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

Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#90376: Oct 21st 2018 at 11:57:26 AM

[up] You can't catch up on 100 years of film and TV history in a few years. Netflix is deep in debt.

Unsung it's a living from a tenement of clay Since: Jun, 2016
it's a living
#90377: Oct 21st 2018 at 12:52:17 PM

I don't get why you're always so determined to frame everything with Disney and any other company as if it's a last-man-standing duel-to-the-death battle royale, much less why you think that would be a good thing. There's enough of this pie for everyone.

Edited by Unsung on Oct 21st 2018 at 2:44:26 AM

alliterator Since: Jan, 2001
#90378: Oct 21st 2018 at 12:53:19 PM

You can't catch up on 100 years of film and TV history in a few years.
You say that as if Disney will be putting their entire library on to their streaming service. They won't, I bet on it.

Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#90379: Oct 21st 2018 at 1:05:50 PM

[up][up] Why do you believe that I think this is a good thing? Disney buying Fox in itself doesn't worry me, not because I think that Disney getting so big is a good thing, but because this is a battle which was already lost ages ago due to the sheer size of Time Warner and Comcast, and I want Disney to survive in this market. The upcoming streaming wars are another thing though, mostly because I don't think that there should be competing streaming services. There should be one streaming services which has the complete library of every TV show and movie ever meant, and the IP holders of said properties should get each month a share of the revenue based on how many people decided to watch their I Ps.

But this won't happen. Instead we will get a fight over market shares until the customers are feed up with it. And in this context it frustrates me that apparently Netflix is throwing the towel by changing their strategy and going for quantity over quality.

Unsung it's a living from a tenement of clay Since: Jun, 2016
it's a living
#90380: Oct 21st 2018 at 1:43:21 PM

They need a backlog that they don't currently have if the big studios pull out, but they still have some solid content among the chaff. That's what I'm saying, that this battle isn't really between Disney and Netflix, and Disney crushing Netflix into the ground with their giant back catalogue isn't really the solution to a problem either of them have at the moment. Netflix is still much smaller than Disney anywhere other than as a streaming service.

Edited by Unsung on Oct 21st 2018 at 5:24:14 AM

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.
#90381: Oct 21st 2018 at 4:15:14 PM

The problem with tons of new streaming services is that it runs into the exact problem streaming services were created to solve, which is that people were sick and tired of paying out the ass for cable channels to get exclusive content. It's why there's such a surge of internet piracy recently.

KJMackley Since: Jan, 2001
#90382: Oct 21st 2018 at 9:37:02 PM

The problem is that $10 a month without ads is not a sustainable format (the Movie Pass program has all but crashed and burned due to this). The point of making original material is to either bring in new customers or maintain the customer base they already have, they have already reached near critical mass in terms of their customer base and will only decrease because of new competition. Building up their personal library will only get them so far. Disney and Microsoft have run into similar problems where just throwing more money at something is only a stopgap.

alliterator Since: Jan, 2001
#90383: Oct 21st 2018 at 10:18:34 PM

The problem is that $10 a month without ads is not a sustainable format (the Movie Pass program has all but crashed and burned due to this).
The MoviePass program had so many other problems than that, you can't really compare the two. For one thing, going to see a movie in theaters is vastly different than watching television — you have to literally buy a ticket, which is what MoviePass was for. The fact of its failure — and the many reasons why — is something completely different from Netflix, which has only shown continued growth.

Unsung it's a living from a tenement of clay Since: Jun, 2016
it's a living
#90384: Oct 21st 2018 at 10:23:11 PM

[up][up]It's not really the same thing. Movie theatres have a lot of overhead Netflix doesn't have, and Moviepass lost the studios money at the box office, which is the most direct form of revenue the studios have. I suspect Moviepass was also losing the theatres themselves a significant amount of income, because as I understand it theatres get next to nothing from ticket sales and make it up at concessions, and if you can go to a movie theatre for free, you might well skip the popcorn while you're there. Which means the theatre is paying for staff to feed, sell tickets, and clean up after customers who aren't buying anything, in a very large piece of what is usually prime real estate. So if the studios and theatres started renegotiating and asking Moviepass to make up the difference, eventually the whole pricing scheme would just fall apart. Somewhat similarly, cable and satellite carriers need at the very least physical offices and staff to hook up their services, and cable at least relies on volume to support a variety of specialty channels which might not all survive individually, and advertising to fill in the gaps.

It's all a bit tenuous when you think about how Netflix doesn't need any of that — the internet already exists, and the consumer pays to have it set up in their home. Netflix pays for their website's bandwidth, which is no doubt considerable, and the licenses of their programming, but a guaranteed $10 a month per subscribed household adds up pretty quickly when you don't really have to offer any backend support or pay any other carriers, just your licensees. Netflix is closer to being HBO than Moviepass.

