THE AVENGERS (2012) Post-Release - Page 27

Some thoughts on being a sequel while launching a new series.

Well, the fallout for this is already starting to affect Marvel and DC. Creators--who now have better options at companies like Image anyway--are very reluctant to create new characters or bring new ideas to the Big Two, because they know they won't have any claim on them or get any royalties. This is why DC and Marvel are stuck recycling their ideas and disappearing up their own asses with shit like the rainbow lantern corps or bringing Bucky back or the constant reboots. No one's going to create an interesting new character for them ever again, which is hurting them a great deal as a publisher. So they're reaping what they've sowed.
 

A good point - and one of many reasons why mainstream comics are hurting. The last A-list superhero to be created was...Wolverine? From the 70's, so yeah. 

But I doubt Disney or WB (or Sony or Fox) care about that. They probably think they have enough characters as it is. They each have plenty of superheroes they've yet to adapt, and they don't hesitate to return to the well (Amazing Spider-Man) if they feel enough time has passed. There's only room in the public consciousness for so many. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

I find the Nolan bat films to have fairly generic scores, nothing really distinctive, except for maybe the Joker's theme in TDK...but one theme does not a score make.

 

I didn't even care for Elfman's Spider-Man scores.  I wont argue with anyone who likes them though.

Man, I still listen to the Nolan Bat scores on a regular basis. They aren't memorable in the traditional sense you speak of (Williams, etc.) but there's still a lot of brilliance in there. My nerdiness over the new one is half because I wonder what the new score will sound like (especially since Inception).

Also, something that is a bit odd: the older I get, the less I like scores in the style of John Williams. They're a much more classical way of doing them, but I also find them to be over the top and start to distract me. Hell, I was actually happy when John stopped doing the Potter scores and made way for themes that I found much more fun. Obviously, that doesn't count toward older films (Indy, Star Wars) but they don't really seem to have a place these days. For me, anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erix 

Someone who hasn't been mentioned much is James Newton Howard. The man does consistently great work. And I know most of you hate hearing his name but M. Night Shyamalan seems to bring out the best in him. Whatever you may think of the films, they have all had terrific scores. Hell... Even I thought The Last Airbender was a load of cunts, but the score was terrific.

Unbreakable and Signs' scores were pretty great.

And to help keep it on topic: while generic, I thought the Avengers score sounded great when the title came up and it really knocked it out of the park when we get our iconic circle shot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

Well, the fallout for this is already starting to affect Marvel and DC. Creators--who now have better options at companies like Image anyway--are very reluctant to create new characters or bring new ideas to the Big Two, because they know they won't have any claim on them or get any royalties. This is why DC and Marvel are stuck recycling their ideas and disappearing up their own asses with shit like the rainbow lantern corps or bringing Bucky back or the constant reboots. No one's going to create an interesting new character for them ever again, which is hurting them a great deal as a publisher. So they're reaping what they've sowed.
 

I seriously don't think it's that at all as much as there's not really room for a lot of new ground to be tread in the Marvel or DC universe. If I were hired to do such a  thing for either company, create a new character that has to  be as good or better as their big guns already are, well I would be pretty intimidated, it's kind of a daunting task.

How are they hurting anyways? It's doubtful even the most interesting character they could possibly come up with would instantly gain the sort of recognition that their series mainstays already have.

But aren't Marvel and DC printing comics pretty much to maintain their copyrights on their characters?  If they could find a way to stop publishing and just use the characters for toys, movies and video games, they'd do it in a heartbeat.

Well, it's partly a mutual thing, in that DC and Marvel don't usually have the patience to try and market new characters anymore either. But there are "new" characters introduced in the form of new incarnations of legacy characters, reworkings of old characters, and supporting players (and even the latter have become incredibly rare) rather than anyone saying "here's a new superhero that we might groom for their own book eventually." The last truly "new" superhero characters I can think of in either universe are the Runaways (which were a fairly big hit at the time with their own book, showing that there is a call for it).

They're hurting in the sense that their audience is continually shrinking, and they've had a hard time appealing to new readers. I don't know what the latest word is on Marvel, which I have to admit has done a better job of trying to reach kids in the last year or so (though they're still making some stupid missteps, like their incredibly mishandled TPB and reprint programs), but DC pretty much bet the farm on the New 52, which won a big audience at first, but has been dwindling consistently ever since. Most of the real growth in comics these days seems to be coming from other companies--Image is flush with Walking Dead money and is about to launch a huge block of projects from a ton of respected creators, Archie has been going through an odd renaissance and getting lots of press for their "Life With Archie" and "Kevin Keller" series among others, and various other companies have been increasingly reaching a more diverse audience, kids especially, through licensed characters and reprints. DC and Marvel are still the 5,000-pound gorillas in the room, but they don't seem to understand how to grow or adapt.

