Friday, June 28, 2013

Industry Analysis

MARVEL ON THE WARPATH
How a Superhero Film Giant                                                                                                                                               Is Shaping the Next 5 Years         by Bennett Campbell Ferguson
 

Above: Ellen Page stars in "X-Men: Days of Future Past," 
one of many forthcoming movies based on Marvel Comic books


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