Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2017 16:47:20 GMT
I read a lot of messages about a so called Marvel Formula. I cant for the life of me figure out what that formula is. Its quite annoying actually. So I ask all of you for once and for all: What is that Marvel Formula?
People without a sufficient answer lose the right to use that complaint ever again. People who have not replied here and use it are condemming themselves trolls.
So I dare you.
Lets have it.
👹👹👹👹👹
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2017 17:13:30 GMT
Alright! I have the secret Marvel formula right here, pulled from their most secret of vaults! This journey cost me an arm and a leg, literally! So here it is! I'm opening the envelope now! *ahem*
Step One: Make good movies.
Step Two: Repeat.
...Huh.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 14, 2017 17:13:55 GMT
Mostly it's only people bitter with Marvel's success that keep harping on the Marvel formula. As far as I'm concerned, the Marvel formula is basically making well-rounded action adventure movies that are highly successful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Jun 14, 2017 18:22:16 GMT
well, it would be downright silly and naive to deny that MCU films run on formula. Most genre films do, e.g., Bond is subject to a certain successful formula . Yet formula (as with soft drinks etc) is frequently changed (see latest Bond films) to accommodate audience fatigue and changing times. Also, another issue: How do you define "formula" with filmmaking, eg is the hiring of puppet Indie directors part of formula or policy? I am by no means a fan or expert on MCU; having seen most films only once and immediately forgotten them. But when you see one, you have seen it all in some way. The MCU formula is pretty prevalent, my two cents from the top of my head: - MCU Movies all feel similar (derivative): One knows what to expect and how it ends, there are no big surprises (as eg with out of formula movies such as Logan, Watchmen, TDKReturns etc). - This includes tone (quip-y, jokey, upbeat, clean) - Family friendly pandering to the broadest common denominator, including simple to understand dialog, - Relevant characters never die, and if they do they resurrected quickly (Fury, Winter Soldier, Loki, IM buddy etc) - Repeated storytelling tropes: essentially "Hero's Journey" a la Campell as defined in literature with magic items and mentors to be found - Hardly any focus on developing the (one shot) villain - Similar arcs and structures : Most of these movies have the same "flawed jerk goes through character crisis and becomes hero by learning something (Dr Strange, Thor, Ironman, Antman etc). Guardians has the Avengers-arc of several selfish and different jerks having to learn to work as a team to fight a common (weak) villain. It's the oldest formula arc in literature. - Despite being stand alone movies (not serialized) there are not story-relevant "teasers" and character introductions. - Also the cinematography and pacing is pretty standardized (colorful, natural look), and there are other formula tropes such as end credit scenes . etc... There are countless articles/essays on what exact elements constitute MCU formula, but in the end an exact definition is futile as many elements are changed per movie; just a few: www.hypable.com/how-to-write-every-marvel-movie-ever/whatculture.com/film/10-biggest-parts-marvel-movie-formula-will-destroy-serieswww.comicbookmovie.com/comics/marvel_comics/what-is-the-marvel-studios-formula-a133104www.reviewsphere.org/news/the-marvel-formula/ |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2017 18:25:38 GMT
Do not reply to Tristan. Do not give him the attention he craves. The man obviously has personal issues at home and seeks attention here that his own family denies him. And he obviously lacks any kind of social circle considering he would have far better things to do with his time than antagonize fans of a series he's not fond of if he did.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Jun 14, 2017 18:38:06 GMT
^^^  When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser (Sokrates). And Raptor is a pitifully sore loser! But that reminds me one further element that comes with formula discussions: desperate and clumsy fanboy attacks whenever the formula is dissected or analyzed. But that is a general trait in sectarian fandoms und not part of the MCU formula, as most MCU fans a decent persons. |
|
|
|
Post by Atom(ica) Discord on Jun 14, 2017 19:10:24 GMT
Marvel Studios does have a formula.
The problem, for some, is it is a successful one. That fact is particularly vexing to those who don't like the formula and are unable to fathom why so many other people do. In their minds, the masses are deranged and require their guidance in seeing through this obvious work of charlatans.
