Yep. I usually don't watch series. It only takes the ending to ruin a whole show. I would feel sorry for those one piece fan if they're ending turn out bad. 20 year down the drain
@@Watch-0w1I think its impossible to give shows like One Piece a good ending that isnt predictable. Naruto had a good ending after 720 Episodes and 11 movies bit it was also what everyone thought would happen. If you step out line of fan expectations after decades you're bound to crash and burn
@@StrafprozessordnungNaruto had a standard ending with a lot of poorly tied up loose ends. Orochimaru changing his mind for no reason, all the underdeveloped romances tied up at the same time, the fabrication of a legendary big baddie that was never even hinted... It wasn't bad, but it was definitely not a good ending.
@@rodrigovda not interested in a big argument about it (sry) but I have seen the show twice (+ every filler and movie) and I think Narutos ending is one of the best shōnen endings in the scene. I have been in the situation of having to write an ending to something that an entire team of people worked for an extended amount of time. You will never catch all the details and tie up every lose end (sometimes you even deliberately drop one thing to make another work). While yes, theres always room for improvement I think the Naruto ending is well done and I have rarely ever heard anyone complain about it except for die hard fans of side characters
@@Strafprozessordnung unpredictability is overrated anyways. But i guess most people see it different in our "spoiler" culture. I do see value in the unkown and in the "first impression" of something, but i don't need that for the stories i listen to. At least not for those big commertialized stories.
Honestly, I don't think Marvel will ever be that big again. We've watched superheroic stories so many times, we're perpetually bored of it. Two good superhero films a year is a limit for most adults right now (like No Way Home, Guardians 3). Hollywood will have to figure out a new blockbuster format, like it did many times before 2008.
The blockbuster format is dead unfortunately. You arent going to achieve the big box office hits anymore when you have streaming. Its why the cinema is dying. No one is going to go and spend $20 plus concession stand and fuel to see the movie on the big screen, when you can watch it in the comfort of your home for half that cost.
@@Ryanthusar Nah. People have been saying that since forever and yet new films keep breaking records at the box office. The big screen, the audio and the whole experience simply remains unmatched by a TV. Also $20 seems like a lot. Don't think I've ever paid that much for a movie ticket (and fuel is not an issue if you live in a city).
I still fork out for the cinema for any film I actually care about (often ~8 a year). The cinema is way better than streaming and until I can afford a home theatre I will continue to go. Not to mention the experience of IMax. I have only ever seen one home setup that was even close and it cost thousands to set up. Most streaming sites don't even support that standard anyway, even if you had the setup, so the $20 even 10 times a year, is far cheaper than what you would have to pay in order to fully replicate it. People who don't care about the extra quality are also not really the kind of people who would keep the movies alive as many of them would have waited for home video in the past as well@@Ryanthusar
My problem isn’t the inter-connectivity per se. It is the entire multiverse concept and how it actually cheapens the stakes. I think it’s worth saying that the traditional idea of “raising the stakes” has an unintended side effect after a while. When you continue to increase the stakes from neighborhood to city, city to country, country to world, world to galaxy, etc, I think the audience gradually stops noticing; that is to say, stakes are not what connect a story to the audience. Characters are the what (or rather, the whom) to which the audience latches. We did not care about the universe-altering stakes of Thanos’s conquest for the stakes themselves. We cared because all of the characters we came to know over the twenty-something movies leading up to Infinity War were threatened by Thanos, and for us, these superheroes are the physical and emotional proxy for the vast peoples of the universe from Earth to Knowhere-the peoples that wanted to fight Thanos and simply were not strong enough to do so. We care about those characters because they were written and developed well enough for the audience to relate or connect with them in some way. The stakes just contextualize the danger the heroes are in and help add tension. The multiverse says, “Hey, remember that superhero you cared so much about? Well, there’s like, an _infinite_ number of them, including a smaller-but still infinite-subset that are _just like the character you know.”_ I still end up really, really sad over the one I know that died, but when a new one enters scene, I still need to be endeared to them. No Way Home had a shortcut for this: It gave us three different versions of Spider-Man that we were _already invested in,_ and it spent time letting us know where each of them were as well as developing them even a bit further. These stories still have to do the leg work, and most of them do not do that. In Guardians 3, an entire subplot is dedicated to how Gamora 2 feels *nothing* for Peter. She does not share the same bonding experience with the Guardians or Peter that the first Gamora had. She is a different person, and Gunn does a great job walking the audience through the same stages of grief that Peter experiences, and even getting us to appreciate her in the way she learns to at least appreciate him. At the end of the day, the hardest thing for the multiverse saga to do is _make me care._ If they can make me care again, I’ll play catch up, but so far-with a few exceptions that thankfully do not really tie into the larger story-they have not. And for that reason, I’m out.
