There was a time when Spider-Man, The X-Men, and The Avengers were not known to moviegoers. A time when just about the only superheroes the common moviegoer knew about were Superman and Batman. A time when D.C. Comics (creators of Superman, Batman, and a few others you've heard of) ruled the film market among comic book adaptations.
Oh, how things change.
The first comic book movie of any real significance was "Superman" in 1978. It did very well for it's time (it is still the 32nd highest-grossing comic book adaptation of all time), and it was only three years before "Superman II" was released in 1981. It did well, but not as well. Then "Superman III" and "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace" did worse and way worse, respectively.
I should note that, just like today, when one successful movie of a certain type came out then, more were produced. There were other comic book adaptations that followed soon after the first Superman, but none of them had the staying power that Superman did. And Superman remained essentially all alone on the big screen.
Surprisingly, it was only two years after the abysmal fourth Superman that Batman came to the big screen in a very big way. "Batman" was released in 1989 to HUGE success (it is still the 12th highest-grossing comic book adaptation - it even made more than "Batman Begins"). Superman's success in theaters had dwindled by this point, so it's safe to say that is not why Warner Bros. took another risk. The reason this movie even existed is because Warner Bros. was pleased with what Tim Burton was doing before and thought they'd give him a shot at one of their bigger properties. He came through.
Naturally, the sequel came through the pipeline very quickly and "Batman Returns" was released in 1992. While not doing quite as well as the first, the follow up didn't disappoint. It was a very successful film commercially and critically (the 90's were a different time).
Even so, Warner Bros. felt "Batman Returns" should have made more, so they benched Tim Burton as director to go with a more mainstream approach to Batman. They wanted a family Batman. With the approval from Burton, Joel Schumacher was hired as director and they started work on the script. The finished draft didn't please Michael Keaton (who played Batman in the first two) and he left the project. Val Kilmer was brought in and "Batman Forever" was released in 1995. It made money, but the critics didn't like it as much as the first two.
But it made money. Sequel! This time a sequel was put on the fast track to come out in two years instead of the usual three. And they wanted more tie-in merchandising as well. Schumacher was hired straightaway and two years later out came "Batman & Robin" in 1997.
All you need to know about that is that it was a miserable failure. But most of you probably knew that already. What you probably didn't know (but it's still interesting) is that even before "Batman & Robin" was released, Warner Bros. had already greenlit another sequel! This was promptly cancelled after the massive failure of "Batman & Robin."
Thus ended D.C. Comics' near 20-year reign of the superhero on the big screen.
For in the background, this whole time, Marvel was busy busy busy.
Marvel had been trying to have an X-Men movie produced since 1989 (and a Spider-Man movie had been in various stages of development even before that). Marvel just had rotten luck back then. They licensed their properties to be made into movies, nobody ever really came through, and with all the money going around Marvel wound up bankrupt. But in 1998, like the Phoenix of Greek mythology, Marvel emerged ready to kick butt (and now merged with ToyBiz), and their luck turned around. Fox was impressed with the success of the X-Men cartoon show that aired in the 90's and they acquired the licensing to produce X-Men films. The studio offered Bryan Singer the directing job after seeing his success directing an ensemble cast in "The Usual Suspects" in 1995, and he accepted (after a while, but that's another story). Fox was never pleased with any of the treatments (a treatment is like a blue-print of a script in narrative form) until Bryan Singer himself and his producer turned one in of their own. Theirs took the social issues behind the story more seriously, and treated the subject matter as more than just entertaining eye candy. Fox accepted it (with minor changes) and the film was produced. Singer was put into a very tight schedule for production and "X-Men" hit theaters in 2000. The world, evidently, was ready for superheroes to dominate the silver screen.
"X-Men" is very special among superhero movies in that it is the progenitor of the current superhero movie craze that we live in today. Not because it made some insane amount of money, but because it was successful enough to get other films (Spider-Man, X2: X-Men United, etc) greenlit for production. And since then, there has been an unbroken chain of superhero movies being greenlit because something that came just before was successful. So every superhero movie you see (since 2000) can trace its "production heritage" - if you will - to the first X-Men. It is without a doubt the one that started it all.
I couldn't possibly (and by that I mean 'easily') go into every single ramification after X-Men. First came "Spider-Man." Then "Hulk." Followed by "X2: X-Men United," "Fantastic Four," "Spider-Man 2," "Batman Begins," "Superman Returns," "X-Men: The Last Stand," "Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer," "Spider-Man 3," and that's only the ones I can think of off the top of my head from 2002 to 2007!
