For point 1, it seems like they're fairly conservative at start. Ant-Man just vanishes if it tanks. The failure is paid for by the gazillion dollars made by GotG 2.
Marvel has actually shown an incredible amount of restraint, and I hope they're rewarded for taking a huge chance on
Guardians of the Galaxy which everybody was spelling doom and gloom for this time last year. (It's the same way they, and I, are spelling doom for next year's
Ant-Man now. I'm sticking to my guns on this one though.) They've been very good at branding their individual franchises and can probably financially and creatively absorb the hit they'll take when
Ant-Man tanks. Though being in development for almost eight years(?) now, I'd be interested in how much money they already have invested in
Ant-Man even if though it hasn't begun shooting. I have a feeling that's why they're less inclined to take a
GotG style chance on it with somebody as gonzo as Edgar Wright at this point. It's the
Alien 3/Vincent Ward syndrome. They hired Wright/Ward for their vision and fired them for the same reason.
(I'll add that Disney, Marvel's parent company, can financially absorb just about any movie loss. See
John Carter. You'll apparently be the only one who did.)
Marvels's Shared Universe/
Avengers concept is akin to the first
Matrix movie. They broke the ground and did something creatively (and financially) fantastic. It was an enormous risk, but it succeeded beyond anybody's expectations. Now we're getting all the rip-offs. This
Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice movie is a direct response to the success of
The Avengers only DC/Warner Bros. is trying to quasi-reverse engineer that success.
The Avengers worked because we spent entire movies with the characters of Iron Man, the Hulk, Captain America, Thor, and Loki. Coulson, Nick Fury, and Black Widow had also had supporting roles in previous Marvel movies. Hawkeye was the only new character we had to deal with. (Though even had a cameo in
Thor) Whedon didn't have to waste any time introducing us to anybody.
The Avengers was unapologetic about not catching up the audience with what came before and it was awesome because of that.
David Fincher, I believe (Or maybe it was James Cameron), said some great things once about comic book movies needing to eschew origin stories altogether. Both Tim Burton's
Batman and Bryan Singer's
X-Men work largely because the superheroes are already established when the movies start. Now maybe this is why Wonder Woman being introduced to us in
BvS will work because on a certain level who cares how she got to where she's at? Tell me a story about the character
now. However, if we're also getting Aquaman, Luthor, Doomsday, Cyborg and who knows what else in it, are we really going to have time to develop her? My gut is that BvS will make loads, but will the story work? I don't know, man. It seems like a lot to swallow at once.
Man of Steel barely worked and it divided fanboys and casual moviegoers immensely. Batman could also suffer
Spider-Man syndrome where the Nolan/Bale version is so recent that BatFleck may be too much change to handle at once.
For point 2, they seem to have mastered sub-franchises within the genre. Some can rest for a bit if need be...or join only as part of an ensemble (which is how they've handled Hulk, yes?)
They're not resting them long enough. The Hulk in the exception that proves the rule because the Bana and Norton versions never quite got it right in the first place. Whedon and Ruffalo nailed it, mostly by having the character distilled down to it's essence because it needed to function in the ensemble.
Spider-Man is the cautionary tale here. Sony has to make a Spidey movie every three years or Marvel gets the rights back. Raimi and MacGuire walked (or were pushed out) so a reboot was inevitable. They had to do it or let Marvel get it's baby back. After
The Avengers, Sony started their own Shared Universe plan with movie about Venom, The Sinister Six, etc; movies about
villains, put into motion. Only the Spider-Man movies keep losing money.
ASM2 made less than all the others so now Sony is having second thoughts about building their company's tentpole around what seems to be a failing franchise. (This only helps Marvel in trying to leverage the rights back.)
What Spider-Man needs is a creative shot in the arm. They could spend half the money to make an intimate Spider-Man movie that would please fans while still raking in money. But they can't take those kinds of risks. There's too much money at stake.
Batman sort of has the same problem. The Nolan movies are now the gold standard, yet less than five years later we're getting served up a new version. (One that's not too far off from the old one I might add). It's too soon.
Batman Begins worked because the franchise had already been driven into the ground. Remember what a risk *that* was when they were making it?
Marvel is doing it right, but I have a feeling hubris is setting in.
For point 3, SDCC sort of proved the demand. Superhero flicks were the big winners. But, yes, this is the core of the discussion...at what point does it become oversaturation?
Even the glowing reviews of
Guardians of the Galaxy say something among the lines of "GotG follows the Marvel formula. Down on his luck guy, MacGuffin, bonding battle, world threat, blah, blah, blah." Almost all the reviews mention it. Call it "Superhero Save the Cat." At some point, people will go, "These are all the same movie." They might go see
Justice League and
The Avengers 2 & 3 because they're the gonzo, team-up, VFX freak outs, but they may start staying home for the likes of
Thor 3,
Doctor Strange,
Wonder Woman 2, etc because going to the movies is fucking expensive. Also, just because I like a Big Mac every once in a while doesn't mean I like everything McDonald's serves.
The
Ant-Man/Wright deal bothers me because it seems like keeping it fresh is the way to sustain it. And the Wright firing reeks of "this movie needs to fall in line with the others." It was the success of
Iron Man,
Thor, and
Captain America that made
The Avengers possible. People responded to Nolan's vision of Batman more than how Batman fit into a larger picture.
For point 3.5, they have no qualms replacing stars, and the Xbox producers of the future will be catering to the Xbox audience, which is certainly how Marvel's already been handling this... Superman today is unrecognizable to Superman of 1980.
Just because they have no problem replacing stars doesn't mean we accept them. My wife refuses to watch the non-Raimi
Spider-Man movies and doesn't really want to see BatFleck. She's not loyal to the brand. She's loyal to the vision. (Though Marvel can do no wrong in her eyes. I keep telling her to wait until they replace Jackman and Downey Jr.) Marvel has crossed over into the mainstream, but mainstream tastes change. To use a hockey metaphor I stole from someone else; If Marvel wants to keep up, they have to keep predicting where the puck is going, unlike DC/WB who keeps trying to keep up with where the puck is at.
There's a great article making the rounds right now about the immense cost to market movies and how that model is unsustainable. The Spielberg/Lucas "death of the blockbuster" rhetoric from a year ago is still in the ether. Both the amount of content available on the internet and the democratization of high production value filmamking has changed the game dramatically. A paradigm shift of some sort is coming. What it will be is anyone's guess.
EDIT:
And all this mess I spewed out while procrastinating other work is just scratching the surface of all the reasons why Superhero fans should batten down the hatches. That's why I haven't written the piece; because it would probably be long enough that you could publish it.