Beautifully put. I feel like the studio has forgotten what it seemed to originally understand, that there is only one kind of stakes in any story, personal stakes. If it's not personal, the audience doesn't invest. This cycle of stakes inflation that Evan explained so well is like the inflation of ego, the larger it gets, the less substantial it becomes, until all of reality is at stake, and no one in the story actually matters. The MCU has made itself the infamous "bagel with everything," a vast circling continuum of everything that ever will, or even could exist in its multiverse... and in the middle is an empty hole where we should care, but we don't. Because there's no personal connection to the MCU anymore. There's no Tony or Steve in the center of the film universe, carrying the stories. And the remaining characters are pale imitations. Once, the MCU built on its successes. Now it's trying to anticipate its successes, and build on that. But Doctor Strange never came together as a lead character, let alone the foundation of a franchise. Captain Marvel has potential, but she's still too undercooked. Tom Holland's "Friendly Neighborhood" Spider-Man isn't built to carry the MCU, unless it all comes to Queens. Nick Fury was only ever meant to be a mentor of heroes, not a protagonist himself. Sam and Bucky fumbled their initial chance to be lead characters, and the studio seems to have already given up on them. Hawkeye is retired, his story is kinda done. Meanwhile, Wanda and Vision was set to take over as the center of the MCU, until they used up Wanda as a throw-away villain for a hero that never worked. And Ant Man is far, far too lightweight, and always will be. I mean, maybe if someone put some or all those characters together in a new Avengers film that really solidifies each character the way the original Avengers did, they could pull the MCU out of the death spiral it's in. But that doesn't seem to be on the menu. Even if they attempted something of the kind, they've lost their spark of inspiration. Everything has been attempts to remind us of their past glories, or recreating the lightning in a bottle they once caught, as though it's just a formula they can repeat. The DCEU failed because it was trying to recreate the Marvel formula. But now, Marvel is trying to do the same thing, and failing in the same way. What neither seems to understand is that Marvel initially succeeded by trying new things. They don't seem to do that anymore, at least, not with conviction. I don't see them coming up with anything as daring and audacious as GotG, or as authentically emotional as Winter Soldier, or as earnest as Avengers. They're too busy trying to be those old movies. And what made those movies great was a combination of originality and conviction. But even when they're truly original, they don't seem confident. What they invest in is the formulas that have been squeezed for all their impact long ago.
I largely agree. I think there’s only so much we can expect in terms of originality, but Marvel has so many characters to choose from that they have no excuse for not doing something relatively new and interesting for the MCU.
Even though it wasn't the greatest film, I think the third guardians did a really good job of pulling things back. It focused on character building with stakes that, while "big" for the heroes, were ultimately small potatoes compared to what came before. It paid off the development of basically all the guardians very nicely.
I remember I used to read my mate's Marvel comics and you're right. Even with money completely removed as a factor, the mental and time investment costs are astronomical.
I watched nearly all the MCU movies in the lead up to End Game, not always in the theater but mostly on Netflix and redbox. I remember finally sitting down at home to watch End Game and then when I learned that there was going to be more stuff after that, I checked out. Like, I used up all my emotional investment to get through the last two movies, anything after that would be like that scene in Matilda where that kid has to eat an entire chocolate cake. No thanks, Marvel, I'm full lol
Absolutely, for most people who are not deeply embedded into comic book culture, there is only so much of this you can take. Story, concept and character driven movies for adults are making a comeback.