Believe me--there's a BIG shakeup on the horizon at DC at least. It's generally agreed that The New 52 was a desperate gamble on the part of Dan Didio, Bob Harras and co. to keep their jobs, or at least to prevent the bigwigs at WB from stepping in and making significant changes at DC, which worked in the short term but, as I said, the numbers have been in freefall ever since. I know they had some major layoffs at DC last year as well, and I think Marvel too? These are not stable-seeming companies right now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

But aren't Marvel and DC printing comics pretty much to maintain their copyrights on their characters?  If they could find a way to stop publishing and just use the characters for toys, movies and video games, they'd do it in a heartbeat.

I don't know if that's QUITE true--I mean, I'm sure it is for the higher-ups, but the people who actually run DC and Marvel, Didio and Quesada and the rest, still care about the comics. But they're certainly not seen as a hugely profitable enterprise. I'm honestly not clear on whether they actually need to keep publishing the comics to maintain their IP, or if they do it more for the sake of image, but either way, it's not exactly inspiring the publishers to make bold, innovative choices.

Don't forget that Archie STILL has the Sonic the Hedgehog comic going.

What's mishandled about Marvel's TPB and reprints? I remain spectacularly ignorant of things like this, as I've never had any problems with their trade paperbacks personally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benny Reno 

I seriously don't think it's that at all as much as there's not really room for a lot of new ground to be tread in the Marvel or DC universe. If I were hired to do such a  thing for either company, create a new character that has to  be as good or better as their big guns already are, well I would be pretty intimidated, it's kind of a daunting task.

 

How are they hurting anyways? It's doubtful even the most interesting character they could possibly come up with would instantly gain the sort of recognition that their series mainstays already have.

I don't see your point here.  Of course a writer doesn't sit down with the express intention of creating a new character who will instantly rival Superman in the cultural consciousness; it doesn't mean they don't hope for that, but even the stupid ones recognize that it's a self-defeating way to approach writing.  I think what the guys were saying is that Marvel/DC have created an environment that disincentivizes writers from even attempting to invent a new Hawkman or Night Thrasher.

While Marvel may seem to have a license to print money off their 60s/70s era properties at the moment, it's still a liability for them.  Why wouldn't they want a new Spiderman, or at least a Daredevil, being created every 5 years if they could get it? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Spider 

What's mishandled about Marvel's TPB and reprints? I remain spectacularly ignorant of things like this, as I've never had any problems with their trade paperbacks personally.

They're not very good or consistent about keeping their trades in print. A lot of runs have the first and second trades available and then nothing after that, and even some of their most recent stuff has fallen out of print remarkably quickly (Spider-Man: Brand New Day, for instance, is unavailable at the moment, as I believe is Dan Slott's She-Hulk run.) They seem to have a focus on Omnibuses over the more affordable trade paperback collections, and they don't seem to make the same attempt DC does to promote well-received runs of certain books. That said, Marvel's OK about reprinting their old, classic stuff via the Essentials collections--it's just the more recent stuff that's all over the place. When it comes to anything post-1986 or so, Marvel seems to see it all as ephemeral stuff to be churned out, forgotten, and replaced with whatever the shiny new thing is. Of course, you can argue that most of this stuff is too forgettable to be kept in print anyway, but it's kind of funny that so many HUGE!!! MARVEL!!!! EVENTS!!!! have already fallen down the memory hole.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

But aren't Marvel and DC printing comics pretty much to maintain their copyrights on their characters?  If they could find a way to stop publishing and just use the characters for toys, movies and video games, they'd do it in a heartbeat.

Mind = Blown.

You're so very right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

 

Believe me--there's a BIG shakeup on the horizon at DC at least. It's generally agreed that The New 52 was a desperate gamble on the part of Dan Didio, Bob Harras and co. to keep their jobs, or at least to prevent the bigwigs at WB from stepping in and making significant changes at DC, which worked in the short term but, as I said, the numbers have been in freefall ever since. I know they had some major layoffs at DC last year as well, and I think Marvel too? These are not stable-seeming companies right now.

