Ryan Maloney offers a counterpoint to the argument that the serialization of franchise films is killing the blockbuster…
With the global success of both Iron Man 3 and Thor: the Dark World, last year Marvel Studios proved that not only could their properties exist together in a shared universe, but they could be just as profitable in solo adventures as well. Thus, it comes as no surprise that other major Hollywood studios are following suit with whatever characters and franchises they’ve got stored away in-house, from Paramount’s Jack Ryan to Fox’s two remaining Marvel licensees, Fantastic Four and X-Men.
But recently IndieWire, in discussing Sony’s recent move to expand the Spider-Man franchise to spin-off into Venom and The Sinister Six films, have put forth the argument that this “serialized” mentality is turning movies into TV enterprises, and killing blockbuster films as a result. Their arguments are valid, to an extent – having faced huge losses last year in non-sequel tentpoles like The Lone Ranger and After Earth, having a brand to rely on for guaranteed income is a no-brainer. But like anything else, Hollywood is a business, and often has a distinct tendency to turn these franchises into part of its machine, churning out sequel after sequel without thought nor care.
I’m writing to respectfully disagree with this author’s claims. Ideally, the potential exists for studios to build some fantastic, exciting shared universes with its properties, while still ensuring each film is a quality part of that enterprise.
It’s important to clarify – unquestionably, appropriating TV mentality for cinematic franchises doesn’t work. Take 2011’s Green Lantern – a failure by most (read: respectable) standards, the film’s chief problem seemed to be its painfully ordinary script by Michael Green, Greg Berlanti, and Marc Guggenheim. No matter what A-list cast and crew Warner Bros. had signed on, at the end of the day, the script failed to provide a compelling vision for the character and convince audiences Lantern was a mythology worth adapting. A little over a year later, the same writers experienced tremendous success adapting Green Arrow for the CW Network.
Why? Because Guggenheim and Co. are inherently TV writers, most of their experience coming from setting up and paying off plotlines over multiple episodes. In Green Lantern, people saw the setups coming a mile away. And they groaned. Boy, did they groan. Not to mention, this TV-style writing doesn’t work for movies over a long term, because with film, audiences are fatigued quicker, and forget the details of the last movie easily between the years of their release. TV shows can ride a consistent approach for years, but films demand to be consistently fresh and exciting. A poor TV episode is nothing compared to the $200+ million losses a studio faces putting out a poor film.
Now take Thor: the Dark World. Compare the bold, operatic vision Kenneth Branagh employed in the first film to bring the world of Asgard from the page to the screen, to the derivative, copy-and-paste design of Alan Taylor’s sequel. The latter could easily pass for a big-budget TV movie, boasting writing and direction that suffered hugely in comparison to its predecessor. It’s Marvel’s way of bringing costs down, hiring a TV director like Taylor to helm a film already designed by Marvel to take Branagh’s template and recycle it for the sequel. It saves the studio the trouble of hiring another auteur (ahem, Patty Jenkins), by simply hiring someone safe to helm an otherwise uninspired film which, all things considered, is just “another Thor.”
Above: Compare the striking, tangible vision of Thor to the predominantly blue-screen scenery of Thor: The Dark World.
Now a lot of that can be chalked up to opinion, but consider this. IndieWire’s article argues that The Dark World lacked tension due to the fact that Thor just got back from fighting off an epic alien invasion in The Avengers. While I wasn’t enthused with The Dark World, I certainly wasn’t sitting in the theater thinking, “Psh, why don’t the other Avengers come help? Malekith is so lame compared to the last alien invasion.” The fact is, Thor has worked perfectly well in both solo and team-up comics for years. I have to conclude the article’s author isn’t a fan of comics, but had he read them, would he really read them comparing each of the thousands of conflicts in Journey into Mystery with the conflicts of Stan Lee’s Avengers? Really, if you’re watching The Dark World and wondering why Iron Man isn’t circling around nearby waiting to help, you’re missing the point entirely.
