TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Marvel Cinematic Universe

Go To

Welcome to the main discussion thread for the Marvel Cinematic Universe! This pinned post is here to establish some basic guidelines. All of the Media Forum rules still apply.

  • This thread is for talking about the live-action films, TV shows, animated works, and related content that use the Marvel brand, currently owned by Disney.
  • While mild digressions are okay, discussion of the comic books should go in this thread. Extended digressions may be thumped as off-topic.
  • Spoilers for new releases should not be discussed without spoiler tagging for at least two weeks. Rather, each title should have a dedicated thread where that sort of conversation is held. We can mention new releases in a general sense, but please be courteous to people who don't want to be spoiled.

If you're posting tagged spoilers, make sure that the film or series is clearly identified outside the spoiler tagging. People need to know what will be spoiled before they choose to read the post.

    Original post 
Since Thor and now Captain America came out this year, I wanted to get what Tropers thought of the concept and execution of the Marvel Cinematic Universe in general. Personally I love the idea and wonder why this idea hasn't been seriously tried before. It sorta seems to me like the DCAU in movie form (And well, ummm, with Marvel), and really 'gets' the comic book feel of a shared universe while not being completely alienating.

Edited by Mrph1 on Jul 29th 2024 at 3:09:00 PM

Julep Since: Jul, 2010
#78101: Dec 18th 2017 at 5:46:03 AM

There are more movies made nowadays than ever. And also more experimental movies.

Yeah but what matters in the long term is how many successful movies are made. If you create more movies for the same amount of viewers, you will end up hitting a point where they split the viewership and start losing money. So they raise ticket prices to allow more money to be shared by the industry, but there is a point at which people stop going to the theaters because it becomes so expensive. That is the bubble that might eventually burst. Especially since Netflix and other streaming services are becoming more and more influential. At the moment the monthly Netflix fee is cheaper than a single 2D movie ticket - and allows for unlimited access to its content, as opposed to only once.

Another cause for concern, for me, is to see Disney owning absolutely all the most culturally influential brands. It is great to see them offer quality content of different types - Star Wars, Marvel, live-action remakes of their animated canon - but DC content aside, what isn't under Disney's control now? Harry Potter is not a cinematic universe at the moment with one movie every 2/3 years. Fast and Furious isn't either. Avatar was an absurd one-time hit but now it's Disney. And it is happening even while the Pirates brand seems to be going down.

And on an even larger scale, the weight of superheroes on the film industry is becoming frankly annoying. There are so many of those that it is almost impossible for any brand not named Star Wars to find a niche on the market. I am starting to really hope for the moment where the mode wears down and we get a bit more diversity in blockbusters - and maybe an original brand or two, something that has never been seen before, that is neither a sequel, nor a comic book adaptation, or a remake.

Excluding animation (which is really becoming the one domain in which originality and audacity truly shine), you can list all of such movies that made the US yearly top 10 in the last 10 years:

  • The Martian, #8 in 2015
  • American Sniper, #1 in 2014
  • Gravity, #6 in 2013
  • Ted, #9 in 2012
  • Inception #6 in 2010
  • Avatar #1, The Hangover #6 and The Blind Side #9 in 2009
  • Hancock, #4 in 2008

9 movies in 10 years. It's quite terrifying. In 2000 alone, 8 ouf the 10 movies in the top 10 weren't part of franchises, animated or remakes - although I'm not sure about How the Grinch stole Christmas, so maybe it's 7/10.