Really? Didn't know that.

Not exactly a big Comics reader (Though i am aware of what's going on). But i thought The New 52 was a big success for DC.

It was a huge success. The first few months. Now, almost a year out, the sales have been steadily declining. They haven't quite sunk to their prior levels, but they've already had to cancel several books (and replace them with new ones to maintain the "52" motif) and the general buzz around the new 52 is pretty poor, with a handful of exceptions. Basically I'd say DC had a chance to really break through and win over new readers, and they blew it by essentially trying to replicate the early 90s, which is insane on multiple levels.

Obviously DC is trumpeting the early successes of the New 52 and not the unsexy aftermath, but just watch. In the coming year you'll see more and more bad signs coming out of DC, and more and more people declaring the New 52 to be a failure.
 

I was always thinking that DC has too many Cosmic events going on (e.g Final Crisis, 52, Infinite Crisis). It all got way too confusing and tiring in the end.

The Sinestro Corps War was a great storyline though. Also heard The New 52 has Batman screwing Catwoman with full blown nudity now.

Actually, Googling around the net, it looks like DC's average numbers ARE down from two years ago, but there's a lot of stat-juking because A) they have a lot more books now, and therefore more selling well, and B) Marvel's also doing fairly crappily lately--there was an article or two about how DC was dominating the top ten sales...of floppies, through the direct market, where their only real competition is Marvel, so that was more a commentary on Marvel not doing so well than DC doing amazingly. Make no mistake, though: the big two are in trouble, and their business practices have to bear part of the blame.

The next big gimmick from DC is going to be Before Watchmen, which already has a noxious stench of tackiness about it...I wonder if this'll be the first big "event" that doesn't bump sales significantly.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

But aren't Marvel and DC printing comics pretty much to maintain their copyrights on their characters?  If they could find a way to stop publishing and just use the characters for toys, movies and video games, they'd do it in a heartbeat.

This is what I've heard, comic sales are nothing like what they were in DC and Marvels heyday, it doesn't really make a whole lot of economic sense for them to keep printing comics.

I wonder why they don't just switch to a virtual format for most of their properties.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schwartz 

 

I don't see your point here.  Of course a writer doesn't sit down with the express intention of creating a new character who will instantly rival Superman in the cultural consciousness; it doesn't mean they don't hope for that, but even the stupid ones recognize that it's a self-defeating way to approach writing.  I think what the guys were saying is that Marvel/DC have created an environment that disincentivizes writers from even attempting to invent a new Hawkman or Night Thrasher.

 

While Marvel may seem to have a license to print money off their 60s/70s era properties at the moment, it's still a liability for them.  Why wouldn't they want a new Spiderman, or at least a Daredevil, being created every 5 years if they could get it? 

My only point, and I realize I could have made this more clear, is that comic's aren't really a viable source of income for these companies anymore. Sales are way down, I doubt that bringing in new characters would change much, regardless of how well they're written even if they were they'd probably still get overshadowed in the public eye by their heavy hitting mainstays.

Because a well written comic book  character that garners a modicum of popularity today can be turned in to a well written film character that makes 200 million dollars five years from now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeI 

Because a well written comic book  character that garners a modicum of popularity today can be turned in to a well written film character that makes 200 million dollars five years from now.

So why not just skip the comics and go straight to film?

That's hard.  I imagine it's easier/cheaper to work out characters in comic books before spending $100M making a movie that might fail.  It also lets you build some fanbase which can help market the movie.  Not so much in the case of something like I Am Number 4, but I imagine it'll eventually work.

This is why you got stuff like Cowboys and Aliens.  For better or worse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benny Reno 

 

I wonder why they don't just switch to a virtual format for most of their properties.

Didn't marvel try this back in the late 90s? I remember reading a lot of the early Ultimate stuff online.

If they could do this, and do it in a proper, viable way (access to entire runs or storylines ala TPBs, back issues, well organized and easy to navigate) I would probably start picking this stuff up. As for now I don't really read comics anymore. My addictions have graduated from filling my book shelf with trades, to records, to digital music for djing. shit gets expensive and takes up a Lot of space.

**EEDITED**

Thanks for answering my question a page back btw. I heard him say that but I didn't really process the implications of that as compared to TDK.

