|
|
Post by charzhino on Oct 14, 2017 9:35:14 GMT
Well, what is a risk to you then? Because the idea of a talking raccoon and walking tree that only says 3 words, and a guy who can shrink to the size of an ant sounds silly on paper, and no studio was ever going to make those movies. Therefore Marvel rolled the dice on those characters, and it paid off. Humor just adds the realism to those films because they are self aware that these are silly concepts. Or do you want dark and humorless Ant-Man and Guardians of the Galaxy movies? Gotg and Antman were risks but not as risky as people on here would like you to think. At the point of GotG and certainly Antman, Marvel had produced by their standard several solid films which general audiences all loved so when they produce a new film that same audience will no doubt go because they know they are almost guaranteed a good experience. Its simple brand loyalty satisfaction. Marvel could have taken any obscure character they wanted and it would have been a success if they copied the template to previous films. But with GOTG they were clever in that they turned the silly idea on paper of a talking racoon and tree and made them the cute adorable creatures that can be marketed to children which would bring in the rest of the family for maximum ticket sales. And theres nothing wrong with that before you jump in. The humour and tone is important because its modelled the same in almost every Marvel film as their trademark which is why I think any MCU film that deviates from this (Winter Soldier, Cap 1, Civil War to an extent) are more risky films than Gotg and Ant Man. If they take a serious approach to Black Panther and go all out on story, themes and subtext - and that can include comedy but not plastered every 10 minutes and during serious moment's, that would be a risk.
|
|