I am not an MCU superfan but I will absolutely still watch movies/shows if they are good and not really tied in to everything else. Guardians 3 was great for example, I didn't have to have watched all the shows leading up to it. I didn't even really need to remember Guardians 2. It was just a good movie without all the bullshit.
@@souradeepsengupta95 I think comic book people would be the ones to get the most tired of it actually. Because they keep introducing characters and the comic guys would look up all about these characters so they check out even more actually
Great video. I think it's fair to say that the issue with the MCU post-Endgame is an oversaturation with a lack of focus. I'd argue that general fans have a fairly decent tolerance for mediocre superhero films that work in service to the crossover event. What they have almost no tolerance for are mediocre superhero films that don't seem to matter in the long run. This, I believe, is the biggest contributor to audiences' current frustration as the MCU has been fairly aimless (not to mention DC is about to reboot hence a lack of interest in DCEU leftovers) and most content seems to have mainly been to fill up the Disney+ library. However, Bob Iger's recent comments on prioritising quality over quantity does inspire confidence that they will at least work on shifting things to gear like they did on the tail end of Phase 2 and James Gunn has been saying all the right things in regard to rebooting DC so I'm still optimistic.
The real issue is that the films aren't mediocre, they're horrifically bad (excepting No Way Home which is still seriously flawed and Hawkeye, I haven't seen GotG3).
@@ludwigamadeushaydn706 Guardians 3 did the right thing in my mind. Gunn focused on resolving all of the characters rather than waste script lines playing into the current multiverse storyline. If you like Guardians, it’s a great closing chapter to their story.
"most content seems to have mainly been to fill up the Disney+ library." That's what "content" does, after all: fill a container. It's no accident that streaming platforms have switched their vocabulary to talk about "content", rather than films and shows. We'll see how much this promise of focusing on quality is fulfilled, because the last few years have definitely felt more like padding than art.
I also went DC, I got hit hard by the cartoons, Batman TAS, Superman TAS, Justice League, Teen Titans, Static Shock, Batman Beyond. I even liked Green Lantern (the cartoon).
Yeah, I kinda had a similar introduction into comics like you. Smallville was sorta my cornerstone, but i really took off when I got this huge book called The DC Encyclopedia. However, I never wasted my money with the single issues, I'd save my money up and once a month splurge on two or three graphic novels or trade paperbacks, whichever you wanna call them. The same company that put out the DC Encyclopedia eventually put out a Marvel Encyclopedia, but instead of getting into the main universe, I was more invested in the Ultimates line. My interest in Marvel comics waned when Ultimatum happened, and by then I had friends providing me digital scans. The death knell for me and DC came when they had that era where they refused to let Batwoman get married and they had an art contest where they wanted you to draw Harley Quinn about to unalive herself in the bath tub. Luckily, by then, The MCU was in its golden age, and I had that to keep my interests. The CW shows were... There too, but in the last 3 years, I've noticed I've given up entirely. Marvel is too bloated, and DC just isn't winning me over with the promise of a reboot.
Really good video. I was wondering why the quality of the video was so much better than I was expecting. Then I realised it wasn't that copycat channel Nerdstalgic.
I've always been Marvel for Movies and DC for shows and animated content. You're completely right about the batting average. The only great movies in Phase 4 were Shang Chi and Spider-Man. I'm still all in for Superheo content, but I think we've past the Golden Age of MCU films.
I really disagree with your premise. I think that the comic books that paved the way used the solutions for generating interest that they had at the time - which was stake-raising. But having tested that for several decades with Superheroes, Cowboys, Animes and Shark Jumps, I think that we've evolved as writers and audiences to realize that not every story needs to be bigger than the last thing in order for us to write/watch it. As an audience, sometimes watching someone save their son or help their friend or fight corruption, or cope with their mental health can still seem important even if we acknowledge that these same people just jaw-punched a literal god to save the universe 2 years ago. And to top it off, a lot of these stories are actually more powerful as a result of their smaller, but more personal stakes.
