Ragnarok, Taika Waititi severely undercut the dignity of his characters and the entire situation with the postmodernist humor. I do love the new Thor that emerged in that movie--before that he was a totally flat character. And the first time I watched Ragnarok I really liked it. But the next time I started to notice the causticness of the humor, and how it damaged the characters.
But I think ragnorak was the true parody of the whole MCU while galaxy is more just parody references. The caustic humour is also a very steep departure from the half baked quipping that goes on. Plus it felt like his film was the first one to actually add meaningful changes to the character that they cannot just shrug off (outside of the usual cannon like captain America time capsule stuff). But more than anything, there is a Stark directorial differences in ragnorak that isn't present in galaxy. Galaxy mostly plays out like anything else in MCU. But ragnorak has this running theme of extreme parody that is notched up to 11 and it sincerely leans into it. Plus it's just a straight up my favourite marvel film visually (I recently watch Shan Chi and while I love the fact they depict Chinese folklore, I think ragnorak is a little better stylistically).
Financially? They’ve made a ton of money so that doesn’t seem true. Artistically? How are they preventing movies that you like from being made?
To be fair, money being put towards marvel is money that is not being put towards other things. Also there is only a finite amount of resources or experience in movie industry to be able to do the special effects or scope of marvel movies. We wouldn't really be able to think of the impact of a guaranteed box office draw would have on being able to finance or have support for riskier projects.
But that money wouldn't be spent on riskier projects. It would be put towards some other giant action blockbuster, if I know Hollywood at all.
Who's making riskier projects these days in Hollywood? Any studio? Not the big major ones, and certainly not the ones using the same kind of special effects and CGI. Hollywood has become extremely risk-averse in their old age. The riskier things these days are coming from small studios, though often with some financial backing from the big studios. But that backing doesn't amount to a drop in the bucket of a single scene of a Marvel movie. What I mean is, one of those riskier movies can be made for a tiny fraction of what a Marvel movie costs. They're probably financed largely by the big tentpole movies, at least that's the usual business model. it's the way Guillermo Del Toro works, he'll make a big Hollywood feature like Hellboy and use the profits from that to finance one or more of his smaller, more personal projects. That way he gets full creative control over those smaller projects. Also, it's the huge multi-million-dollar projects like Marvel that are pushing the CGI and special effects to new levels. Have you noticed the way the CGI effects improved drastically by phase 3? It's astonishingly beautiful now, and it wouldn't have been possible without such high-profile and massively money-generating movies being so popular. This is the way things work.
Avatar did the same things without making a network of movies with similar premises. The problem isn't that big movies tend to be tent pole with mass appeal, but they at least had creative differences previously. It's now just making the same movie differently each time. Edit: plus is it not my point that they aren't making big movies differently anymore? Marvel probably had an affect of how successful movies are viewed. It's not good enough to make a hit, but have a formula to have consistent hit. It's the cinema version of a TV series where they milk it till they cancel it.
But at least they would have slight variance in the formula. Let's just use Cameron as the equivalent of Marvel because his movies were basically that for big block buster, he made a romantic movie, a fantasy epic, a sci fi. Plus Marvel movies are block busters where the brand outweighs the skills of the director. You could get any dumb director of the street and make a formulaic movie that could sell based on the branding alone. It's taking power away from directors and putting the power in the hand of the producers. I don't know why any creatives would favour that.
MCU movies have variance in the formula, and I don't think they're poorly directed. Not every movie needs to be The Godfather.
Didn't you get the memo? That's pretty much what big Hollywood studios do these days. When's the last time any of them made any of these smaller, riskier projects of which you speak? As I said earlier, for that you go to the smaller alternative studios, which get their funding from the major studios producing these huge tentpole franchises. It's a machine. It has to generate massive money somehow, which can then get used to make other kinds of projects. In other words, it's the opposite of what you're saying, The success of the Marvel movies can fuel the production of many smaller riskier projects through the alternative studios, AND the development of the various new CG packages, which are then used in the newer movies. Exactly like what happened with Star Wars. In fact that's where this kind of business model began. Hollywood had never treated a science fiction movie as a big-budget project, they were just silly little B movies for the kids. But somehow Lucas convinced them to pump the same kind of money into it they would for a Gone With The Wind, and they decided to take a chance on it. And it changed everything from that point on. Not only did they rake in mega-millions to finance all kinds of other projects, but it pushed special effects into all kinds of new realms and basically created digital video editing and led to the creation of CGI (which ironically replaced the kind of filmmaking ILM pioneered on Star Wars that kicked it all off in the first place). Since then that's how things get done in Hollywood, and it's why the smaller studios are able to do what they do. Like the little strip malls that form around the big stores, the small studios are parasites that can only exist because of the huge money created by the big franchises. It's also like the way small satellite towns and villages etc are able to spring up around major cities, and why towns etc spring up around major shipping ports along rivers and railroad tracks. An oasis of big money will support a lot of smaller subsidiaries around it. But without those oases, the smaller studios that make the riskier projects can't get funding and go broke.
In fact, most people don't know this, but it was George Lucas who created today's digital video industry, which allows us all to have HD cameras in our cell phones and make YouTube videos. Hell, it's why there IS a YouTube. George had a dream that video editing could be done digitally, and he used Star Wars money to build huge computer-driven machines called Edit Droids. The money kept rolling in from the sequels and from his other brainchild, the massive marketing campaign with all the Star Wars merch, and those early massive Edit Droids eventually streamlined and became digital editing suites like Adobe Premiere and Final Cut Pro. Only because of all the huge money his initial project brought in was any of this able to happen. So entire industries are born and grow around those big tentpole movie franchises. They're the money generators that keep everything else afloat. It's why they're even called tentpoles, they support the entire circus that goes on around them, including the little side-show attractions, which in this metaphor are the small alternative studios. Knowing all this, is it any wonder they don't take creative chances on the big projects?
