It wasn't that long ago. Marvel Studios arrived with ambitions of creating a shared cinematic universe inhabited by all of their properties. Well, the ones they still held the rights to. The plan was to introduce characters like Iron Man, Thor and Captain America in standalone films, culminating in an Avengers movie. An unprecedented achievement.
Well. It worked.
Six years later, Marvel Studios sits comfortably at the top of the mountain. It isn't even close. Now, other studios are looking to get in on the "Cinematic Universe" fun. But which one has the best chance of standing toe-to-toe with the reigning king?
This editorial will break it down studio by studio. We'll look at the studios' properties, how they presently measure up to Marvel and what changes could be made to strengthen their product. First up…
SONY PICTURES
PROPERTY
Spider-Man
HOW THEY MEASURE UP
Was rebooting so soon after Spider-Man 3 a mistake? No. Telling the same story with different actors was.
Ads for 2012's
The Amazing Spider-Man promised the "untold story". In the end, the only real difference between Marc Webb and Sam Raimi's takes was tone.
TASM grossed over $750M worldwide, doing good business abroad. The sequel is tracking behind TASM but recently crossed the $700M mark, also doing well abroad - over $500M.
Sony has a ways to go before they can measure up to Marvel. In fact, it's an interesting situation where they're actually chasing themselves.
They know how huge a property Spider-Man can be. Yet, neither of the TASM films have come close to the success the Raimi films achieved.
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 has not only grossed the least of the previous films but is the worst reviewed.
So this raises the question…
WHAT CHANGES COULD BE MADE
Sony announced, in addition to three sequels to TASM they would be expanding the Spidey universe with a Sinister Six film and a rumored Venom spin-off.
All of this sounds like 1. They're trying to expand because that's the thing to do with comic book movies nowadays and 2. Sony is doing everything they can to hold on to the rights.
Spider-Man just isn't a "shared universe" property. Sony should forget about all that. They don't need it. If they want to restore Spidey back to his early 2000's glory, they need to give the audience something they aren't getting from other franchises.
They were actually on the right track when they said they were putting Peter back in high school. Because one of the great things that sets Spider-Man apart from all the other superheroes is this - he's just a boy.
Look at the Harry Potter franchise. Harry's adventures felt different because he, Hermione and Ron were only kids. Seeing a boy in danger evokes different emotions than watching a shirtless Hugh Jackman, Henry Cavill or Chris Hemsworth in peril.
Webb had the chance to cast a young, up and coming talent to play Peter. Going this direction would also open the franchise up to themes like the loss of innocence and the difficult journey from adolescence into adulthood.
(From left: Asa Butterfield as Peter Parker/Spider-Man, Elle Fanning as Gwen Stacy, Bella Thorne as Mary Jane Watson, and Colin Ford as Harry Osborne)
Instead, Webb went with, then 26, now 30 year old Garfield. It was like casting Tobey McGuire all over again. The new franchise immediately lost a valuable and extremely unique trait audiences can only find in a Spider-Man adventure.
This property could be a billion dollar franchise again, owning whatever Summer it's released in. How does Sony contend with Marvel? Give the audience something Marvel can't. A franchise like this…
FOX
PROPERTIES
The X-Men, The Fantastic Four, Deadpool, The Silver Surfer
HOW THEY MEASURE UP
Fox was off to a decent start with X-Men and X2: X-Men United. But there was a sense the franchise was becoming too Wolverine heavy. In X-Men: The Last Stand he was essentially promoted to team leader.
X-Men Origins: Wolverine continued the trend. But not only did the film underwhelm, it ignited the now infamous continuity problems. X-Men: First Class, despite being one of the better entries in the franchise, added to them. Many praise this year's Days of Future Past for "fixing" the continuity issues but, in reality, it made matters worse.
Still, DOFP, globally, is the highest grossing X-Film by far. At the time of writing this, $205M domestic, $661M worldwide and climbing.
Fox handed the Fantastic Four films to director Tim Story. The first entry brought in $330M worldwide in 2005 while 2007's Rise of the Silver Surfer came in under $300M altogether. A reboot directed by Josh Trank is planned for 2015 while a sequel is penciled in for 2017. The casting news alone already has some fans fearing the worst for the new FF franchise.
As for a Deadpool solo film, it's still waiting in development.
All in all, Fox measures up with Marvel Studios just fine…on paper. It's in the execution where they come up short. If Warner Bros. is criticized for underutilizing their properties, so should Fox for theirs.
Regarding the X-films, it took them 11 years to give audiences the Hellfire Club, 14 for the Sentinels and it'll be 16 by the time Apocalypse appears in X-Men: Apocalypse.
WHAT CHANGES COULD BE MADE
Fox is in the same position as Sony to give audiences something they aren't getting from the other studios. A couple things, actually.
First - diversity. The X-Men, in particular. Focus on the whole team and not just Wolverine. They have a rich history of characters and stories. The X-rosters could easily be cast with international superstars, not just Hollywood's reigning "It" girl or guy. Roles like Storm, Colossus, Gambit and Nightcrawler could be used to introduce this diverse talent to a wider audience.
It shouldn't have taken Marvel getting its own studio for audiences to get a shared universe. Fox could've done it long before them with X-Factor and Excalibur films. Can anyone say Captain Britain movie? This kicks the door wide open for villains other than Magneto. Threats like Mr. Sinister, Apocalypse or even the Shadow King.
The second thing Fox could offer - two super teams in one movie. DOFP and FF writer Simon Kinberg has said the X-Men and FF won't exist in the same universe. Here's a better idea - they DO exist in the same universe. Can you imagine seeing the Fantastic Four and X-Men in the same movie? Instant "event movie".