Any way you work the problem it comes down to elitism and arrogance. Naysayers are dumbfounded that their particular brand of formulaic fantasy isn't the object of;
mass adoration
critical praise
and or commercial success
This simple narrative has become difficult to parse because there are now several stakeholders involved.
1. Longtime fans of the comics who are either locked into dogmatic interpretations of the source material or are open to new interpretations if it means seeing their favorite characters make it to the big screen.
2. Casual fans of the movies who never read the comics but, have some affinity for certain characters.
3. Those who will turn anything into a competition to incite ill will within the fandom. They will use rankings, box office stats, aggregated scores and any other comparable yardsticks to try and definitively state that one brand of make-believe is objectively better than another. The idea is preposterous. You like what you like and that's all there is to it.
4. General audiences - the engine that powers the whole show. Once they get bored with the "formula," it's all over.
If we are lucky, before it's over, the MCU might produce one or two classics that we will continue to watch over and over again well into our old age. I guess you could ask for more from commercial entertainment but, that would suggest that you need to find other more substantive pursuits.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2017 19:17:36 GMT
Marvel Studios does have a formula.
The problem, for some, is it is a successful one. That fact is particularly vexing to those who don't like the formula and are unable to fathom why so many other people do. In their minds, the masses are deranged and require their guidance in seeing through this obvious work of charlatans.
Any way you work the problem it comes down to elitism and arrogance. Naysayers are dumbfounded that their particular brand of formulaic fantasy isn't the object of;
mass adoration
critical praise
and or commercial success
This simple narrative has become difficult to parse because there are now several stakeholders involved.
1. Longtime fans of the comics who are either locked into dogmatic interpretations of the source material or are open to new interpretations if it means seeing their favorite characters make it to the big screen.
2. Casual fans of the movies who never read the comics but, have some affinity for certain characters.
3. Those who will turn anything into a competition to incite ill will within the fandom. They will use rankings, box office statics, aggregated scores and any other comparable yardstick to try and definitively state that one brand of make-believe is objectively better than another. The idea is preposterous. You like what you like and that's all there is to it.
4. General audiences - the engine that powers the whole show. Once they get bored with the "formula," it's all over.
If we are lucky, before it's over, the MCU might produce one or two classics that we will continue to watch over and over again well into our old age. I guess you could ask for more from commercial entertainment but, that would suggest that you need to find other more substantive pursuits. Yep. You really outline why the trolls plaguing this board are truly sad people who are to be pitied instead of hated. Its also obvious that they have empty lives and have nothing better to do with their time. I mean, seriously, it is no mystery that if Tristan actually had a healthy home and social life, he wouldn't be here trying to put us down all the time. He'd be out enjoying his life, instead. |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jun 14, 2017 19:19:19 GMT
Marvel Formula
1)Male alpha character who is unsure of himself, guilt-stricken, some kind of parental atonement requirement.
2)Wisecracking confident female character, preferably Jewish.
3)Smart athletic black character as counselor/mentor for 1)
4)Cameo by male beta who makes fun of or sexual advances towards 1)
5)Poorly choreographed CGI action scenes with slow motion moments, preferably involving anonymous robot hordes
6)Forgettable musical score.
