Why Do Marvel Consistently Do Superhero Movies Better Than Other Studios?

[Callate]

I've done this before- recently- so I'll try to stick to the short version.

I think narrowing it to "respect for source material" is missing the mark. Yes, there's a lot of source material- but no small amount of it, by current standards, is dreck. Soap-opera-y, exposition-heavy, deus-ex-machina filled dreck.

Before the villagers come for me with the torches and pitchforks, I will note that that's not universally the case by a long shot. And even if some of the writing has been, shall we charitably say, immature, Marvel has long had an ability to create characters who would become memorable and iconic.

But the two most important factors to Marvel's recent success in cinema, IMO, boil down to this:

1. They've recognized that movies are a fundamentally different format than comics. Part of that is recognizing that while references to bits of Marvel lore are well-received, the movies solidly favor people who don't give a damn about Secret Wars or who is or was a clone of who or whether technology came from the Skrulls or the Baxter building or... whatever. They don't bog down with exposition, nor do they spoon-feed information to an impatient audience. Every Marvel movie's mission statement could be pared down to: "We're going on a ride here. Keep up."

2. Consistency in pacing and dialogue. Whether the movie is directed by Kenneth Branaugh, Joss Whedon or James Gunn, the playful verbal sparring and rhythm between dialogue and action is quite similar in tone and affect. I have to imagine that the refinement process for Marvel movies must drive a lot of scriptwriters nuts, in as much as I suspect there are about a thousand drafts involved and no one ends up with something that has a lot of "signature" style to it- yet they all end up as Marvel movies, and Marvel movies, to date, are solid pieces of construction.

When they start to fail at either of these things, you will see Marvel movies begin to slide.

 

[WhiteFangofWhoa]

Most of the reasons above. Another to consider is that they created their own studio specifically for it, thus minimizing outside factors that have turned other movies into troubled productions. Marvel won't be falling into the trap of having to churn out more sequels with a specific character regardless of actual quality just so they can keep the rights. With that kind of investment, they probably spent more time than usual on quality control to ensure it wasn't a financial loss.

Specific goals for each non-sequel film I've seen:
Iron Man- Cast an actor who can embrace and bring across Tony Stark's eccentricities as well as capture his moment of epiphany, making him the main reason to watch each film. Also amazing effects for the costume(s) and good performances by everyone else.

Captain America- Show us why Cap stands apart from the other heroes, and that he is indeed outdated in some ways, but not the ones that really matter. The opposite of Man of Steel despite having similar paragons for main characters. Someone else on another thread said it best when defending him- 'he's from a time when hard work was more important than your friend count on Facebook'. A very wise move to show him kicking butt in his natural element in the first film instead of skipping straight to the present.

Thor- Bring elements of outlandish fantasy and magic into the 'verse without losing the emotional gravitas by way of a Greek/Shakespearean tragedy. Make people like Loki more than his arrogant muscle-head brother at the start, then watch as the two change into their destined roles. Similar to the way I felt X-Men: First Class did things- initially at least everybody liked Erik the badass Nazi-hunter better than Charles' touchy-feely attitude.

Avengers Assemble- Cast a good film with six leads and give them equal time, or at least a decent number of character scenes for each.

It could have gone bad. All it would have taken was one Bat Credit Card-level film to taint the whole thing, but against the odds all of these were, if not always good for everyone, then at least above average.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

People keep saying "respect for the source material." They're wrong.

It's a lack of fear of the source material.

Other companies don't "disrespect" the source material, they are afraid that comic book movies won't sell because comics are weird funny books for socially stunted people. They try and downplay the things that make comics popular. Marvel gets accused of disrespecting the source material all the time as well. The big difference is that they work with the source material. They're not ashamed that the source material is goofy and campy.

This, essentially.

Plus, Marvel can tackle deeper questions in some of its flicks, too. The first Iron Man was very much of its time, honestly, with the developed world looking back on Afghanistan. Tony Stark becomes a peacekeeper and, as Age of Ultron suggests, someone who'd work in favor of durable peace, whereas Obadiah Stane was the greed of the military-industrial complex given flesh.