Edited by Unsung on Oct 21st 2018 at 11:36:24 AM

alliterator Since: Jan, 2001
#90385: Oct 21st 2018 at 10:34:03 PM

Netflix is closer to being HBO than Moviepass.
Exactly and a lot of people thought HBO was going to fail when it first started. Back then, it was mainly a repository of movies that it bought the rights to rerun and, occasionally, some original content. As time went on (and satellite technology took over), HBO branched out into a lot more original content and became a huge business.

Now, of course, HBO then faced competition from other cable only channels, like Showtime, Starz, and eventually entire cable packages. That might happen again with Netflix — but, again, you can simply pick and choose which streaming services you want. If you don't particularly like Disney, don't get Disney Play (or whatever). If you don't like anything Starz is doing, don't get Starz Now.

Hell, when I wanted to see American Gods, I got Starz Now for a month and then let it lapse. It was cheaper and easier to do that then go out and buy the DVD or buy it on Amazon.

KJMackley Since: Jan, 2001
#90386: Oct 21st 2018 at 11:39:33 PM

No, Netflix is not like HBO and the Movie Pass analogy is accurate. HBO is a subservient company to Time Warner, which has it's hands in a number of other channels, local, network, cable, etc. That gives them a large level of freedom to pick and choose which media they show on their channel, and if they want to they can migrate shows to different channels via Syndication. Shows can and have migrated from network television to premium cable due to politics of where it would be most successful. Networks use ad space for revenue while cable channels combine ad and subscription revenue.

Netflix is a direct to consumer service with fixed subscription pricing and no network infrastructure to cushion failed endeavors. Networks rely on certain markets being successful enough to cancel out the markets that fail. HBO is particular about the kind of shows they produce because they can afford to be restrictive. Netflix is just building a library and filling it with material, trying to be an entire network in one place.

Movie Pass has failed due to not having the backing of any major theater chain. That left it with the same problem, exclusive reliance on fixed pricing and borrowing from venture capitalists. The AMC theater chain introduced the A-List program as a counter to Movie Pass, and being that the program is to encourage theater attendance and the attendance itself facilitates other forms of revenue like concessions, that program is far more sustainable.

Unsung it's a living from a tenement of clay Since: Jun, 2016
it's a living
#90387: Oct 22nd 2018 at 12:02:13 AM

You didn't really explain how the Moviepass analogy was accurate? You just said it was, and then described how Moviepass failed without really relating it back to Netflix. But just because they're both direct-to-consumer businesses doesn't mean they're dealing with the same challenges or opportunities. Their business models and customer bases are completely different. Netflix got into the streaming business on the ground floor and did wait a number of years before it produced even one series, which was immensely successful, and it's taken them a few years since then to ramp up to their current levels of production. Which does seem risky, but not so risky that I think they're in danger of being destroyed by a few failed series or less-watched movies. People like the service. Brand loyalty does still carry a certain amount of weight, especially given how low the price has been for the amount of product Netflix has offered.

Netflix, at least for now, still has the cushion of its own income and that held-over loyalty, and the insulation of having been top dog in their market for a number of years, as well as having produced several series which have made them a network destination in their own right. As far as I'm aware their install base is still growing, and nobody is leaving the service en masse to go to Prime Video or anything. A failed series doesn't cost them advertisers at this point, and they seem to be capable of absorbing the risk at the moment — a billion dollars a month does tend to help with that.

There may well come a point when Netflix can't license new movies for love nor money and they do have to rely entirely on their own catalogue, and maybe they will stall because of that — I'm not sure how well their original content is doing overall. But I can personally say there have been shows like Bojack Horseman, Narcos, Maniac, and the sheer number of Marvel shows (regardless of how I ultimately felt about the latter, I do feel like I got my money's worth being able to watch them on my own timetable), where it has seemed well worth keeping my subscription active full time. And even if the worst case scenario comes to pass, that hardly puts them in the same position as Moviepass. I mean, Moviepass is like a really bad scalper, selling tickets they didn't even own for less than they paid for them.

Edited by Unsung on Oct 22nd 2018 at 1:26:44 PM

alliterator Since: Jan, 2001
#90388: Oct 22nd 2018 at 12:06:26 AM

[up][up]Netflix is a lot more analogous to HBO than it is to MoviePass. Like you stated, MoviePass failed because it couldn't get any of theater chains to operate with it — but Netflix doesn't need that. All Netflix needs is a library of shows, which it has, and new content continually coming in, in order to gain new users, which it is also has.