I remember reading online a condensed summary years ago, of a comic book character's (very long) arc one time, and it just dawned on me at that moment how ridiculous it was. It was like, and I'm just loosely paraphrasing from memory here, *_“But then he had a son with that woman, but she didn't know he was a clone of his son, then the mother of his other secret son, from a parallel dimension, broke the space time continuum, and sent that son back with the robot father from the fake one, back to before he knew he'd seen him the first time, so then he had a baby with her, but it was a girl because her mother had made a deal with the devil to wipe his memory in exchange for the son, who was actually his father, which is why he disappeared when the other-dimension him met him after the clone had started making robots... etc. etc.”_* And it was at that moment I totally stopped caring about comic book superheroes. The lack of boundaries is the death of art.
I think this is an overarching problem that the MCU is going to have to grapple with. When they started out, they were able to just take entire decades of character events and throw them in a blender, distilling some of the consequential stories from their entire runs into discrete films that had crumbs to tie into the overarching arc. As someone who had lapsed out of reading comics, it was a breath of fresh air. But now after 15 years and however many hours of content, the cinematic universes are becoming as labyrinthine and hard to follow as the comics they were spawned from. The more runtime that's consumed with setting up other events or referring to other stuff people feel like they need to know going in, the less breathing room there is for good stories. (And ultimately whatever soap opera stuff is happening in a comic book, I think people are willing to forgive it if they like the actual story.)
😂hahah I totally get that , I've been there. But you got to remember that characters bio is a 60 yr story arc, with hundreds of issues and dozens of writers, with more than a few retcons and reboots. Personally I think it's best to only learn a characters general power set and alignment. Then keep your own continuity for them
Ironically, Phase 4 reminds me MORE of classic comic storytelling than Phases 1-3. It’s just heroes doing their own thing in different corners of the world. Sometimes there’s an occasional crossover but mostly you’re limited to their POV and that’s ok. Say what you want about the good-to-disappointing ratio, but at least Marvel’s willing to experiment with their genre variety.
Great video and even more relevant with certain comic crossover events nowadays. There’s huge universe spanning ones still happening and then mini ones that only happens on a small scale. It’s simultaneously great and such a drag to keep up. Think that’s why I just stick with certain characters/teams but even then someone like miles is getting dragged into another event.
I remember in college thinking "I'll just keep up with the Batman comics" and then realized it would be like 8 comics per month and I didn't want to dedicate the energy to it. I'll just pirate the comics.
Honestly the reason I loved Hawkeye, Ms Marvel, and She-Hulk is because they took a step back from the MASSIVE and focused down on smaller problems. But I also think all the Marvel properties should be touching each other just a little more. Like why wasn't there a teaser for the Marvels at the back of GotG3 (or something like that)? I'm interested to see how Marvel handles this period in the next few movies/shows. DC actually has a huge advantage right now with new management and a hard reboot. Interesting time for these movies for sure.
My informal rule: Once your franchise requires me to switch to a different form of media (movies to TV; TV to video games, etc., movies to comics, etc.) just to be able to maintain understanding of your narrative, I'm out.
The only way to tie it all together in the end of the Kang arc is for the Kang in Loki to win his gambit. Turn the multiversal war into a closed time loop that leads to the formation of a new Sacred Timeline with one Kang victorious up until the point he is deposed and a new multiversal war begins.
This really outlines my reaction to marvel nowadays. It seems like for the past few years they've been in a soft reboot but won't fully commit to the next thing. The TV shows have actually hampered their progress imo, since the events of the shows aren't having REAL implications in the movies, and even some movies (ETERNALS) have had no effect on the larger story. Mix that with just how meh the stories of these movies have been, and I think we're going to start seeing some hard bombs in the next few years.
Disney wont fully commit due to the cost. Plus the current strike action is going to delay more, and the strike action will stop even more. It doesnt help when you have Iger also cutting back on a lot of Marvel and SW stuff. WB are having the same issues.
I mean they're obviously waiting until they can use the X-Men characters and for the secret wars events so that they can do an actual reset. I don't know why anyone is expecting decent quality from them until then.
