EDITORIAL: Improving Marvel's Shared Cinematic Universe

EDITORIAL: Improving Marvel's Shared Cinematic Universe

With the release of Guardians of the Galaxy, Marvel's shared universe has expanded even further. But, for this fan, there's one glaring issue the studio should address that would help improve the MCU leading into the future. Hit the jump to find out what.

Editorial Opinion
By TwistedKingdom - Aug 20, 2014 08:08 PM EST
Filed Under: Marvel Comics


No one could predict how Marvel Studios' gamble on 2008's Iron Man would turn out. The company's most popular titles, X-Men and Spider-Man, were at Fox and Sony so the would-be studio was essentially building its proposed cinematic shared universe off of a character considered "B-List".

 

Six years later, Marvel releases Guardians of the Galaxy, featuring characters general audiences have zero knowledge of, breaking August records with a $90M+ opening weekend. At the time of writing this, the film has grossed $229M domestic and $425M worldwide. In six short years Marvel has become a bonafide trusted brand.

 

But the studio is not without its detractors, who often declare Marvel's movies are "for kids" or "action-comedies". Disparaging as these remarks may be, they're inaccurate. "Kids films" and "action comedies" don't gross $700M, $800M, $900M or $1 billion worldwide. Family films do. And Marvel Studios makes family films.
 

Are their movies perfect? No. I only really enjoyed four of the ten they've released - Iron Man, The Avengers, Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Guardians of the Galaxy. What I applaud is the model they put in place. The "Phases". Individual films or solo outings culminating in a huge team up. And that leads us to the point of this editorial.

I love the plan Marvel put into action for their shared universe but, to this day, it feels like something is missing. Something important. Something crucial to an endeavor such as this…Connectivity.
 

Kevin Feige and Co. can say what they want about Phases 1 and 2 so far but these films aren't as connected as Marvel would like people to believe.

At least not where it counts most, and that's in story. Here's an excerpt from a recent Feige interview with Empire.

 

EMPIRE: How do you keep track of everything at Marvel? You said today that there’s no giant wallchart with string and post-it notes, so do you continually discuss things?

 

FEIGE: Pretty much. It is the way we’re structured. It is a relatively tight organization and all of us talk about everything. Then the various people all go off and handle their own movies. So there are people who are responsible for each individual movie but all of us are in conversation. There is handful of us, like myself and Louis D’Esposito and Alan Fine, that oversee all the movies.
 

Maybe there actually needs to be a chart set in place. A blueprint a think tank of writers can come back to mapping out a singular, spanning story. Look at Phase 1:

 

The five films leading up to The Avengers had little to do with each other, or worse, the actual Avengers film. Captain America: The First Avenger introduced the Tesseract and Thor introduced Loki. But outside of that, the rest of the films were good for introducing the characters but did little towards an overall story.

 

Think about the scene that ignited Marvel's post credit tradition. Director Nick Fury shows up at Tony Starks Malibu beach house. "I'm here to talk to you about the Avengers Initiative".

 

Who was going to make up this Avengers team? Cap was still on ice when Fury met with Stark. Thor was off planet, in Asgard. Banner was off the grid in Brazil.

 

Why form the team in the first place? And why now? Based on the events in First Avenger S.H.I.E.L.D had the Tesseract in their possession the last 70 years. In Thor, Loki didn't show any interest in or knowledge of the Tesseract until the post credits.

 

Looking back, it's apparent there wasn't a bigger picture in place. Maybe because no one knew if audiences would respond to Iron Man. Still, considering the way Marvel handled the subsequent Phase 1 films, I didn't get the impression connectivity was planned out in the event IM1 was a success.

 

A giant wall-chart with string and post-it notes would be ideal for building a shared cinematic universe. Because it takes more than Samuel L. Jackson appearances, name dropping and mid/post credit scenes to tie these films together.

 

"Well, what would you like to see?" I'm glad you asked.