PS
DC also goes for a similar formula--especially the weak alpha males, but they add Hans Zimmer for 6)
|
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Jun 15, 2017 12:23:02 GMT
Mostly it's only people bitter with Marvel's success that keep harping on the Marvel formula. As far as I'm concerned, the Marvel formula is basically making well-rounded action adventure movies that are highly successful. Except each "major" release (Avengers, Ultron, Civil War) is less successful than the one that preceded it; if your post was correct, more people would see each successive offering/outing. Not fewer. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jun 15, 2017 12:26:10 GMT
Mostly it's only people bitter with Marvel's success that keep harping on the Marvel formula. As far as I'm concerned, the Marvel formula is basically making well-rounded action adventure movies that are highly successful. Except each "major" release (Avengers, Ultron, Civil War) is less successful than the one that preceded it; if your post was correct, more people would see each successive offering/outing. Not fewer. Not really, Civil War did just as well as Winter Soldier and was better than Age of Ultron. |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Jun 15, 2017 12:33:17 GMT
Except each "major" release (Avengers, Ultron, Civil War) is less successful than the one that preceded it; if your post was correct, more people would see each successive offering/outing. Not fewer. Not really, Civil War did just as well as Winter Soldier and was better than Age of Ultron. Yes, really; sneaking in Winter Soldier is a neat trick because it affords Civil War an "uptick," but that was a Cap solo movie. I'm talking about "major" releases featuring The Avengers. Here are the box office totals for all three, without an inflation adjustment incidentally, which should theoretically help the sequels because presumably it costs more to see a movie in 2016 than 2012 and therefore Disney actually has to sell fewer tickets to make as much money: 5 / Marvel's The Avengers BV $623,357,910 2012 12 / Avengers: Age of Ultron BV $459,005,868 2015 21 / Captain America: Civil War BV $408,084,349 2016 Now, let's get some perspective: those little numbers next to the movie titles? Those are their (unadjusted) all-time rankings, meaning all three of these movies are ridiculously successful. AND you have Guardians 2 just refusing to stop making money sitting at #34 on this same list with almost no signs of slowing down. That said: if it's my billion-dollar franchise: I want each outing of my biggest IP trending upward, financially, not downward. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jun 15, 2017 12:35:03 GMT
Not really, Civil War did just as well as Winter Soldier and was better than Age of Ultron. Yes, really; sneaking in Winter Soldier is a neat trick because it affords Civil War an "uptick," but that was a Cap solo movie. I'm talking about "major" releases featuring The Avengers. Here are the box office totals for all three, without an inflation adjustment incidentally, which should theoretically help the sequels because presumably it costs more to see a movie in 2016 than 2012 and therefore Disney actually has to sell fewer tickets to make as much money: 5 / Marvel's The Avengers BV $623,357,910 2012 12 / Avengers: Age of Ultron BV $459,005,868 2015 21 / Captain America: Civil War BV $408,084,349 2016 Now, let's get some perspective: those little numbers next to the movie titles? Those are their (unadjusted) all-time rankings, meaning all three of these movies are ridiculously successful. AND you have Guardians 2 just refusing to stop making money sitting at #34 on this same list with almost no signs of slowing down. That said: if it's my billion-dollar franchise: I want each outing of my biggest IP trending upward, financially, not downward. Civil War wasn't an Avengers movie, it was a Cap movie. I know accepting that derails your argument, but it's the truth. |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Jun 15, 2017 12:39:45 GMT
Yes, really; sneaking in Winter Soldier is a neat trick because it affords Civil War an "uptick," but that was a Cap solo movie. I'm talking about "major" releases featuring The Avengers. Here are the box office totals for all three, without an inflation adjustment incidentally, which should theoretically help the sequels because presumably it costs more to see a movie in 2016 than 2012 and therefore Disney actually has to sell fewer tickets to make as much money: 5 / Marvel's The Avengers BV $623,357,910 2012 12 / Avengers: Age of Ultron BV $459,005,868 2015 21 / Captain America: Civil War BV $408,084,349 2016 Now, let's get some perspective: those little numbers next to the movie titles? Those are their (unadjusted) all-time rankings, meaning all three of these movies are ridiculously successful. AND you have Guardians 2 just refusing to stop making money sitting at #34 on this same list with almost no signs of slowing down. That said: if it's my billion-dollar franchise: I want each outing of my biggest IP trending upward, financially, not downward. Civil War wasn't an Avengers movie, it was a Cap movie. I know accepting that derails your argument, but it's the truth. Ohhh, really? Didn't feature any other Avengers? Wasn't marketed as such?  |
