These are all movies that have come and gone in the movie theaters in either the past summer or the previous summer. Almost all of them have interacted in the same movie, or will at least in the next couple years.
Since Disney bought Marvel and Star Wars, Warner Brothers bought DC, X-Men is owned by 20th Century FOX, Sony owns Spiderman (awkward), every other movie franchise has a billion dollar movie making machine behind it. In fact, if you want to find out which movie franchise is owned by which studio, see the picture below:
Impressive right? Disney has about the most money invested in this whole thing since they bought Marvel AND Star Wars. That's about 9 summers of movies coming out if you factor they have 3-4 Star Wars, and probably two more Avengers movies and then individual superhero movies coming out. It sounds like a lot for one studio.
But my question about all of these superheros and sequels is, how disposable have all these movies become? I didn't see Iron Man 3, and for good reason. When you mix in all the superheroes into the same world, there comes a time when you begin to rank each one based on its powers. If Superman and Batman coexist in the same world, why would Batman ever put on his suit ever again? Oh, the one time that Superman can't fix something because it has Kryptonite on it? If Iron Man and Thor and the Incredible Hulk coexist, why would anyone need Hawkeye or Black Widow? WHY WOULD WE NEED IRON MAN?
The X-Men franchise seems to be the one franchise that doesn't have some of these problems. There are mutants with one specific power, and there are more mutants that can neutralize or supersede that power, and normal humans are the casualties. Plus every mutant can have it's own origins movie and sequel, which means Fox doesn't have to make another Indie movie ever again.
Another problem I have with these summer blockbuster movies, are they just going to be the Carnival ride for a certain director? We had Superman movies in the 80's, 90's, and 2000's, why do we need more? Bryan Singer made the one Superman movie before Zach Snyder and Christopher Nolan made this previous one. There is no doubt in my mind that Paramount will give another director a shot at making Transformers in a couple years as a reboot. Doesn't this mean that if studios are gobbling up these franchises, they are just going to be having a rotisserie of directors try each one out?
It might lead to every director's success and demise given the success of each movie. Plus it's going to change the way actor's succeed and fail in the business. If an actor looks like a certain superhero and they can act, they might be given a Brink's truck worth of cash for doing 3 superhero movies never having to work again. Think about that.
How many more Spiderman Reboots are we going to have before we never it ruins the franchise? Spiderman 3 came out like 5 years ago. It did terrible at the box office, so why did they need to bring it back? "Ooo spidey's going to be darker this time around". Let me guess he's going to save the day while pissing off one girl and then he's going to get her back by throwing away his mask, but then someone tempts Spiderman and he has to return to his duty? Count me out.
What I'm trying to say in all of this is that Hollywood can make all the money it wants with franchises, but there will never be a substitute for entertaining cinema that originates from the ground up with a great story and an awesome script.
Alot of the directors/producers make a movie with thier idea in with the story line making it a some what a false movie from the actual way of things happening from the original story. Spider man 1,2, and 3 are a great example of how it the story is mixed. It's all a quick money grabber.
ReplyDelete