Think of some of the biggest crossovers in comics. Stories like Crisis on Infinite Earths and Civil War. Each title in these crossovers were telling different parts of the same story. A much larger story that affected all of the DC or Marvel universe. Marvel Studios should adopt this mentality.

 

Going back to the wall-chart - Put one up for each Phase. At the top should be an Avengers film. Every film underneath should tie into it somehow, story wise. They should provide some type of insight into or help shape the next Avengers film. Let's use Phase 2 for example.

 

It looks like Jarvis will make the transition into Vision for The Avengers: Age of Ultron. So why not plant the seeds of his eventual transformation back in Iron Man 3? Build up to it throughout the movie until, finally, in the post credit, have Vision step out voiced by Paul Bettany.

Go even further - Ultron is the big bad in AoU so have events within IM3 lead to him becoming sentient. A mini origin story, if you will. The films in each Phase should contribute in some way to building the upcoming Avengers installment. They should be relevant.

 

Captain America: The Winter Soldier is the best comic book movie in years but cut the mid-credit scene and there's no AoU tie-in. Guardians of the Galaxy was tremendous fun but what does it have to do with AoU? If anything, based on rumors, Guardians should've kicked off Phase 3, if Thanos is in fact the villain in Avengers 3.

 

This would also help Marvel decide which new characters get their own movie.

Fans are asking for characters like Captain Marvel, Dr. Strange and Black Panther to get films. Yes, but only if their stories can contribute to the bigger one.

Once again, assuming Thanos is the villain in Avengers 3, Dr. Strange and Black Panther don't make a lot of sense. A Captain Marvel movie, however, does.

And with the introduction of the Nova Corp in Guardians, a Nova movie would, too.

 

Ideally, each Phase would be an epic. A grand cinematic version of a comic book crossover event. Full of references to other franchises and their story lines, tying them all together. Something like this...

 

Say, Stark has Jarvis call up a teammate, maybe Cap, who's actually in the middle of his own mission.

Turns out their missions are linked. Chris Evans wouldn't even have to show up on the Iron Man set for this.

Now imagine watching the Captain America film, released later, where we get that same scene but from Cap's end.

 

Simple things like this remind the audience these characters may have their own franchises but exist in the same universe. 

 

IN CLOSING

 

These are just one fan's ideas to creating a cohesive, deliberate shared Marvel universe. The Blu-ray box sets for each Phase would be a complete story, from the first film to the Avengers film.

 

And it's not just Marvel. I'd propose the same ideas to Warner Bros. Especially them since they're just starting out. I may not be a fan of any of the choices the studio has made regarding their proposed DCCU but that doesn't mean they can't give audiences something Marvel hasn't so far.

 

How do you feel about Marvel Studios' shared universe? Do you think they could do better making them feel more shared? Do you think they've done a good job connecting their films? Let's hear your thoughts below. And, as always, thanks for reading!
 

BLACK CAT Will Go From Super-Thief To SUPERHERO In New Marvel Comics Series This August
Related:

BLACK CAT Will Go From Super-Thief To SUPERHERO In New Marvel Comics Series This August

T'Challa Fights For His Throne In First Look At Christopher Priest's MARVEL KNIGHTS: THE WORLD TO COME
Recommended For You:

T'Challa Fights For His Throne In First Look At Christopher Priest's MARVEL KNIGHTS: THE WORLD TO COME

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

GiantNerd
GiantNerd - 8/20/2014, 9:19 PM
@TwistedKingdom

Really nice work. I think each movie should be coherent on it's own for the GA's sake and not go overboard with connecting the films. I think they are getting better at subtly connecting the films as they go though. Like small references to the other characters and new characters like Stephen Strange. I like your ideas. I just think they should be careful by not loading too much of that stuff in to try to connect the movies.
TAL0IV
TAL0IV - 8/20/2014, 9:37 PM
No offense..but Winter Soldier contributed a lot to AOU...in the film during the hearing with Black Widow they specifically say "What do you expect us to do now that our leading Intelligence agency is gone."