You are right about scope creep. If the Avengers were not saving the galaxy every issue it started to feel off so I switched to West Coast Avengers with a smaller scale and stakes but good stories at their foundation.
As a kid in the late '60s and early '70s, I loved the Bizarro Superman universe. As I recall, it was first introduced in the margins or back pages of regular comics, next a "flipped" dual issue, then gradually became its own single-subject comic. To me, a Mad magazine fan, it was literally the comic writers "taking the mickey" out of themselves, poking their own finger into their own eye.
as a long-standing DC fanboy, i felt this video in my bones.. and it's as you say: to get the maximum value from the crossover event movies, you'll need to keep up with ALL of the tangential movies/shows. you can't JUST read X-Men and Spider-Man [which were 2-5x titles each] anymore, you need to pick up Thor and Iron Man, too. no wonder we're fatigued 😵💫
I'd say its the very essence of the superhero comics that's their fatal flaw - they don't sell stories, thery sell _characters._ You don't buy a superhero comic because you found the story to be intriguing, you bought it because it has your favorite character. So many characters trapped without a purpose, without a real story, forever forced to relive essentially the same story again and again and again, only with the chaning names of the villains and the guys that tag along on both sides... and the way the planet\universe\multiverse is threatened this time, of course. Even death is not an escape, because you ARE going to be brought back to sell more comics with your name on them - it's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of "when". Imagine if films were treated the same way? that we'd be going to cinemas not to watch an interesting movie with a fresh plot and free from any of the baggage and implications of being in a "multiverse", but instead watch Scarface team up with Walther White to oppose Robocop and John McClaine... OH, wait, that's what Disney is trying to do with the Star Wars right now. In short - interconnectivity needs to go die in a ditch. Leave crossovers and multiverses for the fanfic writers, and actually END your stories with a finale without "but THEN an even BIGGER thing happened!"
I disagree entirely. I think the argument is begging the question. It assumes people buy comic books based upon the character independent of the story. But assertion is based on the false premise that characters are totally divorced from their own internal stories and conceits. I am a Captain America reader , but I am a Captain America fan not because of the character in a vacuum, what he looks like or his power, but because the character’s story is compelling. It’s the classic rip van winkle, a man plucked out of time and has to deal with changes from his to today, including how today’s social mores and behaviors clash with his own internal moral compass. We see is very prevalent whenever Steve is forced to against his own government because the president being part of a Nazi secret society, or the government wants him to overthrow some tinpot dictator in South America out of some cynical ploy by the us government that believes it has a right to dictate to others how other nations ought to be governed. Furthermore, what is purpose? You asserted they are without person wothout defining what you mean purpose. Especially, the since purpose in the superhero genre is about, obstensibly, people using the gifts that God gave them in the service of others, fighting for the oppressed, etc, protecting others. yes the same stories are told only because there is nothing new under the sun with regard how evil interacts with good. The only thing about evil is that faces that evil wears changes.
@@justin_messer The problem is that characters are supposed to be designed for a specific plot, not the other way around. Their purpose is to serve the story, that's what makes the story good. In the comics its often the other way around. Especially when your character was invented like 50 years ago, and have already went through every plot permutation you can think of, sometimes even twice. And when comic publishers stumble on an interesting story premise, they start to think "hey, what existing characters we can shoehorn in it?" instead of thinking what new characters would serve this new story the best. All entirely because franchises sell better than one-offs.
@@DarthBiomech 1. And? I don’t the argument. Characters serve a story in all forms of media. Furthermore, what’s true for superhero stories is literally true for fiction as a whole. Plato literally complained about this when he said that every conceivable play in Athens had already been put on stage, lamenting there is nothing new under the sun. For superheroes, it’s fun seeing how people with different mores or approaches deal with the situation at hand and seeing how they deal with it. For example, Hickman’s avengers and new avengers run led to the arrogance of Tony stark and Reed Richards causes the multiverse to collapse completely. Had Tony and Reed worked with their friends, instead at odds, they may saved the multiverse. The whole thing becomes a harsh lesson in humility that Reed learned the hardway in secret wars.
