How a Superhero Film Giant Is Shaping the Next 5 Years by Bennett Campbell Ferguson
If you’ve glanced at film
websites such as Rotten Tomatoes and Collider during the last few weeks, you
may have noticed that there have been quite a lot of new stories surfacing
about movies based upon Marvel superheroes.
Last month, the Hollywood didn’t seem to be looking past 2015 (when J.J.
Abrams’ “Star Wars: Episode VII” is set to shred box office records); now, even
the 2018 calendar is coming into focus.
In the following debriefing, I decipher some of these developments,
speculating what the continuing dominance of Marvel superhero movies (including
those made by other companies, such as Sony and Fox) could mean for the film
industry as we look to the future.
1.
Marvel
and Disney Lock Dates and Downey
Over the past few years, the
first weekend of May has become an incredibly desirable release date for
blockbusters—because it’s the beginning of the summer season, it’s the time
when audiences are hungriest for spectacle (as the success of “The Avengers”
can attest). Since 2007 Marvel movies
have held that date and it appears that they will continue to do so. The company (which is owned by Disney) recently
announced that they will release untitled films on May 6TH, 2016 and
on May 5TH, 2017. This is
hardly surprising, but it also means that companies like Paramount which could
have nabbed those desirable dates are now out of luck. As for what those untitled films will be, who
knows? Since the “Iron Man” franchise is
likely over, I suspect that new “Captain America” or “Thor” films could be
candidates, especially if the forthcoming sequels to those films are
successful. It’s equally likely that
Marvel would use the time to launch a new franchise like “Doctor Strange.” Nothing heats up summer ticket sales-wise than
starting the season with a new series (see “Spider-Man” and “Iron Man”).
Of course, Marvel has a much bigger franchise to deal
with—the “Avengers” series, which combines the characters from all its various
sagas. Apparently, one of those will be
Tony Stark, since portrayer Robert Downey has officially struck a deal to
appear in two more “Avengers” films. In
all likelihood, such a pact was costly for Disney and Marvel, since Mr. Downey
made a rumored $50 million from the last “Avengers.” But considering the fact that his gonzo
performance as Stark is so popular, it appears that studio executives are
willing to spend money in order to make money.
With these developments, it became clear that Marvel
intends to continue dominating the box office.
But with so much success, one wonders: will it last? I think it will, at least for now. But eventually, something will change. Either Marvel will keep making soulless,
fast-talking films and ultimately wear out audiences. Then again, the company’s continued success
might convince executives to be more creatively daring. This has been known to happen—witness
Christopher Nolan’s evolution from the populism of “The Dark Knight” to the zippy
and richly satisfying intellectualism of “Inception”. If such a moment of transition comes for
Marvel, they may alienate some viewers, but they will possibly engage some new
ones. Such is life.
2.
Sony
Spins More Spidey, But Without Woodley?
Despite the animosity I feel
towards some Marvel films, there is one I’ve particularly enjoyed of late: Marc
Webb’s “The Amazing Spider-Man,” which is a retelling of the tortured
vigilante’s origin. While it lacks the
rich romanticism of Sam Raimi’s original “Spider-Man” trilogy, it moves at a
blessedly even tempo, emphasizing wittily human drama over violence and
satire. The result was not a great film,
but doubtless a good one. In addition,
it was very profitable (worldwide gross: $750 million) which can only explain
the recent news that Sony Pictures will soon release not only “The Amazing
Spider-Man 2,” but also third and fourth installments as well. It’s true—even as Mr. Webb films the second
film (which is set for May 2ND of next year), two more Spidey
pictures have been scheduled for June 10TH, 2016 and May 4TH,
2018. To say the least, the prospect of
Sony looking five years in to the franchise’s future is rather startling.
There are a couple of things that need to be said about
this development. First of all, it could
be a positive one—if the sequels maintain the standard of the original, we
could be witness to a great run of humanistic Spidey films. Yet ironically, making some many movies about
this character is only possible because Mr. Webb’s iteration of the character falls
on the lower end of the quality spectrum.
Sony actually wanted to make four films with Mr. Raimi as well, but the
director balked, likely because he had channeled some much passion into the
first three. By contrast, “The Amazing
Spider-Man” is a mild affair. Instead of
encountering a mortal enemy, Spidey battles a hokey lizard; instead of pursuing
his true love, he pursues the girl he has a crush on. Thus, the fact that Mr. Webb’s standards are
a little bit lower creates a new opportunity—the studio can make more movies
without risking as much creatively.
Nevertheless, this may not be as simple as it seems. While the “Spider-Man” films are based on
Marvel comics, they are not actually made by Marvel—in fact, Sony executive
Matt Tolmach currently serves as the series’ producer. And yet several planned films in the series
have been scheduled for that coveted and aforementioned first weekend in May, a
time usually reserved for films that Marvel produces themselves, like “Iron
Man” and “The Avengers.” I can’t help
wondering if Marvel is happy as long one of their characters kicks off the
summer season or if they are angry that Sony stole their precious Mayday.
Considering these details, I feel that Sony should tread
carefully. For there may have made a new
enemy—actress Shailene Woodley, who briefly plays Spidey’s future girlfriend
Mary Jane in “The Amazing Spider-Man 2.”