It's already been confirmed that Stark will create ultron as a "world police force" i.e. replacement for SHIELD

Thor and Guardians are mainly building for Avengers 3 NOW..because Thanos is the main villain of the universe...gotta build awareness
SauronsBANE
SauronsBANE - 8/20/2014, 10:03 PM
First off, I think you're taking that post-credits scene from Iron Man a bit too literally. I'm not sure it was meant to be anything more than evidence that Feige had something BIG up his sleeve. Even if it doesn't make much sense in-universe (though from the One-Shot, I understood that Tony turned Fury's offer down, they asked him to be a consultant, and he settled for that role until The Avengers happened and put things in motion. Seems legit to me), the whole point of that was to gauge the audience reaction for a shared universe. And it worked.
SauronsBANE
SauronsBANE - 8/20/2014, 10:07 PM
Honestly, I believe you're coming at this with good intentions, but I certainly wouldn't want an MCU to look like this. It seems you wanted the solo movies to build up to The Avengers with ONLY their plot/story. Honestly, I don't think Marvel ever wanted to do that. Phase 1 built up to The Avengers from both a character point of view AND a story point of view, which is MUCH better IMO.

Iron Man set up Stark's origin and his character, and it even managed to fit in some teases for Coulson and SHIELD. But look at Iron Man 2, which most people hate for being nothing more than an Avengers prequel. That seemed to prove that making a solo movie that connects so obviously with the team-up movie isn't a very good idea. There needs to be something more.

Thor dealt with his character and origins, and it also set up Loki as a true threat. And The First Avenger set up Cap's origin and overall character, and still managed to set up The Avengers in a BIG way, with the tesseract and the final scene in present-day NYC. And The Incredible Hulk was a perfectly serviceable character study as well.

And all of that culminated with The Avengers, and it meant that the team-up movie didn't have to waste precious screentime going over the origins of its characters. Everyone was familiar with them, and we could hit the ground running.

Phase 2 seems to be more concerned with planting the seeds for the plot to tie in with Avengers 2, and it makes perfect sense. Iron Man 3 set up Tony's drone army (plus there's the deleted scenes of JARVIS acting very suspiciously), Cap 2 obviously tied into Avengers 2 with the downfall of SHIELD, Thor 2 dealt with how Thor would arrive back on Earth in time for Avengers 2...but Guardians really didn't have much to do with anything, so I can understand that criticism.
SauronsBANE
SauronsBANE - 8/20/2014, 10:10 PM
All of that was just a long-winded way of saying: their plan is working so far. Each solo movie manages to be its own thing, while ALSO setting up important plot threads/character development that will pay off in the Avengers movies.

I wouldn't want every solo movie to be another Iron Man 2, with the focus of the movie being derailed because they have to shoehorn in Nick Fury, SHIELD, and all the rest. Let the solo movies be their own thing, pay attention to the subtle hints and plot threads that are introduced, and then watch it all make it worthwhile when The Avengers rolls around. It's worked so far!
NitPicker
NitPicker - 8/20/2014, 10:37 PM
Not every movie needs to have a connection to The Avengers. Stand alone movies can work in a shared universe.

Besides, people already enough complain about Iron Man 2 being a trailer for The Avengers.
Wallymelon
Wallymelon - 8/20/2014, 11:11 PM
Dude I agree. They havent really had a plan. Joss has helped guide a bit. But we cant forget they are a studio. They are in it for money. They make the films to make money. Some do like the material. But they still see it for money. The general audience isnt worrying about the connective tissue. They want to see a fun movie and the possible addition of a big character.
ScottMontgomery
ScottMontgomery - 8/20/2014, 11:32 PM
Nice! I like you article well written and very professional, you get a like for that alone. I agree with alot of points and I also disagree with a lot of your points
kinghulk
kinghulk - 8/21/2014, 1:34 AM
i think they have a guidline of where they want to go and what they want to do along the way but that's pretty much it. i dont think they need a super detailed plan that would be inflexible if they need to change things.
DrKinsolving
DrKinsolving - 8/21/2014, 3:42 AM
Your also forgetting or not mentioning The Incredible Hulk which came out the same year as Iron Man, the post credit scene had Stark talking to General Ross, telling him "I heard you have a problem, and that we're putting a team together", so at first I think the threat was going to be The Hulk.... But Marvel obviously changed the plan for the better.

