If you’ve enjoyed the brief cameos and and fun appearances from Marvel’s other consistently appearing (non-cycloptic) S.H.I.E.L.D. agent, then get ready to start buying some Blu-rays!
At Comic Con, Marvel held a small panel discussing their new “One Shot” series of shorts that will act as both supplemental home video material for their Marvel releases, but also as connective tissue between the stories. Painting a larger picture of S.H.I.E.L.D.’s activities and role in various happenings in the film, the films will focus on Agent Coulson, played by Clark Gregg. There are already two shorts, with one to be featured on the upcoming Thor Blu-rays called The Consultant, which takes place after all of the released films, but before The Avengers. There is another with TBA release date called A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To Thor’s Hammer, which takes place during Iron Man 2.
You can read more details about the panel at Marvel, and can see a tease of The Consultant below…
Yesterday’s coverage of WB’s Jeff Robinov’s comments about Green Lantern (which will stubbornly continue with a sequel) brought out the usual cynicism and confusion from readers about the stark contrast in how Marvel and DC properties are being handled on the big screen. How could DC fuck this up so badly, when Marvel has managed something so well-choreographed? Ultimately it comes down to the fact that Marvel struck out for itself and involved some powerful, clever people so they could handle their films on a larger (though slower) scale as they do their comics. It’s lead to a connected Marvel Cinematic Universe, a sense of momentum between films, and a sense of larger purpose from each story, even if I’ve argued that has crippled most of the individual films from elevating much higher than expensive fan service.
But say what you like about the tenets of Marvel’s Cinematic Universe construction, at least it’s an ethos.
There is always the idea that had DC done more work to carefully exploit their DC properties individually, they could have provided a robust counter-point to the Marvel CU. By allowing heroes to stand on their own and films to function as unique pieces, the individual films could be more satisfying, worthwhile stories on their own. This wouldn’t have been out of character, as DC characters often lend themselves to more individually stylized, one-off stories that can reach deep into the subtext of the characters (sometimes at the risk of treading into melodrama and trite dourness). Obviously The Dark Knight is a great example of this, but since there’s no other good example from WB/DC, it’s clear this studio just doesn’t have its shit together, there is no underlying strategy, and that DC films are simply not a priority.
Of course, this image of WB and DC is only so severe because of the comparison to Marvel, and now everything they do (or don’t do) is judged in light of what Marvel is doing. This puts them in the uncomfortable position of being reactive no matter what strategy they adopt. When you also consider that they can boast the most successful superhero film of all time, and that when they generate a long-term plan to connect over half a dozen films it becomes the highest-grossing series in film history… well, Marvel Studio’s relatively mild successes aren’t exactly making WB execs drool with jealousy. If you pull things back to see the bigger picture, they’ve got nothing to prove, and no grand fire lit under their ass to reinvent how they make action blockbusters.
Still, it’s a shame, and it’s only getting to get more disappointing as Marvel marches on, empowered to do small, cool things like these One-Shots.
What are your thoughts? Should Marvel be putting resources into these shorts, and if so, what would you like to seem them cover? Let us know in the comments, on the boards, or shout at me on twitter.
(via JoBlo)
13 comments
One thing no exec has seemed to realize is that the two most successfull comic book movies ever were not origin stories. Dark Knight and Spiderman 2 told great stories with great, complex villains, that could stand on their own as good movies. I think someone needs to introduce a new comic character and not make the origin the focus of the movie and see how the world responds to that. Instead of all EDGE and no substance.
True, but Spider-Man 2 and The Dark Knight both had predecessors that did all the origin heavy lifting for them, a luxury that films like Thor & Captain America didn’t have, but will (in the form of The Avengers, which I have high hopes for).
A couple of years back, Columbia released a terrific superhero film that broke the narrative rules and was highly entertaining. It was a hole new type of character, there was only the slightest mention of an origin, the hero was not an over-simplified Dudley Do-Right and the climax wasn’t a CGI bad guy/good guy slugfest but (SPOILER HERE) an average everyday human saving the superhero’s life for a change. That film was HANCOCK. And it seems many just didn’t like it, get it or cared. Which was sad, ’cause it was lots of fun.
And Renn: Nice work on the “Lebowski” reference. Dios mio, man.
What is with the sound on that clip? I had it turned all the way up, and my computer’s volume turned all the way up, and yet those two sound like they’re mumbling.
HANCOCK was an unmitigated piece of shit.
Ooops… I meant that the characters of Thor and Captain America will have their own “part twos” in the form of The Avengers, in that they’ll have subsequent films that won’t be bogged down by any origins, the same way Spider-Man 2 and The Dark Knight did for their own predecessors. Also, I misspelled “hole” (whole). That was probably clearish, but you can’t be too careful.
In what way, though? What didn’t work for you? Did you think it was badly written? Unfunny? Poorly directed or performed? It’s cool that you didn’t dig it. Many didn’t. But where’d it lose you?
Also, back on-topic, Clark Gregg rocks as Coulson. The more they give him to do, the better.
All of the above.
… and apologies for not getting the “quote” command to work correctly above.
“Hancock” was a mess. It was one of those movies where the concept was good, but where you imagined things going was much better than where they actually went. The twist was stupid, the villain had about 2 minutes of screen time, and the movie just didn’t know what it wanted to be. As a longtime reader of the site, I understand that the film underwent a lot of changes from script to screen, and what it ultimately became was one of the more forgettable blockbusters of the last few years.
It’s interesting that Marvel seems to have clearer direction and plans for this bit player than DC/Warner has for most of their big guns. Also, while it’s true that DC has the biggest superhero film ever, how long will that mean anything if they can’t build on it?
That reminds me, has anyone else read “Hollywood vs. Superman”? It’s a pretty great description of Supes’ history in pop culture, with the last 25 years or so amounting to “This direction worked for Batman, so we should totally apply it to Superman”, and then having it blow up in WB’s face more often than not.
DC just doesn’t have the universe to do this. They’ll always have Batman and Superman
( although let’s not speak of Superman Returns, or Batman & Robin ), but after that it’s a steep drop off.
No one in their right mind will make a sequel to the Green Lantern.
Hell, Marvel don’t even own X-Men, or Spider-Man… and they’re still doing a team-up movie.
Marvel can even make someone like Agent Coulson cool.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.