PushoverMediaCritic I'm sorry Tien, but I must go all out. from the Italy of America Since: Jul, 2015 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
I'm sorry Tien, but I must go all out.
#78102: Dec 18th 2017 at 6:04:10 AM

Fun fact: there are a LOT less movies being made in recent years than there were decades ago. Despite that, the amount of money being pumped into making movies is about the same, it's just going more into individual movies than it ever has been. The effect of this is that, despite most of the highest grossing movies coming out in the last decade, the overall gross of movies is actually lower because most people don't go to see the same movie in theaters twice, combined with theaters becoming less popular in general. Additionally, movies make a LOT less money than tv shows. Like, 20 times less.

edited 18th Dec '17 6:10:16 AM by PushoverMediaCritic

Unsung it's a living from a tenement of clay Since: Jun, 2016
it's a living
#78103: Dec 18th 2017 at 6:18:33 AM

[up][up][up]Honestly, the likelihood of it actually happening bothers me less than the complacency about it, this whole sense that Disney and Marvel can do no wrong. And more experimental films are being made in the sense that filmmaking equipment and software is more readily available than ever, but that has more to do with You Tube and Vimeo than Netflix or Disney.

My point was that a big part of why we have the variety we do now is that competition for viewership that came with the rise of prestige television, that need to make something that would drag people away from what is obviously the far better deal of streaming content. That level of quality something that didn't always exist, and which could certainly fall by the wayside again.

edited 18th Dec '17 9:34:15 PM by Unsung

Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#78104: Dec 18th 2017 at 6:44:00 AM

I am not complacent. There are upsides and downsides about this. I just feel that some people exaggerate the downsides, and that Disney buying Fox doesn't equal a monopoly, partly because that brings Disney only on one level with WB, partly because there are countless other studios and production firms out there, partly because it is the entertainment industry.

And yes, Disney now owns some of the most influential brands, but lets take a look at some of those brands, shall we?

The Alien and Predator franchise are both nice to have, but they are also pretty much on their last leg. Maybe a reboot could help, but I somehow doubt that they can recapture the magic ever again. Same for Die Hard. Same for The Simpsons. Same for Independence day. Same for...you know, this is true for the majority of those I Ps. Yes, culturally relevant, but not necessarily culturally relevant on a long term basis. Just like Heart to Heart, Stasky and Hutch, Columbo, Dukes of Hazard aso were all big at one point but have by now mostly a nostalgic worth, stuff like Modern Family, Firefly, Buffy or Ally Mc Beal are hardly the big money makers of the future.

So what is, other than the Marvel properties we all agree should be under the control of Marvel studios anyway? Well, Avatar, though nobody can tell if the sequel will catch on. Planet of the Apes, maybe, the last movie seemed to indicate that the audience is loosing interest. Same for Kingsman, even if Disney hadn't bought Fox I somehow doubt that Fox would have gone for third part. Percy Jackson, provided that Disney does a reboot and does something more true to what makes those books so popular.

Otherwise there is little in the catalogue where I would say "yeah, this is something which can be the next billion dollar franchise for Disney". Not to mention that nobody can truly tell what the next billion dollar franchise might be. I mean, nobody expected Avatar or Titanic or Jurassic world to make THAT much money in the first place, did they? Hell, most theatres took a pass on the original Star Wars and The Avengers took everyone by surprise, too.

In addition, Disney's strength is in their brand and not in specific franchises. We go and watch a Disney movie because Disney movies stand for quality. In addition, franchises are not necessarily the main money makers. Warner Bros had a record year, and certainly not because Justice League was such a success, but because of movies like Dunkirk.

I am ready to protest whenever Disney does BS like trying to copyright the Day of the Death, or does secret agreements with other animation studios to keep the wages down, or whatever shady things they are up to otherwise. I cheered our small chain theatres on when they showed Disney the middle finger and just decided to skip the big Disney movie of the month in favour of something which turned out to be equally of not more successful. But I equally have no pity for a daycare which decides to decorate the outside with Disney figures, thus falsely suggesting to the customers an association with Disney. Because this daycare is also just a business and should know better than using copyrighted material as advertising.

And I feel that if Disney delivers a good product and is successful because of said good product, than Disney deserves to reap the benefit of it.

edited 18th Dec '17 6:50:45 AM by Swanpride

Julep Since: Jul, 2010
#78105: Dec 18th 2017 at 7:36:56 AM

And yes, Disney now owns some of the most influential brands, but lets take a look at some of those brands, shall we?