How can you say TWS has no AOU tie in when AOU is taking place in a universe after the Shield/Hydra reveal.... Shield is scattered now, Fury is off somewhere, so is Cap and Falcon, Scarlett is too, Maria Hill is working for Stark, these are just a few of the changes we'll see in AOU....

If Thanos is the villain Dr Strange does makes sense if you read the comics, there is a Dr Strange/Adam Warlock connection, read the Infinity Gauntlet....

I think Marvel is doing an amazing job of connecting the movies/characters/stories together and still giving their individual characters the spotlight in their own movies.... I also like how they are constantly thinking about what to do next and adding to the universe.... I'm loving the MCU right now.... I also can't wait for the DCCU to get started

and I Can't wait for Age of Ultron
yossarian
yossarian - 8/21/2014, 6:20 AM
All of these movies contribute to the MCU.

And I must be real confused. People bitch about IM2 because it is too bogged down with expanding and setting up the universe, but then they bitch about IM3 because it didn't involve Hulk and SHIELD. See?

But honestly, when the DCCU gets rolling and a Batman movie comes out are people going to ask, "Why didn't Superman just hear Batman's struggles and fly over and solve the situation?" No.

But go to a comic shop or a comic thread and listen/read to people whine and bitch about the comics. For some reason, petulance is prevalent in a segment of the demographic of this stuff. They are doing exactly what you want, just not HOW you want.

You want to bitch about the Mandarin, fine. You want to bitch because Thor didn't nonstop fly, fine. You want to bitch because it isn't like the comics, fine. But the comics aren't like the comics and that's why people bitch over there too.
MightyZeus
MightyZeus - 8/21/2014, 7:21 AM
Awesome work, man. Great stuff. I actually would not mind seeing some of your ideas but overall from everything i've seen from Phase 1 and Phase 2 has been good in setting everything up, i mean we don't exactly know the outcome of what the big master plan is and how it's all going to tie together but the audience following the clues and hints in these films have some sort of idea.
GizmoEl
GizmoEl - 8/21/2014, 8:58 AM
This is a really great editorial. It's written and put together in a great way, but I strongly disagree.

It seemed like the biggest complaint about Iron Man 2 was how it was a 2 hour commercial for The Avengers. Personally, I love the interconnectivity (is that a word?) between the franchises. I loved how in Iron Man 2, you could see the Incredible Hulk news report on the screen in the background. It may not have been obvious but every movie contributed a bit to the Avengers.

I think what they're doing with Thanos is a great slow build. I don't think I'd appreciate it if they did that with every villain (like Ultron etc). I love the subtle build for Thanos and I hope it continues in multiple franchises throughout Phase 3.
DrKinsolving
DrKinsolving - 8/21/2014, 9:18 AM
@GliderMan

I don't see how that's a legit issue. He said they were putting a team together, and they were.

I never said there was an issue, I said it should have been mentioned because at the time The Incredible Hulk was part of the MCU's plan. I felt it was legit because he was talking to General Ross, and he acknowledged General Ross' problem (The Hulk), he actually says "I heard you had a problem", there were also all those rumors/speculation about Loki controlling Hulk at the end of Incredible Hulk....
----

I never said Strange was needed but it would definitely make sense if he was included....
WYLEEJAY
WYLEEJAY - 8/21/2014, 10:06 AM
Good write up. I was afraid this was gonna be pointless nitpicking. I agree with some, disagree with others. You have to be careful not to have too many subplots in one film.
DrKinsolving
DrKinsolving - 8/21/2014, 2:28 PM
@GliderMan