Don't just reboot the X-Men, reboot everything. Start fresh and build an expansive universe, stretching into television, like Marvel. An X-themed show on Fox makes sense. How about a "viewer discretion advised" Deadpool show on FX? But it would only work with Fox hitting "reset".
Oh, and this would be the perfect team to start their new cinematic universe with.
WARNER BROS.
PROPERTIES
The DC Comics universe.
HOW THEY MEASURE UP
The issue with Warner Bros. is and has always been the executives in charge. They don't seem to understand their DC properties, therefore, they don't have faith in them. And what good is a library as vast as DC Comics without 100% faith?
This leads to questionable decisions. Decisions like making 2006's Superman Returns a pseudo sequel to the Donner/Reeve films instead of taking a fresh approach. Decisions like Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy.
"Blasphemous!" you say. Think about it - it worked out for Nolan and Warner but did nothing for the DC universe. Because Warner agreed to Nolan wanting his Batman to exist in his own universe, setting a potential DCCU back at least seven or eight years.
Believe it or not, 2011's Green Lantern may have suffered for it. Overall, the film served no purpose. It wasn't a part of the Nolan-verse. It wasn't the kick-off for a new DCCU, which would've raised "what about Batman" questions. Warner dodged a bullet with Justice League: Mortal.
The effects of Nolan's trilogy still linger today...
Warner execs had been trying to make a new franchise out of Superman for years. And Nolan had just delivered them a billion dollar franchise with his Dark Knight films. It's easy to see where their heads were at - "Let's make this Superman movie just like we made the Dark Knight".
Warner Bros. and the filmmakers followed the Dark Knight formula down to its DNA. From tone to marketing to its title. The film could easily have been called The Dark Knight of Steel.
The strategy did help Man of Steel set a record for June, becoming only the fourth non sequel ever to open north of $100M. But despite it's record breaking opening, reviews and audiences' reception were mixed. The $225M Man of Steel topped out just short of $670M worldwide. Why? The film is immensely polarizing. Fans still argue over it a year later.
Some believe measuring Warner Bros. to Marvel Studios may be premature with a brand new DCCU starting. But, as with Fox, Warner could've been well into their own shared universe long before Marvel.
Here's something a few of you might find interesting - If the Supergirl movie didn't bomb we just might have gotten a Christopher Reeve/Helen Slater team up in the 80s. "Food for thought"!
WHAT CHANGES COULD BE MADE
The big buzz now is the rumored slew of DC films Warner has planned through 2018, starting with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice in 2016. The list is rather random and raises a ton of questions. Plus it's all predicated on BvS remaining on May 6.
In a recent article The Hollywood Reporter states, with Tom Cruise's Edge of Tomorrow and Adam Sandler's Blended turning out to be disappointments, the studio has hit a rough patch observers predict could last into 2015. Post Dark Knight and Harry Potter, Warner doesn't have any proven franchises to rely on.
So, maybe the possibility of moving Dawn of Justice back to 2015 isn't out of the question.
This may be unpopular with some but Warner should just "Do As Marvel Does". Marvel already laid out the blueprint on how to establish a cinematic universe. Even better, they've proven it can work. Solo films leading to a team up is a sound strategy. The benefits far outweigh any concerns over looking like they're "copying Marvel". Hey,
everyone's copying them. Disney is copying them with the Star Wars universe and they own Marvel.
Warner Bros. needs to forget about trying to appear different or looking like they're doing their own thing.
Do As Marvel Does. Hire different filmmakers to bring the DC universe to life instead of relying on the same people. Preferably talent with respected bodies of work.
Green Lantern deserves better than the one shot he got in 2011.
The Flash deserves a big screen solo adventure not a TV show on the CW or a team up with Lantern.
And Wonder Woman? Her introduction should've come in her own film, not as a third wheel in another franchise.
Setting up Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern and the Flash individually,
before a Justice League film, makes the most sense.
The pedigree of these characters alone should set them apart from anything Marvel has done.
Should.
Again, it all depends on the talent behind the films. More receptions like the ones
Man of Steel got won't cut it.
IN CLOSING
Lately studios like Fox, Warner Bros. and Sony seem content with their $200M+ investments bringing in $700M worldwide. And fans, for some reason, use Man of Steel's $668M as a benchmark.
Wouldn't a better measure be a film like 2002's Spider-Man? A $139M movie that earned $820M worldwide BEFORE the advent of IMAX, 3D and ballooning ticket prices?
In an ideal world there would be a fourth studio on this list. Revisionist history time:
Say, years ago, Time Warner heard Marvel was in the process of getting its own studio and decided to invest $600M or $700M into a film company for DC. Completely independent of Warner Bros. A film company run by comic book enthusiasts.
Maybe in 2005 this company doesn't allow Nolan's Batman to exist in his own universe. Instead he's part of a much larger one. And that same year (instead of 2011) we get a much better Green Lantern film - the second step in building this new universe.
And what if DC green lights the long rumored The Flash for 2006? Followed by Joss Whedon's Wonder Woman, starring Cobie Smulders, for 07. Then, in 2008, audiences get a Batman follow up and a proper Superman reboot that November. All leading to a Justice League movie July 2009.
The studio that pulled this off would be able to challenge Marvel. And it would be called DC Studios. Hey, a guy can dream, can't he?
Regardless of how all the studios are doing, this is the best time to be a comic book movie fan. Love these movies or hate them, the fact they're even getting made is amazing. Anyway, who do you believe could give Marvel Studios a run for their money?
Sound off below and thanks for reading!