Yes, one of the reasons comics are becoming a hot thing with Hollywood is that you can try something out, gain an audience, and walk in to a studio with a proven concept rather than trying to pitch something from scratch, which increasingly Hollywood seems terrified of doing. Especially with SF/Fantasy/nerd genre stuff.
 

The downside is that now you've got all these Hollywood posers churning out crappy comics as a prelude to pitching them as movies, and comics are being approached more and more as movie storyboards instead of a medium on their own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benny Reno 

So why not just skip the comics and go straight to film?

Because Hollywood doesn't do untried original genre ideas anymore.

It's crazy to me that Marvel and DC don't have iPod apps that provide a great comic like experience. Their printing and distribution costs would plummet (maybe to zero, although they would most likely keep printing some floppies and trades).

This would kill off the Comic Shop, which would make me sad for nostalgic reasons (and where would Nerds congregate in Real Space?), but I've got 10 long boxes of comics I can't unload on anyone, and although I know damn well I bought consecutive issues they are in no discernible order. And here I thought my run of X-Force would finance my retirement!

Comixology?  Though I don't think the material they have available is that great yet.  Better on the iPad I'd imagine than trying to read comics on an iPod.

Quote:

Originally Posted by neoolong 

Comixology?  Though I don't think the material they have available is that great yet.  Better on the iPad I'd imagine than trying to read comics on an iPod.

It pisses me off that with Comixology (as well as Marvel and DCs apps) you mostly have to purchase individual issues rather than collected virtual graphic novels. I also find this to be kind of expensive if you're after whole story series or specific stuff.

Now if they had a monthly membership-type deal where you could access they're catalogue freely, that's be something I;d be much more interested in.

Yeah, like with Netflix, I'd think a subscription model would see some pretty good business.

Though, like with the studios, I'd bet Marvel and DC still have to deal with comic stores/Diamond.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benny Reno 

So why not just skip the comics and go straight to film?

Because you end up with something more like Spawn rather than Spider-Man.  You get something that tries to be trendy and what the kids are into at the moment, and you end up sifting all the good things out of the archetype. 

You get Next Men instead of the Fantastic Four. You get Supreme instead of Superman.  You get the Authority instead of the Avengers.  There's no fondness derived from children having grown to adulthood reading the adventures of these characters. They're known by relatively few people. There's no built in desire to see these characters brought to life.

Some non-Big Two properties I would like to see developed for the big screen are Alan Moore's Miracleman and the more recent creation Invincible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rain Dog 

 

Because Hollywood doesn't do untried original genre ideas anymore.

Sadly, ya.

In fact I can't think of the last time this happened. Pretty sure it's going on well over two decades since the last time Hollywood came out with a 100% original genre pic (that was both good and massively successful anyways). :(

Avatar?

Fine, Inception?

Quote:

Originally Posted by neoolong 

Avatar?

 

Fine, Inception?

I hated both. : \

One of them I didn't even see and I hated it (Hint: It wasn't Inception, I didn't fall asleep til well after Morpheus was teaching Juno about inceptionating people's dreams).

I heard the film was pretty well liked around here though...just didn't do it for me at all...and Avatar...no I won't ever watch it sorry. No way to convince me.

Well, both were well-received, though not by everyone, and financially successful.  And original, depending on your definition of original in Avatar's case I supposed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by neoolong 

Well, both were well-received, though not by everyone, and financially successful.  And original, depending on your definition of original in Avatar's case I supposed.

Nah they totally fit the bill I'm just being intentionally obtuse at this point lol.

Still...it just doesn't feel like Hollywood has as much originality going for it these days, and well...the comic industry hasn't since like the 70's afaik, when was the last time Marvel did something new and we liked it? Wolverine?

What's the point of all this, pretty shitty that Kirby get's little more than a special thanks at the end of the credits for these flicks?

Deadpool.  That was '91.

It depends though, you have stuff like Invincible as mentioned, and Y The Last Man.  Or Ex Machina. Or Atomic Robo.  They just don't have the mass recognition of the X-men, Spider-man, etc.  Of course, that's Image and Wildstorm stuff do a degree, which goes back to the creator-owned point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by neoolong 

Deadpool.  That was '91.

Eh....I suppose technically ya, he did have some sort of following and had his own book, but it kind of died off and he never really got elevated beyond a pretty gimmicky character. I mean I don't see that character ever carrying his own film or even a cartoon or anything at this point.

But ya you make a good point, recognition is not everything.

Well, he's supposed to get his own movie.  Eventually.  I think Fox screwed that up themselves though.