I could see that, I wouldn't mind him as being part of the team if he fits and is needed, and I can't wait for the Doctor Strange movie, hopefully we hear some announcements soon....
TheOverlord
TheOverlord - 8/21/2014, 4:44 PM
I just want good movies.
TwistedKingdom
TwistedKingdom - 8/21/2014, 8:19 PM
@TAL0IV

Stark creating Ultron in response to the fall of SHIELD - That's exactly the type of plot point I'd want to see addressed in a film prior to AoU. Especially for those who don't frequent websites like this for confirmations and rumors. Knowing that piece of info, I actually wouldn't have minded TWS then an IM3 film that deals with the aftermath of SHIELD's collapse. Maybe Stark creates Ultron at the end or something.

@SauronsBANE

I agree about the post credit scene in IM1 being a gauge. Like I mentioned, I figured they had no idea if the film would work. But, based on the rest of Phase 1, I didn't get the sense they had a detailed "roadmap" laid out, incase IM1 did work. Perhaps a reason the Marvel One Shots came after the fact to fill in any gaps. Please correct if I'm wrong but the 1st One Shot wasn't until 2011, after Iron Man 1 & 2 and the Incredible Hulk.

I also get the solo films were/are meant to establish characters. That doesn't mean they can't tie into each other plot wise. If the editorial sounded like I "wanted the solo movies to build up to The Avengers with ONLY their plot/story" that wasn't intention at all. I'm suggesting the MCU would feel more like a shared universe if the franchises each shared a part of a larger story.

@DrKinsolving

Regarding TWS tying into AoU, I mean plot wise. Like Agents of SHIELD - the show and TWS essentially shared the same plot after HYDRA was revealed. AoS just told a different side of the story. If what happened in TWS is part of the reason Ultron is created, such as the plot point @TAL0IV mentioned, then I stand corrected on Cap's involvement. That said, Marvel could've easily shown or mentioned this in TWS or a different IM3 film.
TwistedKingdom
TwistedKingdom - 8/21/2014, 8:38 PM
@GizmoEl

The fact Iron Man 2 was even made makes me feel a plan wasn't in place. At least not until after The Incredible Hulk. Look at the plot for The Avengers - essentially an alien invasion movie. Personally, I didn't see a massive alien invasion coming based off IM2, Thor and CA:TFA.

I'm not familiar with Ultron and his origins but, from what I've heard, Hank Pym creates him. With that in mind, I'm not sure why the Ant Man movie didn't lead into AoU while Guardians of the Galaxy kicked off Phase 3. I know Rudd isn't playing Pym but, given the source material, shouldn't he be?
DrKinsolving
DrKinsolving - 8/22/2014, 5:31 AM
@TwistedKingdom

I think I see where your going.... The movies are connected but you want them to be more connected.... Personally, I like what they are doing because the movies are connected but the characters still have enough breathing room to have their own stories told in stand-alone movies. If you start mentioning the creation of Ultron in the Cap movies it would take away emphasis of Cap's story....

Regarding Ultron, Pym created Ultron in the comics but it makes more sense for Iron Man to create Ultron in the MCU, because the MCU is centered around Stark/Iron Man. Iron Man 3 also leads up to the creation of Ultron, because Stark creates the Iron Legion in IM3.
LewisLightning
LewisLightning - 8/23/2014, 9:58 PM
LOL, I like how the author is so confused about Nick Fury showing up post credits in the original Iron Man to discuss forming the Avengers. Why can't he fathom that there must always be a FIRST member? He could always recruit Tony now and then add more as time progresses. And note he WASN'T the first member anyways, Hawkeye and Black Widow were already working with Fury at SHIELD.

The point of forming to Avengers was to protect Earth from superhuman threats, something that they had seen back in WWII with the Red Skull. So there was already a precursor to the possibility of future villains. And on the same note it seems Ant-Man will also show us how Hank Pym played a role in the past, obviously dealing with superhuman threats. Within the context of the MCU his plan still makes perfect sense, I really don't see the issue.
View Recorder