Rather, what I suppose I’m most concerned with in studios crafting shared universes is the possibility that movies will no longer play like movies. While I’m eager to see Batman and Superman duke it out on the big screen, the inclusion of Wonder Woman has me worried the more intimate character moments to be had between the title protagonists will be lost in an Iron Man 2-esque clutter of plots leading up to an even bigger team-up. You’d think Batman and Superman alone would already pose a narrative brimming with possibilities; cramming in several other heroes unnaturally or unnecessarily may detract from the arc of its main heroes. Similarly, there’s been rumors of the Man of Steel sequel potentially ending with a direct link to a Justice League movie, and thus lack a concrete conclusion. We’ve already seen this in films like The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, and now even X-Men: Days of Future Past is reported to immediately lead into the next sequel, X-Men: Apocalypse, a full half-year before the former is even out. Could we be seeing the beginning of studios abandoning traditional resolutions altogether?
What it really comes down to, as it always does, is the integrity of the creative process. Bringing TV writers in to execute cinematic ideas may be a lost cause, however, hiring more filmmakers to collaborate on several different films which can co-exist naturally does, as we’ve seen with Marvel’s largely successful Phase One. Look at the original Star Wars trilogy, films rooted in the mentality of Flash Gordon/Buck Rogers serialization. Those films worked so well because of the effort put behind each installment. And an even more pervasive example would be the James Bond franchise – while not every film has worked, the reality is that so many different filmmakers have come in to leave their mark on the franchise, and when it has worked, it’s worked fantastically.
Really, turning comic book movies in particular into serialized enterprises is kind of the point. Fans don’t want to see Hulk or Batman’s origin story retold by a new filmmaker every five years, they want to eventually see Hulk fighting aliens as a gladiator on another planet, or Bruce Wayne being framed for murder and leaving his colleagues to prove his innocence. Comics have continued for decades in the same universe, why shouldn’t their film adaptations? The move will hopefully nix some of Hollywood’s most tired practices, like thinking in terms of trilogies, and rebooting every few years. The reboot-happy mentality in particular would be near-impossible with movies whose stakes are so heavily tied to several others. Now, if filmmakers are knee-deep into the third installment of Spider-Man and it turns out to be a stinker…tough. Better luck next time. Hopefully, this will spur studios to do their best every time, for every film.
Onward and upward…
And I like the idea of Sony spinning off its Spider-Man franchise into multiple properties. While I could not be any less interested in Marc Webb’s take on the character, I am excited to see what Ed Solomon and Drew Goddard do with Venom and Sinister Six. While there’s potential for these films to risk audience fatigue in their characters (after three movies, I’m already sick of Loki), I think there’s just as much opportunity with a backlog of films for new audiences to pick up. Even if they don’t like a particular brand, they can still check out the other brands within the same universe. So if Thor isn’t your thing, maybe Captain America and Iron Man will be.
Creating a network of movies allows audiences to be smart shoppers, picking and choosing which characters they want to follow, and thus better communicating to studios how they want their heroes to be portrayed. In the past, if you didn’t like Tim Burton’s Batman, tough, that’s THE cinematic Batman, and you’re not getting another for a while. Now, with so many different incarnations throughout the years, I predict different filmmakers will be the ones who will keep audiences coming back for fresh new takes on their heroes, allowing them to pick and choose which interpretations they like best. It’s why I’m still excited for Anthony and Joe Russo’s Captain America: The Winter Soldier after disliking Joe Johnston’s The First Avenger.
In a world without Marvel’s The Avengers, we also wouldn’t be promised the several lesser-known comic adaptations we’ll soon be receiving. David S. Goyer, seemingly the architect of the DC Universe on film now, will be spearheading several lesser-known DC properties like Suicide Squad and Deathstroke to receive the big-screen treatment. So just because Batman and Superman are dominating the box office, doesn’t mean they’ll keep other DC characters from getting their time to shine.
In short, I’ve found nothing wrong with the practice of serialization itself, so long as it’s done thoughtfully. I’m an optimist but a realist, so I realize the future is likely to hold some great movies, some terrible ones, and many, many middle-of-the-road ones. Hell, when Marvel first unveiled its plan for a shared universe back in 2008, I think we all pictured things going a bit more smoothly than they did. Filmmakers now have a responsibility to put their best foot forward crafting not just a series’ first installment, but each subsequent installment to keep audiences coming back. Regardless of these films’ eventual quality, it’s an exciting time to be a fan, and I’m ready and willing to take the journey.
What are your thoughts on serialized blockbusters? Let us know below or head on over to The Flickering Myth Forum…
Ryan Maloney is a freelance writer/blogger maintaining Heraldic Criticism, where you can read more of his critiques of comics, movies, and comic book movies.