The fact that Disney also owns unsuccessful brands changes absolutely nothing - it's actually worse for creativity, because if one of their main current cash-cows runs its course, they are that more likely to fall back on "former failures".

Star Wars, Marvel and the Disney Animated Canon + its live versions are absolute powerhouses at the moment. We are basically accusing Disney of murder, and your argument is that "but they also committed petty theft and identity fraud" - that doesn't change a thing with the main problem, in that something looking a bit like a pop-culture monopoly is appearing.

Aside from DC which is currently struggling on the cinematic scale, what fictional brand or universe can rival with the aforementioned three? Harry Potter is currently on a semi-hiatus and unlikely to come back in force from it considering that Rowling does not seem to favor quantity over quality. The Lord of the Ring is milked out and you can't expect any additional source material from Tolkien. The Hunger Games are over and really looked like a swan song for YA-lit franchises. Avatar is now owned by Disney. So is Pixar, which means that even on the more diverse segment of animated movies, Disney gets the lion's share, with only the Minionverse (sigh) and Dreamworks' Kung Fu Panda & Dragons being able to rival recent Disney/Pixar animation.

The cultural weight of Disney is staggering. And frankly a bit worrying. Even if I enjoy a lot of what Disney has been doing - the MCU is easily the weakest of the three main brands they have, and it's pretty damn good - no company should ever have that much cultural influence. Even one I like.

Gaon Smoking Snake from Grim Up North Since: Jun, 2012 Relationship Status: Above such petty unnecessities
Bocaj Funny but not helpful from Here or thereabouts (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Pining for the fjords
Funny but not helpful
#78107: Dec 18th 2017 at 7:49:01 AM

Most cyberpunk I'm aware of kind of neglect the entertainment side of things just assuming that everyone will turn to drugs, a weird view of the internet, and perhaps blood sports to keep them placid. Nobody ever mentions the possibility that it will be Starjammers vs Infinity Watch IV: Rise of Pip.

Forever liveblogging the Avengers
Julep Since: Jul, 2010
#78108: Dec 18th 2017 at 7:55:01 AM

[up][up] Indeed, but that's the one remaining book.

And TLOTR is funny like that in that the "faithful" trilogy (TLOTR) was far more appreciated than the one who got away from the canon (The Hobbit). So I have let's say some doubts that expanding arbitrarily Tolkien's wirtings will lead to the emergence of a new pop-culture juggernaut.

[up] Entertainment can be seen as an alternative to blood sports. Especially since sports are also rising in influence - the NFL, NBA and English Premier League might actually be Disney's biggest rivals for attention time at the moment.

edited 18th Dec '17 7:57:08 AM by Julep

Unsung it's a living from a tenement of clay Since: Jun, 2016
it's a living
#78109: Dec 18th 2017 at 7:59:09 AM

It's not even just the franchises, here. It's the size of the corporation itself, the amount of money and personnel, the sheer volume of Hollywood real estate. And it limits the ability of someone who has a hot new property, should such a thing occur, to bargain by shopping around the various major studios, whether for a better payout or just more creative control over the adaptation of their work.

You say Disney's only as big as Time Warner (they're actually bigger, now, second only to Comcast). I'm not really sure why you think that's reassuring? Time Warner being a huge, brutal conglomerate as well. You say you're not in favour of net neutrality being overturned, but it's the money from owning all these TV stations, comic book labels, cable providers, IPs and ISPs that allows them to muscle these laws through the legislature in the first place. And I'm sure a lot of people at Disney and Marvel aren't exactly in favour of those laws when you get down to the actual animators and filmmakers and actors, but the point is that you can't cleanly separate one from the other once the companies start getting this big.

[up][up]Shadowrun assumes that virtual reality BTL ("Better Than Life") chips will basically turn into the most life-ruiningly addictive drug possible. So there's that.

edited 18th Dec '17 8:14:45 AM by Unsung

Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#78110: Dec 18th 2017 at 8:18:12 AM

[up] It's reassuring in a sense that Disney is NOT towering over everything.

