Poll: If Marvel makes a bad movie...

[themyrmidon]

Marvel has already proven that it can overcome a mediocre movie (The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2) and many more of their movies have split opinions (Thor, Iron Man 3), but what would happen if halfway through production the Kevin Feige realized that they were making a truly bad movie?

Once again, I'm not talking about another movie on par with Hulk, I'm talking a Green Lantern or Spider Man 3 level dud, one that could potentially stop a franchise in its tracks. The Marvel movie machine has had so many hits in a row that it is turning into a juggernaut. The brand alone carries so much weight that even a bad movie could probably make money off of it, but it would lose that brand loyalty in the process.

Would it be worth it for Marvel to just eat the loss and not even release a bad movie at this point? Because in all honesty, it looks like Ant-Man is heading in that direction. Even if you ignore what has happened behind the scenes (which I bet is Marvel trying to fix a movie going bad), how much faith can you have in a movie where the first ad poster looks like this?

 

[UmberHulk]

Even if the movie isn't that good it will still probably make money and I would rather have a bad ant-man movie than no ant-man movie at all.

 

[StriderShinryu]

I would say that Marvel can definitely survive a bad movie, but only if said movie isn't one of it's big guns. Ant-Man being the failure it's looking like it will be won't hurt them all that much in the long run. Had Guardians been bad, I doubt that would have hurt them too badly either. It will really only hurt them if, say, Avengers 2 turns out to be absolutely terrible or if they have a string of bad movies (even if those include side films outside of the main hero set). The fact is, they're releasing so many movies that I don't see one or two stumbles derailing the entire train.

If I was them I would actually be more concerned with over saturation of the market. Even if your movies are good, when you release several of them a year within the same general series you're risking even your more dedicated/interested fans feeling burnt out.

 

[Marter]

Spider-Man 3 was better than The Incredible Hulk...

They'd release it, it'd get poor reviews and make a good amount of money. What impact would it have on their future, though?

They'd be fine. Their batting record is pretty high right now (.800 average) which is better than any other studio that has more than 5 movies out (I'm guessing). One huge dud would be easily survivable.

They might take a long hiatus from that aspect of the franchise. When's the second solo Hulk movie coming out? If The Incredible Hulk was good, we'd be asking when the third one is coming out. But since it sucked, they decided to, at least temporarily, stop making solo Hulk outings. If Ant-Man isn't any good, you can bet that character isn't getting a sequel anytime soon.

 

[Scarim Coral]

I'm pretty sure the general audiences will still go see it no matter how bad the reviews are cos it got Marvel names on it thus they will still generate some money out of it.

 

[Foolery]

If I was them I would actually be more concerned with over saturation of the market. Even if your movies are good, when you release several of them a year within the same general series you're risking even your more dedicated/interested fans feeling burnt out.

Good point. Which is why I think Guardians' release was timed well. It's a refreshing break from The Avengers, Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America.

 

[Anachronism]

I doubt one bad movie will hurt their credibility too badly, they've made more than enough money that they can afford a bomb or two. Not that even a bad Marvel movie is likely to bomb at this point, but you take my meaning. Frankly though, I would like them to can Ant-Man. Even Aquaman thinks shrinking is a sad superpower, and it looks like it's going to be pretty terrible. It's supposed to be out less than a year from now and it hasn't even started shooting, for goodness' sake. Get rid of it and make a Ms. Marvel movie instead.

Spider-Man 3 was better than The Incredible Hulk...

Yes it was. Flawed, to be sure, but at least entertaining. The Incredible Hulk was consistently bland, whereas Spidey 3 actually had high points.

 

[themyrmidon]

Spider-Man 3 was better than The Incredible Hulk...

For the record I agree with you, I just needed examples of a Marvel property that could (sort of did) get a sequel and one that, while having merits, got such a bad reputation it killed a franchise.

 

[Zontar]

Ant Man is looking like it's going to be a bad movie? I think someone should look into the production history of Iron Man 2, now THAT had a bad production history (and it was ironically the movie replacing the original ant man release).

This is, ironically enough, a thread which just perpetuates the question I asked in another thread [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.857047-Whats-with-all-the-hate-towards-Ant-Man-recently]

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

They already made "Thor".

 

[Vault101]

Marvel has already proven that it can overcome a mediocre movie (The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2) and many more of their movies have split opinions (Thor, Iron Man 3), but what would happen if halfway through production the Kevin Feige realized that they were making a truly bad movie?
]

everyoen LOVED Iron man 1 though...I got the impression Iron man 2 was the "iffy" one

Dude is riding a bug, that's all I need to get interested. Yes, I am weird, but the Raccoon was all I needed to get interested in Guardians.
.

I probably will see gurdians but what put me off was the connection to Marvel (that and the very typical set up)...which is werid considering it would otherwise be right up my alley being a huge fan of The fith element and such

 

[Super Cyborg]

Dude is riding a bug, that's all I need to get interested. Yes, I am weird, but the Raccoon was all I needed to get interested in Guardians.

As far as canning a movie they think will be bad, which people are already assuming Antman will be, I would say no. Unless the script and screenplay is so terrible it makes old super hero movies look like classics, then I say go with it. Antman hasn't been done on the big screen, live action, so If they hope to make it good, they are going to have to attempt to make the movie. Before one can succeed, one must fail, and for attempting to take a comic character like this and put him on the big screen, that is something that must be done. Even if his own movie is not that great, perhaps how he will be used in future movies will be more important.