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Jun 15, 2017 13:07:26 GMT
5 / Marvel's The Avengers BV $623,357,910 2012 12 / Avengers: Age of Ultron BV $459,005,868 2015 21 / Captain America: Civil War BV $408,084,349 2016 That said: if it's my billion-dollar franchise: I want each outing of my biggest IP trending upward, financially, not downward. Well all three were $1bn+ worldwide. I guess if you are trending downward $1.5bn is a good position to start from |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Jun 15, 2017 13:13:52 GMT
5 / Marvel's The Avengers BV $623,357,910 2012 12 / Avengers: Age of Ultron BV $459,005,868 2015 21 / Captain America: Civil War BV $408,084,349 2016 That said: if it's my billion-dollar franchise: I want each outing of my biggest IP trending upward, financially, not downward. Well all three were $1bn+ worldwide. I guess if you are trending downward $1.5bn is a good position to start from Well -- exactly. None of them are failures, not even close. But, like, shouldn't the Thanos movies make more than any of the MCU movies that came before them? I don't even say that in a smartass-type of way. I mean: honestly, it ought to, but these numbers imply it will make less than Civil War. |
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Jun 15, 2017 13:27:16 GMT
Well all three were $1bn+ worldwide. I guess if you are trending downward $1.5bn is a good position to start from Well -- exactly. None of them are failures, not even close. But, like, shouldn't the Thanos movies make more than any of the MCU movies that came before them? I don't even say that in a smartass-type of way. I mean: honestly, it ought to, but these numbers imply it will make less than Civil War. You'd think it would..should...make more money. But who knows. You can never predict these things, and neither can studios. A big thing in the next Avengers film is that you are not getting just The Avengers, but also GOTG - that could add a few extra dollars to the BO. (Though it didn't quite work adding Batman to Superman or vice versa) Personally, whatever the MCU formula is it is working for me. It also seems to be working for a lot of the public and critics. Unless there is a massive flop on their books I don't think we'll see much divergence from the "formula" whatever it is. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jun 15, 2017 14:29:00 GMT
Civil War wasn't an Avengers movie, it was a Cap movie. I know accepting that derails your argument, but it's the truth. Ohhh, really? Didn't feature any other Avengers? Wasn't marketed as such? It featured others the same way Winter Soldier did, and it was still "Captain America: Civil War", not "Avengers: Civil War". The story focused on Cap. |
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Jun 15, 2017 14:49:00 GMT
The formula is simple
1) Have non-threatening villains
2) Have lots of quips, lame jokes and goofy characters to keep things light hearted
3) Keep the story basic and simplistic so children can follow it (often using a MacGuffin plot device)
4) Heros conflicts are diluted to the extreme to make them appear unbreakable (when have we ever seen a MCU character go through genuine conflict like in Spiderman, Dark Knight trilogy, X-Men even the DCEUs MoS)
The good thing about this forumla is you can predict future films will follow these same tropes.
I know exactly how Black Panther and Thor Ragnorok is going to play out, and thats sad.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 15, 2017 15:47:07 GMT
The formula is simple 1) Have non-threatening villains 2) Have lots of quips, lame jokes and goofy characters to keep things light hearted 3) Keep the story basic and simplistic so children can follow it (often using a MacGuffin plot device) 4) Heros conflicts are diluted to the extreme to make them appear unbreakable (when have we ever seen a MCU character go through genuine conflict like in Spiderman, Dark Knight trilogy, X-Men even the DCEUs MoS) The good thing about this forumla is you can predict future films will follow these same tropes. I know exactly how Black Panther and Thor Ragnorok is going to play out, and thats sad. 1) Have non-threatening villains - because Lex, Zod, Enchantress and Ares are so much more threatening right? 2) Have lots of quips, lame jokes and goofy characters to keep things light hearted - something that apparently majority of audiences love. WW had a lot of this "lame jokes" as you put it, and yet look at how much more people loved that movie over the humorless first 3 DCEU movies. 3) Keep the story basic and simplistic so children can follow it (often using a MacGuffin plot device) - I believe you mean keep the story cohesive and understandable so that people of different ages can enjoy it. What? You want everything to be a complex mess like BvS? 4) Heros conflicts are diluted to the extreme to make them appear unbreakable (when have we ever seen a MCU character go through genuine conflict like in Spiderman, Dark Knight trilogy, X-Men even the DCEUs MoS) - compare that DCEU movies where Superman's hair isn't even messed up at the end of his fight against Zod and Wonder Woman didn't suffer a single scratch after fighting Ares... |
|