Plus, it kind of shows the hypocrisy of some people when they go on and on about the properties and brands Disney collects but never say a word about everything Warner Bros owns. Which is quite a sizable catalogue, which happens to include Harry Potter. Or universal, which has beloved properties like Jurassic World and ET.

Unsung it's a living from a tenement of clay Since: Jun, 2016
it's a living
#78111: Dec 18th 2017 at 8:31:23 AM

How is being second only to the company that owns NBC, Telemundo, USA, MSNBC, Universal Pictures, the friggin' Weather Channel, and, of course, Comcast not towering over everybody?

Nobody's talking about Time Warner because it was like 20 years ago. The Disney/Fox thing is being talked about because it's happening right now, and hasn't been finalized yet. And people aren't surprised when Time Warner is evil, so there's nothing to rumourmonger over. With Disney there's still room for doubt.

I'm not saying Disney is guaranteed to go bad, but this isn't a good thing regardless of how much I like Disney, Marvel, Star Wars, and Futurama and how much I want them all to cross over right now ohmygod.

edited 18th Dec '17 8:34:34 AM by Unsung

Julep Since: Jul, 2010
#78112: Dec 18th 2017 at 8:32:58 AM

"He does it too" is not and should never be an excuse to anything.

And no one said there was no problem with Time Warner. It's just that we are in the MCU thread at the moment and that the news are about Disney, not Time Warner. Edit: [nja]

As for Universal, it's a bit laughable to compare the cultural influence of Jurassic Park, E.T. (especially today) and the Minions to all the Disney brands.

By selling Spiderman, Sony has all but disappeared from the equation. It has James Bond I guess.

edited 18th Dec '17 8:33:44 AM by Julep

Draghinazzo (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: I get a feeling so complicated...
#78113: Dec 18th 2017 at 8:34:46 AM

WB hasn't been the one involved in huge media acquisitions in the last few years.

Unsung it's a living from a tenement of clay Since: Jun, 2016
it's a living
#78114: Dec 18th 2017 at 8:41:47 AM

There was that whole deal where AT&T tried to acquire them last year, before the Justice Department quashed it. And Warner owns CNN, DC, HBO (and AOL, from when that mattered)... Disney just happens to create bigger ripples among geeks, at this point.

edited 18th Dec '17 8:45:33 AM by Unsung

PushoverMediaCritic I'm sorry Tien, but I must go all out. from the Italy of America Since: Jul, 2015 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
I'm sorry Tien, but I must go all out.
#78115: Dec 18th 2017 at 8:43:53 AM

If Disney is getting too powerful, I am all for Marvel Studios taking the rights to X-Men and the Fantastic 4 and leaving. They were doing fine before Disney bought them, and they've only cultivated a stronger reputation since then.

Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#78116: Dec 18th 2017 at 8:47:07 AM

[up][up][up] Naturally not, because WB was already a giant when Disney was still an independent studio tethering close to bankruptcy more than once.

[up][up] Last time I checked the deal is still going through....

My point is that complaining about Disney getting so big is a little bit like complaining "how dare this minor rival of Amazon grow so much that they now see eye to eye". Powerful Hollywood studios have been a thing since the golden age and they had way more control back then than nowadays.

edited 18th Dec '17 8:52:20 AM by Swanpride

Unsung it's a living from a tenement of clay Since: Jun, 2016
it's a living
#78117: Dec 18th 2017 at 8:49:29 AM

[up]Yeah, we'll see. Wishful thinking.

The big studios back then ran their backlots like small kingdoms. Now they run their backlots like sweatshops and funnel their money into government lobbyists, it's way better.

The reason the Big Five don't lord it up over Hollywood the same way anymore is because antitrust laws broke them up, which is pretty much what we're talking about here.

edited 18th Dec '17 9:35:39 PM by Unsung

TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#78118: Dec 18th 2017 at 11:40:09 AM

I remember when Disney bought Marvel and the internet was ablaze with how the sky is falling and we're all doomed.