I think you underestimate how huge Netflix is in other countries. Netflix does have deals in place with other networks — for example, the CW (which doesn't broadcast outside the United States) uses Netflix to broadcast their shows to other countries. Netflix also "co-produces" many television shows in other countries, making them a lot of money while only having to put up a smaller amount of funding. Just look at all of the Spanish-language content on Netflix and you'll see that it's amazingly popular in other countries.

did wait a number of years before it produced even one series, which was immensely successful
Actually, while House of Cards did gain a lot of critical success, it didn't manage to get the viewers Netflix wanted — it was only when they got Orange is the New Black that Netflix exploded in viewership.

(Also, technically, the first original show that Netflix produced was Lillyhammer, which was a co-production. And even though it lasted three seasons, it didn't really find an audience.)

Edited by alliterator on Oct 22nd 2018 at 12:10:21 PM

Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#90389: Oct 22nd 2018 at 12:09:53 AM

Movie pass failed because the math didn't work. Remember, the business model of movie pass was that it basically paid the full price the theatres, which can only work if you now only have a lot of subscribers, but also enough between them which don't use the service to it fullest. I suspect the plan was to create such a huge subscriber base that eventually the company would be able to dictate the theatres and the movie studios the conditions, while maybe also selling data, but, well, for one this plan was so transparent that AMC launched a counter attack and two, the knowledge who watches which movie isn't really that desirable, movie studios most just care how many people watch, they don't need demographics to convince advertisers. And theatres don't care were the ads run. The advertisers might care, but they can simply use the "similar movies draw in similar audiences" thumb rule.

Netflix is different in that what they get each month is their revenue, period. Part of it is needed for the infrastructure and to pay off the IP holders, but the rest is turn over - unless said turn-over (and then some) is used to invest in the company. That's the problem of the Netflix, they did two things as once, expanding internationally and working on their library. And I think that while working on their library is a good thing, they need to be a little bit more careful. They need shows and movies which rewatch value, not disposable five minute distractions.

Unsung it's a living from a tenement of clay Since: Jun, 2016
it's a living
#90390: Oct 22nd 2018 at 12:12:24 AM

[up][up]Fair enough. I didn't realize Lilyhammer came out first. I did know that Orange Is The New Black was their second major uptick, but not the exact numbers.

alliterator Since: Jan, 2001
#90391: Oct 22nd 2018 at 12:14:06 AM

[up] The problem is that Netflix almost never releases their own numbers, so we have to go by third-party sources, which can be hard to track. So...we basically have to guess sometimes about how much viewers a show brings in by how well Netflix treats it.

slimcoder The Head of the Hydra Since: May, 2013
The Head of the Hydra
#90392: Oct 22nd 2018 at 12:18:14 AM

Well there is some indication. I got something.

The live-action Bleach movie didn’t do well in its native Japan (it was kinda a bomb) but apparently landing on streaming services like Netflix saved it enough that a sequel is in the works or at least likely.

Edited by slimcoder on Oct 22nd 2018 at 12:18:25 PM

"I am Alpharius. This is a lie."
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.
#90393: Oct 22nd 2018 at 1:26:30 AM

My college professor, who is a writer in Hollywood, had a friend who worked at Netflix back when it was just starting out. According to this friend, the plan for Netflix was always to make its own original content, and starting it as a distribution service for pre-existing movies and tv shows was always just to build up revenue and the brand enough to make that original content.

Owning and distributing your own content is king in the movie industry, and was the whole reason for the United States vs Paramount Pictures court case. Having your own personal streaming service to have exclusivity over the distribution of your own content nowadays is basically the same thing as owning all of the theaters that could show your movies back in the 1940s.

KJMackley Since: Jan, 2001
#90394: Oct 22nd 2018 at 1:55:31 AM

Right, Netflix is evolving because they know pure subscriber base will not sustain it. Their current path is almost exclusively subscriber base because they need to build the same infrastructure as other network channels. In a fixed subscription there is a limitation in that they get money ONLY from subscriptions, not from individual viewings, so they are not getting much with their foreign streaming distributions. The hope is that they can reach and maintain a network-level infrastructure without imploding from the 20 billion+ debt they currently have. HBO is just a channel in their own little pocket of the world, not a network, and as such never had to worry about sustaining the rest of the network.

Movie Pass imploded in large part because of their fixed pricing and inability to adapt in the face of trying to expand their subscriber base. If they offered variable pricing they might lose some subscriptions but would have a business model that is sustainable. The reason Disney, WB and Fox haven't gone full throttle by making their entire libraries available for a streaming subscription fee is because they know libraries are not profitable and thus not sustainable.

