Being a fan of the Marvel comic universe, I love the idea of film adaptations, but very few of them actually seem to work for some reason, averaging only 54% on Metacritic! So I just thought I'd take a quick run-through of the recent ones (Blade onwards), and share my thoughts on why I think this might be...
Marvel
Formerly known by names including "Atlas" and "Timely", Marvel Entertainment is the publisher of comic books featuring iconic characters and teams such as the Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, the Avengers, the X-Men, Iron Man, the Hulk, Thor, Captain America and Daredevil. Currently owned by the Walt Disney Company, Marvel is one of the "Big Two" comic publishers along with DC Comics.
Marvel Films
I think for the most part the films have been decent. It's just that they could have been so much better and that frustrates the die hard fans.
@Jotham: Thanks :)
" I think for the most part the films have been decent. It's just that they could have been so much better and that frustrates the die hard fans. "
Just realised I forgot the Punisher films... I wonder how that could have happened *rollseyes*
Interesting.
Wasn't a theatrical release but - Man-Thing - 20%
Nice analysis (Men In Black is arguably missing) but an interesting definition of "work" as relying on critical response when the source material itself generally doesn't pass critical muster. Sure, there are good comics/stories to non-comic fans but it's still very much an entertainment niche (even the world's largest and most famous comic book convention has less than a third of its floor space, panels, and attendees actually dedicated to comic books!). PopCulture- whether Katy Perry or Jersey Shore- as a whole is not made for critics or critical acclaim. Marvel more or less knows and accepts this.
The measure of what "works" for them is not critical acclaim, necessarily, but profitability... thus the Blade series worked well by tripling investment at the box office alone (say nothing of DVD, cable licensing, network rights, etc.) whereas Hulk- no matter how faithful- struggles to meet expectations (despite doubling the budget, it only breaks even after marketing). It's why a ridiculously successful, in absolute terms, film like Superman Returns is still below expectations for Warner Bros. No studio sets out to fail but there is no magic rule or formula for capturing popular culture. You can't make a rule that predicts Pokemon, Ninja Turtles, Power Rangers, Transformers, etc. over their contemporary competitors. Putting film making first, or story first, or character first, or action first, etc. as a philosophy all have examples of successes and failures. As a really broad generalization, DC is targeting the two extremes- producing their large properties as films first (directors like Noland) and then throwing their small properties to the wind hoping for a TMNT or Blade, whereas Marvel properties (more or less by default) pursues popculture (directors like Raimi) with as much polish as they can afford before release.
Critical reception is what converts into awards and it can't be said that Marvel properties (not all under Marvel's control) are chasing those awards... they just want popular money makers.
Thanks for bringing that to my attention :)
" @Mainline: You actually brought up a really valid point, so I went back to my list and added profits (from Screened) and as you can see, besides the exceptions of the Hulk films and Fantastic Four, the profits roughly match the scores:No problem, that's a great chart and break down.
Thanks for bringing that to my attention :) "
The only issue is that the profit is box office minus reported budget which doesn't include marketing (for costs) and merchandising/licensing/etc. (for profit). For example, Blade spawned a syndicated TV series and a videogame but everything above Hulk on that list can tack on $100M+ in marketing costs (if Scott Pilgrim spent $100M on marketing, you better believe more was spent on the Fantastic Four, X-Men, etc). That said, you can see that critical acclaim only broadly correlates with profit... Incredible Hulk was received better by critics than all but the best superhero films yet it's amongst the worst performers in terms of profit. Spider-Man, in absolute terms, is a middling critical success (C- score on average) but an insane over-performer... and Spidey 2, by that measure, considerably below expectations.
I mean, from Hulk 2 to Spidey 3 you only have a critical spread of 3 points but 229% difference in profitability (with Hulk 2 actually on top in terms of acclaim)... I think that level of uncertainty doesn't really make for clear rule making.
Please Log In to post.
This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:
Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.Comment and Save
Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.
Log in to comment