If they are that far into production, it definitely shouldn't, because while it may not make all the money back, it can get some back at least if released, and the mistakes can be learned. As for those saying Thor and certain Iron Man movies, I believe the OP is saying movies that fail to make money, and are critically panned. All Marvel movies have done decent to great rating wise, so they haven't had a truly bad movie yet.

 

[faefrost]

I think at this point, especially after this weekend Marvel has pretty much achieved critical mass. It is operating on the level and branding of Disney or Pixar. It will take more than a bad movie to start shaking the foundation. No seriously, look at this summer movie season. The top 4 earning movies, the only movies that seemed to truly cross the boundry to be called "Summer Blockbusters" were ALL marvel Comic based movies. The top 2 of those were Marvel produced movies. With this latest being built on what is arguably one of Marvel's most obscure properties they have in their library packed with characters that have a collective 0 pop culture recognition. One cheesy giant bug movie will not harm that drive any more than Brave or Cars 2 harmed Pixar.

A bad movie or two might kill a specific franchise. We may see Iron Man or even Avengers shelved for a bit after a bad run. But Marvel isn't a franchise it is a full broad production brand. If Avengers goes south they may dust off something different. How about some 70's inspired Kung Fu action like Shiang Chi Master of Kung Fu? Or something from the horror genre that they have a deep deep pool of? Amazing Spider man having a bad movie may stop the production of more Spiderman (political and business realities aside) But it will not shut down Sony or cause people to just give up on their movies, barring some extremely bad internal business decisions and really lousy accounting practices. (Heaven's Gate being the textbook example of this). Marvel is entrenched at this point and have established brand loyalty to critical mass. The only thing that can permanently end it is bad business practices. And even then they go away for a few years then comeback with a "Renaissance" Marvel is making GOOD movies again, and their popularity doubles.

 

[deathbydeath]

They've already made a shitton of mediocre* movies and have been praised to hell and back for it, so I doubt it would matter too much.

*-Sure, they're mostly "good for superhero movies" but considering how many Marvel Movies have hit that mark over that long a while just emphasizes the fact that they aren't really pushing the envelope and whatnot.

 

[Batou667]

Marvel did recently release a dud because future movies would be based on it: X-Men Days of Future Past. Repopulating the X-men universe is the only redeeming feature I can ascribe to that film, it was pretty dreadful otherwise, and I'll bet the marketing dudes at Marvel used a similar justification.

I probably will see gurdians but what put me off was the connection to Marvel (that and the very typical set up)...which is werid considering it would otherwise be right up my alley being a huge fan of The fith element and such

You should see it, in 3D if possible. I wasn't expecting much and was pleasantly surprised.

 

[ryan_cs]

Marvel did recently release a dud because future movies would be based on it: X-Men Days of Future Past. Repopulating the X-men universe is the only redeeming feature I can ascribe to that film, it was pretty dreadful otherwise, and I'll bet the marketing dudes at Marvel used a similar justification.

I probably will see gurdians but what put me off was the connection to Marvel (that and the very typical set up)...which is werid considering it would otherwise be right up my alley being a huge fan of The fith element and such

You should see it, in 3D if possible. I wasn't expecting much and was pleasantly surprised.

Actually the X-men movie franchise is made by fox, they have the movie right to it. They also apparently have the movie rights to deadpool for some reason.

OT: I'm not worried about one bad movie, I think they could probably survive several movies.

 

[Evonisia]

Wasn't it a director issue with Spider-Man 3 and not the movie's quality (which wasn't actually that bad) that stopped the series? If Spider-Man 3 could stop a series by quality, then how the hell did The Amazing Spider-Man (which also made much less money) get a sequel?

Anyways... well it would still make money. The Marvel brand is basically a seal of quality and due to the genre (action films with super heroes) it's a guaranteed hit. If the consensus is "it's bad" I doubt it will stop the Marvel movie train from moving forward.

I'm just waiting for the saturation of super hero films to crash and see whether it is Marvel or DC that gets struck down first.

 

[Batou667]

Actually the X-men movie franchise is made by fox, they have the movie right to it. They also apparently have the movie rights to deadpool for some reason.

OT: I'm not worried about one bad movie, I think they could probably survive several movies.

The way the Marvel universe has been divided up confuses me. It also pisses me off to know that it makes the odds of fun crossovers like X-men and Spiderman, or Spiderman and Avengers, less likely.

(By the way, how come Quicksilver, last seen in Xmen DoFP, is going to be in Avengers 2?)

 

[Zontar]

Actually the X-men movie franchise is made by fox, they have the movie right to it. They also apparently have the movie rights to deadpool for some reason.

OT: I'm not worried about one bad movie, I think they could probably survive several movies.

The way the Marvel universe has been divided up confuses me. It also pisses me off to know that it makes the odds of fun crossovers like X-men and Spiderman, or Spiderman and Avengers, less likely.

(By the way, how come Quicksilver, last seen in Xmen DoFP, is going to be in Avengers 2?)

The reason Quicksilver is in both DoFP and Avengers 2 is because he (as well as Scarlet Witch) are both co-owned by Marvel and Fox for movie rights due to them being mutants but also ingrained members of the Avengers (this may also open up other mutants, primarily those in Alpha Flight, to being co-owned, but that's up to the lawyers). Basically Marvel can use them as much as they like, but they can't call them mutants and they can't mention Magneto.

For how it's devived up, it's like this: Spider Man and his supporting characters are with Sony, mutants, Fantastic Four and Deadpool are at Fox, Namor is with Universal (who is the only one who doesn't need to make a movie to keep the rights) and the rest are at Marvel. Some used to be with Fox or others, such as Daredevil and Ghost Rider, but they've returned to Marvel due to nothing with them being made.