@@DarthBiomech also “characters are supposed to be designed for a specific plot, not the other way around.” That begs the question that there is only one way to write plot or characters. This isn’t even true historically. For example, Greek heroic literature has stories written around a popular character that they can be put in. Consider, for example, all of the heroic stories that has Heracles do all sorts of wacky things from his labors to his time as an argonaut. Similarly, midieval literature has plots that are written for characters to do. E.g. the Arthurian cycles in France, Wales, and England. Just because thematic writing was popular for much of the twentieth century, does not make it the only form of “correct storytelling.”
This is why I love the latest One Piece Live Action. It's fresh and a new take on the "superhero" and finally nailing another type of "comic" (manga) adaptation is great for the industry.
I don’t think you’re holding the MCU accountable enough when it comes to the quality of the writing of late compared to the general exhaustion we’ve had of weaker material. The majority of what we’ve had isn’t just mediocre, it’s poor. We had a Thor film that made low brow humor surrounding a subplot about a cancer diagnosis. We’ve got a Hulk-related TV show where Bruce Banner’s trauma and experiences are belittled and/or dismissed in favor of Jennifer’s. Doctor Strange 2 features multiple scenes of characters ceasing any sense of urgency to facilitate the conflict to catch up to them or even just to set up a jump scare. Continuity gets harder to maintain as you progress but I believe the many continuity problems in the recent MCU are still outweighed by the generally sloppy writing decisions divorced from the overarching narrative that are becoming more and more common. Even with many of the continuity problems existing in phase IV, the MCU could still be at least somewhat strong but Disney’s reduced it to such a paint by numbers project with diminishing attention to detail to the point that far too many recent entries feel like projects made by first year film students with hefty trust funds than a multi-billion dollar IP made by seasoned filmmakers with vision.
Marvel man myself. The stories were drifting as of the late 90s with 2k and on being subpar at best. Got out when their desire to start a new series every week to get number one issues for collectors was interrupting good stories.
The thing that I think both the execs at Marvel & DC (comics arena included often too tbh) fail to internalize is that you can raise stakes at an emotional level rather than simply the physical & still pack a punch. It’s something that, funnily enough, GotG 3 just proved. The High Evolutionary wasn’t on some specific kick to destroy Earth but simply put was building his own personal ant farm & would need to rob the Guardians of a loved one to get what he wanted. It was still tragic, action-packed, powerful & exciting. Though I personally am not a huge GotG fan & am not as head over heels over 3 particularly as so many are, I recognize that it’s one of the best films in the MCU experiment & I understand why it’s beloved by fans simply because the creatives who made it knew that you can tie stakes to characters without having to include the fate of the universe only for the sake of one-upping what came before. There was quantitatively more at risk in GotG 1 than 3, but that didn’t make 3 a less entertaining film.
I think the MCU’s Secret Wars movie is going to act as it’s big company wide reboot. The event will be so cataclysmic that it’ll completely reset the MCU to day 1 and it will end with a new Marvel movie universe being born, one that’s much closer to the comics
There is an economic component you’ve overlooked: the largest market growth for films in the past decade has been in the non-English-speaking world, despite most major movies being produced in English. Superhero and action movies lose less revenue when dubbed or subbed because the dialog can largely be ignored - ‘splosions and outfits translate to all languages and literacy levels!
People exhaggerate the importance of seeing all the movies before the next big event. I watched Ragnarok with my buddy who dropped out of the Marvel movies after Avengers I (only picking up a few here and there, like Guardians) and then Infinity War to see what happened to Thor. Just one good movie can give enough incentive to check out the crossover, even if you don't follow the other threads. Iron Man was that movie for Avengers (who honestly gives a damn about Captain America, Thor 1 or Incredible Hulk, hands please?), Winter Soldier/Civil War for Age of Ultron, Ragnarok for Infinity War... But that's the problem: they haven't made a good movie in the latest phase that hooks into the main plot (Guardians 3 was great, but it was pretty self-contained).