Then Disney bought Star Wars and the internet was ablaze with how the sky is falling and we're all doomed.

You'll forgive me for not bringing an umbrella to this one.

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
Tuckerscreator (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Drift compatible
#78119: Dec 18th 2017 at 11:49:02 AM

Eh, I don’t think either of those are comparable, There were only a handful of Marvel movies and no Star Wars movies for a decade when Disney bought them. But Fox produces three times the amount of movies that Disney does in a year. Three blockbusters a year with Disney now will pale to 25 films a year including four or five blockbusters.

Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#78120: Dec 18th 2017 at 11:54:51 AM

[up] So what? WB released 31 movies last year. Universal...I would have to look this up, because they have various subsidiaries, including Dream Works and Illumination.

Like I said, this is a little bit like complaining that Amazon suddenly has a major competitor.

TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#78121: Dec 18th 2017 at 11:54:57 AM

And they'll probably continue to do that. Except maybe films like Independence Day Resurgence won't be garbage churned out to make a quick buck.

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
Julep Since: Jul, 2010
#78122: Dec 18th 2017 at 12:22:47 PM

The point is that the market would be better off with four giants instead of three.

And it was better off with five giants instead of four, before that.

The comparison with Amazon is asinine. Amazon has a quasi-monopoly, anyone starting to threaten it would be a great thing - like Uber. Time Warner was the biggest company in its sector, but it was quite far from having any kind of monopoly on film (or series) production, in part because it had three competitors.

You can't at the same time say that Netflix getting a rival is great, but that it's fine if WB & Disney get rid of one. The more competition there is, the harder it is for consumers to get shafted - and if two companies control about 90% of the film industry, it is going to become super easy for them to get comfortable, they'll only have to make an arrangement with one rival. That's the whole point of John Oliver's video on Corporate Consolidation: you end up with entire sectors where companies have a monopoly and can behave like utter dicks and get away with it.

Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#78123: Dec 18th 2017 at 12:25:15 PM

[up] Except that Fox wasn't quite a giant beforehand, was it? There was a reason why they felt that it was better to sell now.

and if you say that Warner Bros doesn't have a monopoly, why are you acting as if Disney now has one? That doesn't make any sense.

And again, look up what a monopoly actually is. Not every big merger leads to a monopoly.

edited 18th Dec '17 12:27:10 PM by Swanpride

Julep Since: Jul, 2010
#78124: Dec 18th 2017 at 12:44:43 PM

No, Fox was a giant. Murdoch sold because he wanted to put his money someplace else, not because Fox was in horrible shape. And he is going to get an absurd amount of money with that merger, which he will then invest somewhere else. It is not a pity merger.

That's the reason why Fox is a giant - there are four companies with more than 10% of the market share, and Fox is/was one of them. If you only take 2017, Disney+Fox at the moment own 32% of the market share on film releases, and that's without accounting for two weeks that are going to be dominated by Star Wars, so it will probably rise to 33% or more (Christmas holidays and all that).

And if you go back last year, Fox+BV=39% of the market. There are seven companies with significant market shares (>5%), and of those, three are below 10% now, and it's going to be harder and harder for them to exist when Disney chews 10 blockbusters a year.

Worse, on 2017, Spider-Man is still counted as a Sony production, and amounts for about 40% of their yearly revenue. That's 40% on which Disney has a massive amount of control - "you don't want to do as we want? Well, you're out of the MCU and back making independent superhero movies, good luck with that". Meanwhile, Lionsgate exists thanks to unexpected hits in Wonder and La La Land, but they can rely on zero big brands to ensure their revenue on any given year. AND Paramount's only big brand, Transformers, bombed in epic fashion - compared to that, Justice League is a freaking triumph.

So now, I don't say that because I hate Disney, I say that because it's really worrying. In five years time, two of those three companies might have been bought - and even then, at the moment, the big three controls more than 60% of the market value, which is insane.

edited 18th Dec '17 12:52:54 PM by Julep


Total posts: 186,763
Top