I still think DMZ would make a pretty kick-ass HBO series.

There are and have been plenty of great comics, just increasingly fewer from the Big Two.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benny Reno 

Sadly, ya.

 

In fact I can't think of the last time this happened. Pretty sure it's going on well over two decades since the last time Hollywood came out with a 100% original genre pic (that was both good and massively successful anyways). :(

Dances With Smurfs, unfortunately.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rain Dog 

 

Dances With Smurfs, unfortunately.

I don't really count Avatar as original, or good. But ya...technically I suppose. As said, I refuse to watch it. I would sooner watch commercials all day bragging about Avenger's B.O. before I watched Avatar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benny Reno 

Eh....I suppose technically ya, he did have some sort of following and had his own book, but it kind of died off and he never really got elevated beyond a pretty gimmicky character. I mean I don't see that character ever carrying his own film or even a cartoon or anything at this point.

 

But ya you make a good point, recognition is not everything.

Deadpool still has a following.  Enough to give him multiple books at Marvel (even if it's often multiple mini-series at a time).  I don't pretend to understand it, but he's still one of Marvel's most popular characters with current readers.

Personally, I'd argue the last "successful" introduction of new characters into the "big two" was what I tend to call Marvel's "second wave" of characters in the 1970's:  Wolverine, The Punisher, Ghost Rider, Luke Cage and Iron Fist, The "New" X-Men, Captain Marvel, etc...  For DC the only equivalents I can really think of are the "new" Teen Titans (Starfire, Raven, and Cyborg).

Obviously some were more popular/successful than others, but if we push it out to the 80's and 90's, maybe Deadpool, Gambit, and Cable (reflective of the X-Franchise's dominance of the 80's and 90's more than anything else), or on the villain front Apocalypse and Venom, but that's pushing it, to me.

My son loves Deadpool--whenever we played Ultimate Alliance, he always wanted Deadpool on his team.  I never followed him before I started playing UA.

One thing I did notice:  we were at Universal about a month ago, and in the Marvel store right next to the Spider-Man ride, they have shirts of all the main Marvel guys--Spider-Man, Captain America, Hulk, Iron Man.  And then there are 2 racks of Deadpool shirts with a couple of Punisher shirts.  I would almost guarantee that at least half of the people in that store have no idea who that is.  Also, my son does Occupational Therapy 2x a month, and he wore a Deadpool shirt one day, and his therapist demanded to know where he got the shirt, as that's her favorite comic character. Who knew?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benny Reno 

 I didn't fall asleep til well after Morpheus was teaching Juno about inceptionating people's dreams

Did you fall asleep?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martianman 

My son loves Deadpool--whenever we played Ultimate Alliance, he always wanted Deadpool on his team.  I never followed him before I started playing UA.

 

One thing I did notice:  we were at Universal about a month ago, and in the Marvel store right next to the Spider-Man ride, they have shirts of all the main Marvel guys--Spider-Man, Captain America, Hulk, Iron Man.  And then there are 2 racks of Deadpool shirts with a couple of Punisher shirts.  I would almost guarantee that at least half of the people in that store have no idea who that is.  Also, my son does Occupational Therapy 2x a month, and he wore a Deadpool shirt one day, and his therapist demanded to know where he got the shirt, as that's her favorite comic character. Who knew?

I am legitimately shocked. Either way though, I think this is a good sign of the lack of creativity coming out of the big two in quite a while, and why that is. If they're more than meeting their bottom line on mostly shit stories and characters why would they come up with anything new?

As long as they're keen on getting people like Whedon on board for the MCU I'm okay with this though, honestly the last thing I read out of Marvel I really enjoyed was his run on Xmen a few years back where he brought back Colossus, mind you I'm not read up on a whole lot since the Chris Claremont days.

How popular is Deadpool? This how.

Okay, this is legitimately adorable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Blank 

Okay, this is legitimately adorable.

Pretty cool considering the franchise is likely to have sufficient legs that it'll still be around by the time he's old enough to know how cool that photo is.  Trying to imagine what it would be like to have a photo of myself on Reeve's or Hackman's shoulders from a Superman set.

http://www.avclub.com/articles/why-the-avengers-is-the-best-tv-show-in-movie-thea,75212/

AVClub offers some interesting insight.

God I hope not. Personally not a fan of TV. I actually thought where Whedon succeeded was finally embracing what cinema has to offer.