Granted, Ultron and Scarlet Witch kind of pissed on his ideals and nearly soured them, but the initial guiding principle is still there. The thing is Marvel makes its central conceits digestible, whereas DC seems to try and make the morals or guiding messages behind each flick as blatantly obvious as possible. That's kind of sad, seeing as they have a lot more subtlety on paper than they do on celluloid.

 

[McMarbles]

Well for one thing, Marvel isn't so serious with their films per say or rather not super serious like DC.

I mean let take Iron Man and Batman, both are super rich to the point they used their money to fight crime. Batman is treated as a vigilante while people adore Iron Man even when Tony reveal himself. While Bruce went throught the training to fight crime (however law and justice is a different matter), Tony pretty much let his tech do the work.

Spoiler: This image summed up one of the reason why I think Marvel is better to DC

I always find Marvel somewhat light hearted with their theme and tone per say like Guardian of the Galaxy, Ant Man and Captain America (you never really saw Cap in actual WW2 battle like ley say D Day). I mean Star Lord was snatched away from Earth right after seeing his mother passed away. All he does is doing mercanary/ free lance work while dancing away to his retro music! If DC were at the held, they probably would had made him broody in space while trying to find his way home.

Oddly enough, it's the exact opposite if you compare Netflix's Marvel offerings with the Arrow/Flash/Legends/Maybe Supergirl/Possibly Constantine Retroactively universe.

Marvel Netflix: Dark, brutally violent, Daredevil doesn't even get a costume 'til the end, JJ has a villain out of Andrew Vachs' nightmares

DCTVU: Here's a psychic gorilla and a giant shark man.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

I think a big part of it, for me, is that Marvel movies are fun. I'm not saying they don't have dark moments, or touch on dark themes. But they aren't brooding in them, and they always keep a balance between being serious and being goofy. Even the most light-hearted Marvel movie had some pretty dark stuff (that would be, IMO, Guardians of the Galaxy), and conversely, the darkest Marvel movie thematically had some light-hearted elements (Captain America: Winter Soldier).

Keep in mind, I haven't seen Ant-Man yet, but from what I've heard, that movie doesn't break the trend, either. I've heard the movie is pretty light-hearted, but has quite a dark villain. Could be wrong, though.

 

[TakerFoxx]

Because Marvel Studios is run directly by Marvel itself, and thus they're adapting their own properties. So naturally, they "get" the source material better than anyone.

 

[shintakie10]

I think a big part of it, for me, is that Marvel movies are fun. I'm not saying they don't have dark moments, or touch on dark themes. But they aren't brooding in them, and they always keep a balance between being serious and being goofy. Even the most light-hearted Marvel movie had some pretty dark stuff (that would be, IMO, Guardians of the Galaxy), and conversely, the darkest Marvel movie thematically had some light-hearted elements (Captain America: Winter Soldier).

Keep in mind, I haven't seen Ant-Man yet, but from what I've heard, that movie doesn't break the trend, either. I've heard the movie is pretty light-hearted, but has quite a dark villain. Could be wrong, though.

This touches on what I said earlier.

DCU movies don't do fun in the normal sense. They do fun in the comic book sense. Tell me that the fight scene in Man of Steel wasn't a comic book fight. Seriously, look at that and tell me that doesn't look exactly like a comic.

That exact kind of fight happened constantly in the DCAU, happened in more than half the episodes of Justice League (and Unlimited) and people love the shit out of that material. Yet somehow it happens in live action and its a big problem. The las episode of Justice League has Superman and Darkseid just wailing on each other in the middle of the city, through building after building, using buildings to smack each other around, and it was wonderful.