After that superhero films were raised to a new standard :)
Two special things happened leading up to 2008. The one that is easy to explain is "The Dark Knight." After Nolan's "Batman Begins" everyone wanted to see where he was taking things. Especially when Heath Ledger was cast as The Joker (and more especially when he died, but let's not get into that). The other thing was something Marvel did. Whereas all their past film releases were through licenses to other companies (Fox had X-Men, Sony had Spider-Man, etc.) they had now prepared themselves to make their own movies - in house. Marvel Studios was a full-fledged studio and was ready to release their first in house production: 2008's surprise hit, "Iron Man."
Both "Iron Man" and "The Dark Knight" broke new ground in a handful of ways. "Iron Man" was praised for characters that seemed more real than ever before in a superhero movie. They loved the dialogue, and it showed that Marvel was not only taking things seriously, but they were truly a forced to be reckoned with as their own studio. "The Dark Knight" meanwhile, well, you probably know a lot of this already. It generated superhype. More importantly, it delivered! It was the first superhero flick to make over one billion dollars. That's right. $1,000,000,000+.
Comic book adaptations were officially BIG BUSINESS.
While D.C. Comics were the ones who struck it rich with "The Dark Knight," they are ultimately the ones who are being left behind. This brings us to the world of comic book films as it is today.
Since Nolan's Dark Knight D.C. has released 9 films. Most of them you didn't even know were D.C. Comics (Red, V for Vendetta). Not bad, but Marvel has released 15. Not only have they released more, but through their licensing agreements and other fun circumstances they have - I dare say - almost inadvertently created a monster!
Let me explain.
Let's start with Sony. They have the Spider-Man license. As long as they produce a Spider-Man movie every five years (at least) they keep the rights to produce them. As a side note, that's why "The Amazing Spider-Man" came so soon after "Spider-Man 3." Sony will keep making Spider-Man movies as long as they can. That's money in Marvel's pocket.
Now Fox. Fox has the X-Men. By the end of next year there will have been seven X-Men films, if you include the Wolverine solo outings. And you know they aren't planning to stop soon. More money in Marvel's pocket.
Now Marvel itself. When they set out in 2008 they had more in mind than just great individual movies. Somebody had the brilliant idea, "why don't we have three or four franchises all play into a mega franchise?" And so Iron Man, The Hulk, Thor, and Captain America all started independently and joined up in 2012's "The Avengers." Add all this to the fact that Disney bought Marvel in 2009 - that's an awful lot of backing to work with - and you have a true powerhouse.
And they aren't stopping there either! They aren't done wowing us! Marvel has this plan that involves things called Phase One, Phase Two, and Phase Three (at least). I don't know how to explain it so I'll write it out.
MARVEL PHASE ONE:
- IRON MAN
- INCREDIBLE HULK
- IRON MAN 2
- THOR
- CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER
CULMINATING IN - MARVEL'S THE AVENGERS
MARVEL PHASE TWO:
- IRON MAN 3
- THOR: THE DARK WORLD
- CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER
- GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY
- ANOTHER ONE I CAN'T REMEMBER RIGHT NOW
CULMINATING IN - MARVEL'S THE AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON
MARVEL PHASE THREE:
- ANT MAN? (I THINK)
- DOCTOR STRANGE (FOR SURE)
- LIKELY THOR SEQUEL
- LIKELY CAPTAIN AMERICA SEQUEL
- I DON'T THINK THEY'VE REVEALED THIS ONE
CULMINATING IN A THIRD AVENGERS MOVIE YET TO BE TITLED
I think you get the idea, even if I don't remember all the slots (give me a break though, not all of them have been confirmed). As you can see, we are in Phase Two now, coming up on the release of "Thor: The Dark World." And that third Avengers movie is slated (everyone in the world estimates) for 2018. And Marvel says they have plans out to 2021! These guys know how to do work! It's amazing!
Meanwhile, back at dreary old D.C., the best they've got is a Superman/Batman film in 2015, a Flash film in 2016, and Justice League (their version of Avengers) film in 2017. Forgive me if I'm not impressed given what Marvel's been up to. And did I mention their plan involves a new Batman that has a whole lot to prove since Nolan's trilogy is now over? They have an uphill battle in front of them.
To think Marvel probably envied D.C.'s success in movies for a lot of years. Things change. Welcome to the movie world.
The one. The only. Big Shot Critic
No comments:
Post a Comment