This is too interesting to ignore. I didn't know those things led to those things. Do you have sources or literatures for further reading?
I can't remember where I learned it, but if you google for Edit Droid or George Lucas digital editing you should be able to find lots of info. I agree, it is fascinating. I was blown away when I learned it.
Here's an article on a part of it: How George Lucas pioneered the use of Digital Video in feature films with the Sony HDW F900 He wasn't the first to use digital video to shoot a film, but he was the one who made Hollywood take it seriously. He was involved in the whole transition into digital video, for shooting as well as for editing. Whatever else can be said about him (and there's a lot), he was a visionary and saw the way things were heading.
"Didn't you get the memo? That's pretty much what big Hollywood studios do these days. When's the last time any of them made any of these smaller, riskier projects of which you speak? As I said earlier, for that you go to the smaller alternative studios, which get their funding from the major studios producing these huge tentpole franchises. It's a machine. It has to generate massive money somehow, which can then get used to make other kinds of projects. In other words, it's the opposite of what you're saying, The success of the Marvel movies can fuel the production of many smaller riskier projects through the alternative studios, AND the development of the various new CG packages, which are then used in the newer movies." How has this been demonstrated? MCU popularity has only bolstered the popularity of other superhero movies or become tentpole for their own universe. Before tentpoles were about ambitious projects being fueled by mass appeal movies. "Exactly like what happened with Star Wars. In fact that's where this kind of business model began. Hollywood had never treated a science fiction movie as a big-budget project, they were just silly little B movies for the kids. But somehow Lucas convinced them to pump the same kind of money into it they would for a Gone With The Wind, and they decided to take a chance on it. And it changed everything from that point on. Not only did they rake in mega-millions to finance all kinds of other projects, but it pushed special effects into all kinds of new realms and basically created digital video editing and led to the creation of CGI (which ironically replaced the kind of filmmaking ILM pioneered on Star Wars that kicked it all off in the first place)." But the point is that this only improves the popularity of superhero movies. I'm personally tired of the genre regardless of how they dress it. But fantasy/sci-fi can be so varied in absolutely everything that they don't even play out like the same movie. The differences between Avatar and Inception is so vast, while every Marvel movie plays about the same. I'll admit that technical skill does tend to improve the more money you throw at something, but I think they'd make those improvements if they threw at other things too. Marvel isn't creating new tentpoles, but stealing from other unrealised tentpoles. "Since then that's how things get done in Hollywood, and it's why the smaller studios are able to do what they do. Like the little strip malls that form around the big stores, the small studios are parasites that can only exist because of the huge money created by the big franchises. It's also like the way small satellite towns and villages etc are able to spring up around major cities, and why towns etc spring up around major shipping ports along rivers and railroad tracks. An oasis of big money will support a lot of smaller subsidiaries around it." I don't disagree with that. But you are talking as if the movie industry was dying prior to MCU. It's been flourishing and has been flourishing at least in my recent memory (outside of covid). It's still flourishing in spite of the onslaught of marvel and superhero genre movies. But money is finite, if studios all want to churn out easy superhero money, that's money that's not going towards something else. Also makes riskier projects just cheaper in general because why go through effort when you could just be making superhero movies. But without those oases, the smaller studios that make the riskier projects can't get funding and go broke. Tentpoles don't have to be superhero movies for that to happen though. Now tentpole movies are superhero movies that only self references themselves through cameos and mashups.
Please point out where I said anything like that. I never did. Disney makes a lot more than superhero movies, and Marvel money is Disney money. I don't know if Disney has any independent studios associated with it, but most of the big studios do. Sometimes a big studio literally creates an independent studio in order to support the more creative, independent films the big studio won't make directly, and sometimes they just give financial support and producer clout to the smaller studios which otherwise would struggle to stay afloat. Once again, thank you for destroying your own argument. Did I or anybody else ever say they did?
Please point out where I said anything like that. I never did. "In other words, it's the opposite of what you're saying, The success of the Marvel movies can fuel the production of many smaller riskier projects through the alternative studios, AND the development of the various new CG packages, which are then used in the newer movies." I think the industry was fine previously. No need to solve a problem where there wasn't none. Disney makes a lot more than superhero movies, and Marvel money is Disney money. I don't know if Disney has any independent studios associated with it, but most of the big studios do. Sometimes a big studio literally creates an independent studio in order to support the more creative, independent films the big studio won't make directly, and sometimes they just give financial support and producer clout to the smaller studios which otherwise would struggle to stay afloat. Sure, so let me know which movies Disney has released that you feel has been riskier and not been associated with Marvel. Once again, thank you for destroying your own argument. My argument is not that there isn't room, my argument is that in recent years the flavour has been mostly dominated by one type- vanilla. I have the ability to avoid it whenever I want. Did I or anybody else ever say they did? So would you be happier with more superhero movies being a tentpole or some new creative directions?
Nothing I said there indicates the movie industry was failing before Marvel. I refuse to keep engaging with this kind of fallacious argument technique. The rest of what you said in that post is more of the same. You keep shifting the goal posts and changing your argument. Your original argument was that the success of Marvel is killing the movie industry.
"To be fair, money being put towards marvel is money that is not being put towards other things. Also there is only a finite amount of resources or experience in movie industry to be able to do the special effects or scope of marvel movies. We wouldn't really be able to think of the impact of a guaranteed box office draw would have on being able to finance or have support for riskier projects." That's what I originally said for this current portion of the topic we were discussing. I don't think I ever said it was killing the industry.