While Ms. Woodley is a thoroughly appealing actress, Mr. Webb has
already decided to cut all her scenes from the film in order to narrow the
film’s narrative spectrum. In all
likelihood, this is a wise decision—with a sprawling supporting cast that
includes Jamie Foxx, Dane DeHaan, Felicity Jones, the wonderful Paul Giamatti,
and the smashingly cool Chris Cooper, the film could easily become
overcrowded. Yet for many online
writers, the deletion prompted speculation that Ms. Woodley was to be replaced
by Sarah Gadon. This prospect was
unsettling especially because of recent nasty online comments about Ms.
Woodley’s appearance. The thought that
she might be replaced for such a superficial reason is chilling.
So: not all is well in Spidey’s world. But at the end of the day, speculation is
just that and there’s no reason to assume that Ms. Woodley won’t appear in “The
Amazing Spider-Man 3” and “4” (especially since Ms. Gadon recently stated that
she’s not playing Mary Jane). And in the
meantime, the current state of the franchise gives us a lot to ponder, from
speculation to industry politics to body image and to how it might all turn out
in the end.
3.
Swapping
Apes for X-Men, Fox Finds Friends
Like Sony, Twentieth Century
Fox bears the distinction of running a Marvel film franchise not owned by
Marvel: the “X-Men” saga, which is (among other things) a superhero meditation
on racism and homophobia. And while the
series has lost some commercial momentum over the years, its creative integrity
is unflagging and its production schedule is quickening. Not only will Fox release a new installment
this summer (“The Wolverine,” directed by James Mangold), but they’ve bumped up
its sequel, “X-Men: Days of Future Past.”
Despite plans for “Days” to be distributed on July 18TH,
2014, the film has been switched to May 23, 2014. And with that one move, Fox has redefined the
2014 season, something which nearly every major studio should be thanking them
for. The date change will likely benefit
Fox (especially since the massively profitable “X-Men: The Last Stand” was also
released in late May) but it will help other films as well.
The first distributor indebted to Fox is Warner Bros.,
who has just been saved from a serious mistake.
Several months ago, the company schedules its “Godzilla” remake for May
16TH, 2014, a mere week before the planned arrival of Fox’s “Dawn of
the Planet of the Apes.” I need hardly
mention that releasing two monster movies within one week is a death move for
both—even American audiences can grow weary of watching cityscapes demolished
by feral beasts. But now that Fox has
pushed “Apes” back to July 18TH, 2014, Godzilla should have plenty
of room to wiggle his spiky tail. While “Godzilla”
and “X-Men” are both blockbusters, they belong to distinctly different
genres. What’s more, this summer has
proven that mutants and monsters can coexist peacefully. Just look at “Man of Steel” and “World War Z”—a
mere seven days separated their respective releases, yet both are selling
tickets at top speed. I predict that the
same will be true of the merry Marvel mutants and the ever-cuddly green goliath
when they take the stage next year.
Of course there is another stage to consider—July 2014. With “Apes” debuting on the eighteenth in
lieu of “X-Men,” the landscape of that month has also been altered. But once again, it’s for the better, at least
in terms of business. A July release
would have put “X-Men” uncomfortably close to “Guardians of the Galaxy,”
another superhero ensemble extravaganza.
Normally, the Guardians wouldn’t pose a threat—after all, they are not
nearly recognizable as the X-Men. But
the film is being made by Marvel and Disney, meaning that it takes place in the
same universe as “The Avengers,” a film which made almost as much as the first
three “X-Men” movies combined (although it was far less artful). The X-Men could have been scarred in the
showdown but now that they’ve moved to May, that potential crisis has been
averted. And like “X-Men” and “Godzilla,”
“Planet of the Apes” and “Guardians of the Galaxy” belong to distinctly
different genres. If anything, they will
feed each other by stoking the fires of summer blockbuster enthusiasts.
Being one of those enthusiasts, I am stunned and thrilled
that “X-Men” will be delivered to theaters sooner, especially since its being
directed by the wonderful Bryan Singer. Yet
there are two caveats. To begin, “X-Men”
now has to share May with the similarly-themed “Amazing Spider-Man 2” and even
though the films will debut three weeks apart, Spidey will arrive first, giving
the webbed wonder the chance to exhaust the year’s superhero fascination before
the cavalry arrives. What’s more, a July
18TH release could have been a terrific coup for the “X-Men”
franchise. It was on that same date in
2008 that “The Dark Knight” swept into theaters, smashing the current first
weekend record to smithereens. The May
debut of “Planet of the Apes” (with a fantastic “X-Men” trailer) attached could
have helped build up momentum to a similar milestone.
But I must confess, I have more than the potential financial
difficulties of major conglomerates. What
I wonder it, how can I justify writing about such subjects when there are so
many more important things happening in the world? Well…I will answer that question to the best
of my ability. I love to write about the
box office and the reason behind the release dates—there’s a whole science to
it and it’s fascinating why distributors make certain decisions and how they
affect us. I believe the effect is
profound. Remember when J.J. Abrams’ “Star
Trek” was scheduled to come out during Christmas of 2008? If Paramount had stuck to that date, it could
have completely altered our perception of the film. Oh sure, it wouldn’t have changed the nature of the film itself,
but it would have change the way we perceived
it. Such a debut would have meant
that “Star Trek” would have been tied to snow, Christmas trees, and chuckling
mall Santas. But because it arrived in
summer 0f 2009, I will always associate it with sunshine, long hot highways,
and even my high school graduation.
In the end, the choice of release dates is always
strategic—distributors choose dates because they believe they can make more
money at certain times of year. And yet
there is meaning in those choices, a kind of destiny. Because once you walk into a theater to see a
movie on a particular day, you feel that somehow, despite financial finagling,
it was meant to arrive on that day all along.
****J
No comments:
Post a Comment