Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)

[Ironwood]

I'd enjoy hearing the over understand from the nay sayers on when Marvel will have their first flop.

As Draconian points out, Marvel have had tons of flops in the past.  And I agree with Lakov that these days, it's really hard to quantify what a flop actually is.  Are we talking about a bad film, universally panned, or just money.  After all, we argued the prequels to death with someone who clung to the idea as fervently and manically as you do for everything Marvel.  There are people here who consider some of the films already done to be 'horribly bad and boring and unwatchable.'

For my money, I'm actually genuinely worried that Ant-Man may be seen as the first mis-step.  It could go quite wrong. 

[Velorath]

I'd enjoy hearing the over understand from the nay sayers on when Marvel will have their first flop.

Punisher: Warzone didn't even make it's money back.  Ghost Rider 2 scraped by because of the international market.

He was probably talking about Marvel movies made by Marvel Studios/Disney.

[DraconianOne]

He was probably talking about Marvel movies made by Marvel Studios/Disney.

Oh yes, I'm well aware of how movable the goal posts are. Of course, by that standard, you pretty much have to remove anything released before 2012 which means that we're only talking about 6 films over 3 years.  We could always narrow it further by saying any film made by Marvel Studios/Disney and released in May as well I guess.

[Velorath]

He was probably talking about Marvel movies made by Marvel Studios/Disney.

Oh yes, I'm well aware of how movable the goal posts are. Of course, by that standard, you pretty much have to remove anything released before 2012 which means that we're only talking about 6 films over 3 years.  We could always narrow it further by saying any film made by Marvel Studios/Disney and released in May as well I guess.

Given that this thread is about the MCU, I would think it that the goal posts are fairly set in place. The (currently) 11 movies in the MCU are the ones actually made by Marvel Studios as opposed to stuff that was licensed out to Fox, Sony, New Line, or Lionsgate which Marvel didn't have creative control over.

[Malakili]

As Draconian points out, Marvel have had tons of flops in the past.  And I agree with Lakov that these days, it's really hard to quantify what a flop actually is.  Are we talking about a bad film, universally panned, or just money.  After all, we argued the prequels to death with someone who clung to the idea as fervently and manically as you do for everything Marvel.  There are people here who consider some of the films already done to be 'horribly bad and boring and unwatchable.'

For my money, I'm actually genuinely worried that Ant-Man may be seen as the first mis-step.  It could go quite wrong. 

And a misstep might be all it takes to lose quite a few people because it is combined with a kind of Marvel burnout.  They aren't there yet, but if you have one mediocre movie and people are already thinking "Another one of these already?" then you're setting yourself up for some trouble.

I like Daredevil quite a bit more than I've liked any of the recent movies anyway.

[jgsugden]

The movies made under the current banner, the one shots and the tv series. There is no crap in there. Some are outstanding, some are really good and a few are just good... but no crap. That is the widely held opinion clear from countless review sites, etc... I'm not saying you won't find bad reviews... everything gets some bad reviews. However, if you put the cumulative set of reviews in the context of reviews for similar media, it is clear that these are widely appreciated for their quality.

[eldaec]

Everything makes its money back so long as it has a recognisable star, reasonable marketing, and isn't a comedy.

This is one of the advantages of being an industry that barely pays any tax.

When the turn comes, nobody will be sure it happened until 3 years and 50 pages of this thread later.

[Ironwood]

the current banner,

Wait, no, that's the wrong one.

[jgsugden]

Everything makes its money back so long as it has a recognisable star, reasonable marketing, and isn't a comedy.

George Clooney and Disney would like a word with you, but the estimated $140 million loss on Tomorrowland cut their phone budget.

Ironwood: The Incredible Hulk did very well.  Marvel didn't like working with Norton as he was not collaborative in the way they liked.  They transitioned to a new actor and there were raves about the change.  Started off with good quality and improved it.  Misstep?  I say thee nay.  It is like going from dating hot/crazy to hot/sane.  You're not necessarily carrying regret. 

[Ironwood]

Yeaaahhhh, my post was just a pun post.

[jgsugden]

Yeaaahhhh, my post was just a pun post.

Went right by me.  My bad.

[Evildrider]

[jgsugden]

One director down for BP: http://www.essence.com/2015/07/03/exclusive-ava-duvernay-not-directing-black-panther-movie 

[Lakov_Sanite]

This..."I think I’ll just say we had different ideas about what the story would be. Marvel has a certain way of doing things and I think they’re fantastic and a lot of people love what they do. I loved that they reached out to me.”

Makes me worry for Dr Strange.  Now I'm sure Antman is going to be a fine superhero movie, only now I wish I knew what Edgar wright would have done with it.   So far all we've seen is "the marvel style" and the more I hear, the more I worry they aren't ever going to let directors think outside the formulaic box.

[Evildrider]

The problem it seems with some of the directors is they come in and want to do it their way.  However, they should know by now that there is a continuity and shit they have to keep in order.  You can make the film yours, but you still have to respect that there are things that have to be a certain way to fit the Marvel narrative and tone. 

That being said, most of these directors careers have been given big bumps due to their involvement with Marvel.  Edgar Wright is one of those people that wanted to do it all his way.  It just sucked that he had so much time put into it.  With Ava DuVernay she wasn't even an announced director so there isn't any amount of real work from her on the movie anyway.

[sickrubik]

The Incredible Hulk did very well.

I know this your reply was based off a misunderstanding about a post, but..

No, no, it did not.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=incrediblehulk.htm

[Ironwood]

That kinda makes my point.  Are we talking about a good film or a financial success.  Because it WAS the better Hulk film out there.

