James Mangold criticizes current superhero movie formula.

Mangold is an insider, and he knows what he's talking about. Don't forget, he's made one such film himself (The Wolverine), and although he certainly tried hard not to make it as formulaic as so many of today's tentpoles are, he did realise that the studios basically design those tentpoles to move merchandise. Sure, thanks to lots of talented filmmakers and actors and amazing special effects most of those films are still entertaining enough, (hell: sometimes they're even good) but to the corporations who finance them they are basically nothing but gigantic multi-media platforms to launch a wide array of ancillary products which is where the real money comes from. 

That's also why it doesn't really matter whether or not these tentpoles break even or make a profit during their theatrical runs: all they have to do is reach a critical mass of viewers and guarantee x-amount of market share to fulfill their function as "ads" for all the things the corporations want to sell you later. And they need these crazy expensive, gigantic marketing efforts to make sure their tentpole opens as big as possible to reach that critical mass of viewers during the small window of time before the NEXT blockbuster comes along or word of mouth kills it (a window which is getting smaller every year, as 2016 is living proof).

The real money all those tentpoles generate then comes in through an endless stream of ancillary revenue; TV rights, DVD and Bluray sales, sequels, toys, spin-offs, TV-shows and tie-ins, video games, books and comic books, soundtracks and (in the case of Disney) even theme park rides and muscials. So when studios talk about franchises, they don't just talk about a series of films; to them the franchise consists of all those ancillary products, and it doesn't matter in the least what part of the franchise the money comes from. It doesn't have to be from the box office performance of the films - as long as it comes.

But, and this is important, those companies are now also increasingly oversaturating the market with their ancillary products: because the franchise market as a whole is getting more and more crowded, and that could lead to those corporations starting to eat into each other's ancillary revenue. And they absolutely need to put better movies out there, because it's still the films who have the biggest effect on the performance of all ancillary products.

I believe that unlike WB, a studio like Fox has finally realised that. A couple of bad films in a row can very effectively kill a whole franchise, so minimizing the risk by reducing the cost while trying to make actual quality movies the fans love and which are made by artists might not seem to be such a bad approach after all (which is basically what Mangold is saying). I'd say 'Deadpool', 'Kingsman' and 'Logan' proved that 

If you're interested in the subject, I tried to write a comprehensive analysis of the "Superhero Formula" in this blog:

www.the-fanboy-perspective.com/a-rant-against-modern-tentpole-film-making.html

Mangold is a very talented guy and he of all the other actors/directors who have criticised superhero films over the years has the advantage to speak out. Logan was an excellent film, one of the best superhero films in years. I'm not a fan of ensemble films, I feel his dispute about the lack of screen time of superhero characters is totally valid. These characters need to be fleshed out but there simply isn't enough time or money to spend ages developing each character. Marvel films are very big films, there's a lot happening on-screen but I don't feel like I know the characters. I don't know a lot about Marvel comics, so I rely heavily on the films and I'm pretty sure so do a vast majority of cinema goers.

Logan is more of a character study, but that's what I liked so much about it. All of these Marvel characters are fascinating in their own right, but I feel like I have to read every comic dedicated to each character in order to fully know who they are. I felt I knew all the characters in LOTR and Harry Potter and that's what made me fall in love with them, these movies prove you can have action and character development and still make an excellent film as a result. It's a large knowledgeable spectrum and I think the formula could be switched up a bit and I'm not talking about making every superhero film R-rated.

The Wolverine or Logan?

I've only seen fragments of his first Wolverine film and it didn't look like a big step-up from Origins, but Logan blew me away. As someone who hasn't read a comic book in his life, I came out of his latest feeling like I connected with Logan.

Eh sure buddy

Oh look woozlewuzzle has a sock account.