Translate that to live action and it actually does feel like a problem because they recreated a comic book fight in real life, suddenly real life things to think about come into play. Those buildings that Darkseid just picked up and smacked Superman with? That was probably full of people and they're all probably dead now. That building that Superman literally punched Darkseid through? Yeah, that was probably an apartment building and now there's about a thousand people dead in the span of a second.

Marvel movies, by contrast, don't deal with that at all. Fights that normally would happen in a populated area? Nope, random college campus where everyone seems to be away for the week. Fight in the middle of New York? No worries, the invading alien force will try really hard not to damage any buildings. Killer robot taking over everything? Its cool, his main base of operation is a city with almost no people in it except just the amount of people you need to fill a couple tiny flying rafts.

It comes back around the main thing. Marvel movies are mass marketed schlock. Fun schlock, absolutely, but that's all they are at this point. Any nuance has been beaten out of them in order to appeal to the biggest demographic possible, which is perfectly fine. I enjoy the Marvel movies. I however don't go into them expecting much more than popcorn flicks after Avengers 2.

 

[HybridChangeling]

Probably the biggest reason Marvel has been more successful with the MCU compared to most other studios is down to one thing, respect for the source material.

This, but a little more. There is respect to source material, but there is also logical reasoning. A lot of people disliked the actual storyline of the comic Civil War, but loved the idea. It looks like the movie took the core idea and applied it in a new way. Also it does do some de-cheesifying and makes it slightly more serious.

Meanwhile DC outsources every single property to other movies makers. Like Zach "Neutral Color Palette" Snyder, or directors who never read the comics or understood the role and had to hire others to do it for him/her. Seriously, every new trailer makes me less and less excited. I am not trying to anger people about the DC/Marvel Debate as DC has a lot of strong points as well and I like them equally, but so far Marvel has it in the bag in the movies.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

Are we still, in this day and age, making the argument that comic books and other nerd culture shit is somehow ANYTHING but mainstream?

I've never seen one person my age recoil in horror over someone else wearing a superman shirt. The worst I've seen is people just not understanding why somethings popular, like Star Wars. But not being completely dismissive of it.

As for the DC/Marvel movie debate? Look were judging the entire DCCU on ONE movie, Man Of Steel. Frankly I dug that more than Marvel because it felt way more grounded in some sense of reality to me, but I can see why the Marvel movies are successful. They're whimsical. They're fun. We're comparing a steak dinner to skittles here. It's two completely different types of food.

Now is the DCCU good or bad? I don't know. I'm looking forward to Batman v Supes and I hope it doesn't suck. Thats all.

 

[Deathmageddon]

It's the Stan Lee cameos. That's why the movies are consistently good: they start with the cameo and write a film around it. In fact, in 1936 Lee actually had several of his ribs studded with philosopher's stones engraved with various profanities which serve no practical purpose (he's hardcore like that). He also ate a live bear once so I think you're asking the wrong question. The real question is: how can Marvel Studios movies not be the best of their kind with a psychopath who devours the flesh of hairy gay men at the helm?

 

[votemarvel]

I don't know at what point Hawki (nice name by the way) that continuity became a bad thing. I'm not talking of course about the obsessive "oh the vase was blue and on the right side of the room but in a later flashback was green and on the left", that's just madness.

What he means I think is that in forcing yourself to make "everything connected", you're handicapping your writers (and audience), turning movies into links that rely perhaps a little too much on being part of chains that do the arching for them. There's quite a few movies that wouldn't stand on their own in a world without other better movies to tentpole them (such as Thor 2). Because you liked the other movies and don't want to fall out of the loop, you end up watching everything just in case.

To be honest I think the movie have all done enough to fill people in on the essentials without bogging down the movie with back-story.

I like that events in the MCU effect everything, even down to their TV shows. You can't have a shared universe where events don't affect other things.

 

[Victim of Progress]

My two cents.

This man gets it. DC obliterates marvel in its cartoon department. They seem to know how to handle cartoons better, probably thanks to the years of experience they have. But they really need to step their game and stop cancelling amazing shows mid-production.