In a different sense, Netflix is also forced to become more like other networks in that they cater to more specific programming. Binge-centric shows are their bread and butter, while their talk shows have imploded. And because they have limited funds their original shows are struggling to match the more expensive look of shows with more of a budget. Certainly House of Cards and Orange is the New Black look great, but I struggled with the MCU Netflix shows because they were slow paced and so much of the show was three people talking in a room or fighting in a dark alleyway, hallway, bathroom, etc. It's one of my concerns for the Netflix Avatar adaptation.

alliterator Since: Jan, 2001
#90395: Oct 22nd 2018 at 2:13:23 AM

Binge-centric shows are their bread and butter, while their talk shows have imploded.
And yet they haven't stopped trying.

[cries because they cancelled The Joel McHale Show with Joel McHale, which didn't even cost much, it's only a green screen, dammit!]

Edited by alliterator on Oct 22nd 2018 at 2:13:43 AM

slimcoder The Head of the Hydra Since: May, 2013
The Head of the Hydra
#90396: Oct 22nd 2018 at 2:15:35 AM

Honestly I just want them to keep making good especially more mature action cartoons.

That’s all I want, Castlevania with its excellent animated combat was a great first step & so I want them to follow through on that.

Especially since cartoons have no limits meaning they don’t have to take place in dingy hallways or New York a lot of the time.

Edited by slimcoder on Oct 22nd 2018 at 2:17:02 AM

"I am Alpharius. This is a lie."
Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#90397: Oct 22nd 2018 at 2:24:48 AM

The issue with Talk shows is that they don't have much of a rewatch value.

I think eventually there will be a split between the networks and the streaming services, with the networks mostly (mostly not exclusively) showing talk and game shows, sports events, news, you know, all the stuff which has to be current to truly work, while the streaming services will show their TV shows and movies.

And in this context stuff like the Marvel Netflix shows are actually pretty important for Netflix. I know I said that the rewatch value of them isn't THAT high (mostly because of pacing), but they are still part of the MCU, and the thing with the MCU is that once you are hooked, it is easy to become a completist. I'll be completely honest here: Neither the Marvel Netflix shows nor Cloak and Dagger is actually in my wheelhouse when I pick TV shows. The former because I prefer less violence in my programming (there really is enough of it in reality) the latter because I wasn't even into teen dramas when I was a teen because usually what is portrayed in those shows is so far removed from what teens actually have to deal with. (It is strange that Cloak and Dagger with all the power and fate elements is actually closer to it than those other shows ever were). Anyway, there are still people discovering the MCU, so those Netflix shows will be a draw for years to come even if they aren't any longer the events they used to be.

[up] True, the Netflix cartoons are actually my favourite of the original content offering so far. I dig The Dragon Prince and Hilda. Especially Hilda. The world needs more Hilda.

Edited by Swanpride on Oct 22nd 2018 at 2:25:55 AM

alliterator Since: Jan, 2001
#90398: Oct 22nd 2018 at 2:29:40 AM

I think eventually there will be a split between the networks and the streaming services, with the networks mostly (mostly not exclusively) showing talk and game shows, sports events, news, you know, all the stuff which has to be current to truly work, while the streaming services will show their TV shows and movies.
I disagree — I think networks will continue to make TV shows, but they will also almost immediately put them up on streaming afterwards, like the CW — it's shows go up on Netflix a week after the season ends, I believe. CBS has CBS All Access, Fox/ABC/NBC have Hulu. Networks still get money from advertising and not all of their audience has been taken by streaming — especially older viewers.

So I bet that the networks probably will increase talk shows, game shows, and reality shows, but will also keep the regular television season. Heck, the "death of movies" and the "death of television" have been predicted so many times (VHS! Betamax! DVDs!), but it's never come to pass.

AyyItsMidnight Look, just be decent to one another ok? Since: Oct, 2018
Look, just be decent to one another ok?
#90399: Oct 22nd 2018 at 2:34:49 AM

[up][up]Big, big ups for Hilda. I didn't really expect to feel the need to try it let alone watch the whole season but WOW am I glad I did. It's so wonderful and wholesome and considering how long it seemed to be in the works for, I'd say it's worth the wait.

(also new account yay)

Edited by AyyItsMidnight on Oct 22nd 2018 at 2:35:16 AM

Self-serious autistic trans gal who loves rock/metal and animation with all her heart. (she/her)
Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#90400: Oct 22nd 2018 at 2:43:20 AM

[up][up] Technically those Networks don't produce shows. They buy shows from production companies, sometimes production companies which belong to the same company they do, but there is a distinctive split between Networks and Production companies.


Total posts: 186,763
Top