(Yes, that's not saying much.)

[sickrubik]

How a film "does" (IE, flop or not) is generally attached to it's financial success. And simply "making it's money back" is never a success (read: financial) in the film studios eyes for these large budget productions.

As for quality, I don't have a particular strong reaction to any of the hulk films, but then I've never been big on the Hulk character anyway. To me, both films are pretty much on the same level, quality wise. Both movies are in the 60% range, based on RT.

Financial success is empirical. Artistic success much less so... because opinions.

[Ironwood]

But we can all agree that The Minions Movie is utter, utter shit, right ?

Because it was.

[Pennilenko]

But we can all agree that The Minions Movie is utter, utter shit, right ?

Because it was.

Is it out over there already? Are you being serious?

[Soulflame]

But we can all agree that The Minions Movie is utter, utter shit, right ?

Because it was.

Not out here yet.  It does look awful though.

[Merusk]

Despicable Me 2 suffered because of the focus on the minions. I can only imagine an all-minion movie being utter trash that entertains only mentally diseased 5-9 year olds.

[MahrinSkel]

Despicable Me 2 suffered because of the focus on the minions. I can only imagine an all-minion movie being utter trash that entertains only mentally diseased 5-9 year olds.

I assure you my 6 year old is not mentally impaired, and along with all her friends, she's almost as gaga over Minions as for Frozen 2.

--Dave

[Fordel]

Yea my nephew and niece both love the little yellow guys. All I have to do to make my niece laugh is say banana in their inflection.

[Ironwood]

The kid will like it and then instantly forget it (like Elena did).

It's utter trash.  I mean, really, really, really bad and offensive.  It may as well have every line of dialogue saying 'We're doing this as a cash grab because your kids are stupid.'

I agree with Merusk entirely.

[jgsugden]

A lot of movies that do worse get sequels. Incredible Hulk made a hundred million profit in theaters worldwide and then has had very solid home movie revenue. I'll call that doing very well, especially when yoy consider very well isn't exactly a rave.  It was not Iron Man, Dark Knight, or any of the other runaway successes of the era, but I don't exactly think Marvel regrets making it, although they likely wish they had the recast from the start.

[Pennilenko]

I'm caught surprised that you guys didn't like the minion movie. I haven't seen it yet. However, I'm not expecting academy awards material. I mean it's a minions movie, it's supposed to be an entire movie about bad slapstick comedy.

[Teleku]

In all honesty, did any of you guys not like the Norton hulk movie?  I mean, it wasn't some master piece or anything, but the plot flowed at a good pace and it was entertaining to watch.  Not what I was expecting considering all the negative stuff I had heard on the Internet about it before.  Not a home run, but a perfectly entertaining movie I felt did a better job with the character than he first film.  What was there to actually hate about it?

[Ironwood]

No, compared to the first one it WAS a masterpiece.  It was ok.  It wasn't anything great tho and Abom was pretty stupid.

[HaemishM]

I liked the Norton Hulk. It was decent, had more Hulk Smash than the first and had a good slugfest ending. However, compared to the other Marvel movies, it ranks about with Thor Dark World. Decent but totally forgettable.

[sickrubik]

A lot of movies that do worse get sequels. Incredible Hulk made a hundred million profit in theaters worldwide and then has had very solid home movie revenue. I'll call that doing very well, especially when yoy consider very well isn't exactly a rave.  It was not Iron Man, Dark Knight, or any of the other runaway successes of the era, but I don't exactly think Marvel regrets making it, although they likely wish they had the recast from the start.

Possibly semantics, but "very well" isn't really applicable here. Production budgets do not take into account Marketing, etc.

If it were a solid success, there would already be another one in the pipeline, regardless of the Universal distribution mess that Ruffalo referred to, which has been disputed.

Again, possible semantics, but saying it did "very well" seems a big stretch. The new one would probably command a bigger budget, and not likely to be a big box office draw.

[jgsugden]

As you say, semantics, but: There was another one in the pipeline that was derailed by Norton, by the rights issues, and by the greater success of the other Marvel movies.  Hulk didn't get a sequel so that GotG and Ant-man could get a spot on the schedule. 

[sickrubik]

The rights issues stuff seems to be here-say, though, as they shot that down in June. The Universal distribution rights aren't holding anything up. I haven't heard anything about Norton being a block in things. He was always pretty gung ho about the series.

The fact that they truested two unknown projects before a more known quantity proves my overall point. Trusting GotG and Ant-Man more than what a Hulk movie could do probably speaks a bit to the status of the project and trepidation about how it would perform.

Of course there are some storytelling reasons why they wanted those to be there, which are important. But looking back there's no reason why they couldn't have been fitted in differently.

All of this just points to the larger thing: Hulk isn't a draw. It might be now, and especially in the right hands, but so far... Meeeeeh. Seriously, the only Hulk i've ever cared about was the old Ferrigno series. And that's only because it was jut about the only comic property at that time.

[Evildrider]

As you say, semantics, but: There was another one in the pipeline that was derailed by Norton, by the rights issues, and by the greater success of the other Marvel movies.  Hulk didn't get a sequel so that GotG and Ant-man could get a spot on the schedule. 

Huh?  That's bs, cuz they reshuffled the schedule like months later for Spider-Man.  Hulk movies have just not performed well enough, and that is the reason it's not happening.  

[HaemishM]

I also heard that Norton is such a gigantic asshole, no one at Marvel wanted to work with him again.

The only reason anyone has had any discussions about a Hulk solo movie is because of how well Ruffalo did with the character as written by Whedon. The poor box office returns really haven't made that a priority even after the character's success in Avengers.