Are Marvel Movies Too Formulaic?

That is still true.  Capt America was somewhat known but the GA were no more aware of Iron Man than they were of Ant-Man.   There is a reason why no other studio was willing to make an Iron Man movie even though it would have been LESS risky for them.   Marvel did it when the situation was FAR more risky.


No...this claim is false for an obvious reason.   No other studio made an Iron Man movie.   They had the rights and then they didn't.   The reason Marvel got the rights back is because those other studios didn't want to make an Iron Man movie.   Otherwise the other studios obviously would have kept the rights.   


That's an unproveable claim.    I can just as easily claim that IM was not expected to make more than 100m worldwide.

We only know that IM made way more than it was expected to make.   We know this because it was a big box office story at the time.    A movie making what it is expected to make is not a big story.

Every character was more well known than Blade so that means nothing.   Iron Man certainly was not as big as the X-men....and that one made 157m with its first movie.  (lest we forget that little factoid)   Here is what it looked like for 2nd tier characters leading up to IM's release in 2008:

$40,202,379-Catwoman (more well known than IM)
$52,411,906-Blade 3
$24,409,722-Elektra
$75,976,178-Constantine
$154,696,080-Fantastic Four (more well known than IM)
$115,802,596-Ghost Rider
$131,921,738-FF 2  (more well known than IM)

Spider-Man was the lone hero making big money and obviously Iron Man wasn't on his level at the time.

To make it even worse, here is what was happening to characters that were much more well known than IM:

$206,852,432-Batman Begins
$200,081,192-Superman Returns
$234,362,462-X-men 3 

  So the idea that anyone was expecting over 200m for IM is just revisionist history...much less over 300m.  A result in the 150m range was the most logical landing spot.   It was really only after the first trailer that people took notice.   Marvel turned IM into a character that the public wanted to see on the big screen.

It's exactly the point.   Risk is about money.   When you have more money there is less risk.  Fox was obviously in a better financial situation than Marvel when they started making CMBs.   You are just pretending to not know this because it doesn't support your claim.

Marvel went deeply in debt and had one shot to be a viable studio.   They were even risking losing control of their other characters in the deal.   Far more risk than Fox ever took to this day and it's not close.   Frankly it's silly to claim otherwise.

And since risk is about money, Fox obviously lowered the risk (budget) for every Wolverine movie and especially for Deadpool....which is the only reason they made Logan R rated.   Revisionist history on this one is going to be a thing I see.

I don't know if you understand what a movie budget is.   But it's the amount of money a studio is willing to spend to make a movie.   A bigger budget is a bigger risk.   They approve smaller budgets to reduce the risk for R rated movies.   The risk never changes....the budget keeps the risk the same for all their movies.   That is actually their goal...to minimize risk for every movie they make.

There is no way you don't know all that.   I see what you are trying here.   Fox was not spending the same money to make R rated movies so this entire claim is false.

You were all over the place here.   You are actually trying to make it sound like Fox didn't lower the budgets for the R rated movies.  (nudge...they did)  You even acknowledged why they did it while denying it was a factor.   That's pretty funny.

There is a reason why budgets for R rated movies are lower.   We all know why that is and there is no way you can talk your way out of this one.  It is to mitigate risk.   That's the only reason for it.   Fox will never approve a budget for an R rated movie that is as large as their PG-13 movies.   You are pretending that is what is happening at Fox.

There is also nothing inherently superior about R rated movies so the base of your argument is built upon sand.


Sure they did.   It's just an incredible coincidence that they had made nothing but PG-13 X-men films for 17 years...including TWO Wolverine films...and then suddenly decided Wolverine needed to be rated R.   What are the odds?

And of course with that decision comes the decision to lower the budget for obvious reasons...to reduce risk.   Or do you think that was a coincidence too?

 Obviously Marvel is also willing to take risks like that too.   Except of course Marvel went one step further and let their indie director go completely off the beaten path.   I see you forgot that Jurassic World is exactly the same as the other JP movies in style.   They hired an indie director and made a safe movie.   Marvel hired an indie director and made a risky movie.  So that's really not the same thing at all.

Meanwhile Fox can barely bear to make an X-men movie without wedging Wolverine into it and WB feels the need to wedge Batman into everything lately.


5 movies and they haven't killed any of their heroes?   What exactly are they waiting on?   I see you don't want to count the DC movies going back to 1978....and we are still waiting for a DC hero to die.   (Remember we can't count Superman or Batman since they came back)

Naturally it's perfectly fine that DC never kills their heroes....what a shock to hear that one.  

Which again...doesn't even touch on how absurd this whole claim is.   "They won't kill their heroes!"    This has to be the most inane fake complaint of all time.


No stakes in other words.   They will always come back.   The studio isn't brave enough to really kill the characters.    ...And...check out the end of Return of the Jedi if you think Obi Wan was gone.

I'll be curious to see if Fox is actually going to kill Jean and keep her dead.


More fake complaints.   "Only 5 movies"...that's funny.   Still haven't killed any of their heroes.

Naturally it's ok when DC kills a character and brings him back.   No problem with that one with you is there?     You've got to be kidding with that double standard.

Oh how "brave" to release an R rated version on home video.  Let's pray for WB that they don't go broke! 
 
A movie based on villains??   You are actually listing that as some kind of groundbreaking accomplishment?  Seriously?   Yeah...they were so "brave" that they wedged Batman and the Joker into the movie for no reason and hired one of the most popular actors of the past 20 years to star in it.   Where was the R rating for that one?  (and the movie being "Ridiculous" doesn't count)

Fake SJW accomplishments aren't real.   It was Wonder Woman...and it took WB decades to work up the courage to use one of their most popular characters.  Yay?   Hardly the same thing with Marvel's female characters.   They are taking far more of a risk with the unknown Capt Marvel.   It didn't take Marvel decades to do it either.

Where is the DC movie with a black cast?   Where is the DC movie about Norse Gods?   Where is the DC movie set in space?   Where is the DC movie about a minor character like Ant-Man or Dr Strange?

See?  Marvel has a list of fake accomplishments too.


I love how this is being painted as an "accomplishment" or "brave".   So many flaws in this one:

1-Why would anyone need an R rated Iron Man or Cap movie?   Silly claim.
2-Wolverine works in R.   And Fox was too scared to do it until Deadpool proved it was viable.   You need to explain why those first 2 Wolverine movies were PG-13 if you are claiming Fox is so "brave".
3-R rated movies have a lower budget so they aren't any more risky than a PG-13 movie.   That's the entire purpose behind lowering the budget.   If they kept the budget the same as their PG-13 movies that would be a higher risk.   This is simple math that anyone but you can understand apparently.
4-There is nothing inherently superior about an R rated movie.[/quote]