I feel there's also the matter of people getting tired of the MCU. Not everyone can keep their interest after 25+ movies. For me Endgame was the moment I thought "That was so good! Now I don't need any more. Let's wrap it up. I'm done with this."
Great Video! I reccommend investing a bit more time into the thumbnail, not that I hate it but in my opinion it doesnt quite reflect the quality of the video! Great work!
I really love the comic book/graphic novel format. I also adore Batman and Superman. It takes a LOT of persuasion for me to experience superhero stories through comics for many of the reasons you state. Without a lifetime of prior access to Marvel or DC in book form, I am more satisfied following stand-alone stories, animation, and films; I just can't recall the last MCU or Snyder film I've cared enough about.
dc literally happens inside marvel universe because of crossovers and dc reboots but marvel never reboots and therefore reading anything marvel matters because all of it is cannon. reading dc is just waiting for another reboot, so just read only hyped arks or preffered series. in marvel reading everything incl mystery comics is viable and matters. even robot human torch
@@breakupgoogle As I recall, the current company was sold to some bigger company, and they put less focus on the actual comics and more on other media (I’m actually looking forward to the new Shadowman game) and have outsourced the comics to another, smaller indie company starting next year
This is why I just can't get into superhero comics, it's obvious the publishers don't respect their readers and they care more about making money. They overuse crossovers and what's supposed to be events that will forever re-shape the world of the comic in order to encourage fans to buy more issues. Only to find they've painted themselves into a corner, so they take the lazy way out and simply hit the undo button with a soft reboot. Making all the monetary and emotional investment by the fans a complete waste of time. Rinse and repeat. It's clear they don't give two shits about telling a complete story, it's all about keeping the story running as long as possible so that fans can buy more comics. I man, for fuck's sake, Superman has been running for damned near 100 years. Just how much story is there left to tell? Not that the current writers know, they didn't create the character, they have no idea what how the story was intended to play out.
My thought always was: You always loose readers after ~ 10 to 20 years max anyways. So instead of all those frustruating soft reboots that make things more complicated instead of simpler, just do a hard reboot every so often. 15 Years max. Give the current incarnation of heros a nice ending, then start from stretch. No time travel nonsense. Also, I'd split it into multiple the franchises. It feels wrong for me to have street-level heroes, aliens and magical beings in the same universe. For DC, have the Batman universe, the Superman universe, and the Wonder Woman universe. All other heros go in to one of them, depending on whether they are more neo-noir, sci-fi or fantasy. And no multiverse hopping between them, unless maybe as a finale of the entire saga. NO fakeout deaths. You die, you stay dead. And for the love of god allow the characters to get married and have kids. Those writers seem almost hostile towards the idea that a superhero isn't single.
Batman has a family, and Superman is married with Lois with a child called Jonathan for years, probably they'll never retired but in most cases they go on with their lives.
this is exactly my story with comic books but i started in 1993 when superman died i had to stop in 2008 when i was collecting every single book DC sold and was spending $200 per month
“online pessimism” is the reflection of not just how “fans” think, it’s simply also average movie goers’ objection to bad projects. Superhero fatigue is upon us and whether you admit it or not it’s extremely conspicuous.
I started reading comics in the mid 80s in late elementary school and from day 1 my favs were Superman and Spiderman. I never felt the need to choose DC or Marvel.
I hated how they turned Peter Parker to a venture capitalist. Of course Doc Ock took over to do it but the storyline remained that a humble newspaper employee can’t be a hero in this neoliberal toxic world. 😢
I think that the superhero genre expresses how we want to be lost in a world that we want to feel well-versed in, but we also want it to not be our own world. I think that's going to result in media becoming increasingly interactieve to the point that role-play will see a revival. Could be biased though.
The issue is when we say that we never thought would "achieve this"... We should not want this. Movie as a medium is incredibly ill suited to serialization, for obvious reasons. The fact that Marvel succeeded to do it is a marvel (pun intended) of commercialism, but it change the gravity field of the movie making industry in a way it may never ever recover from. The expectation for stake holders is now money making juggernauts, movies after movies after movies of roughly the same think, as long as the money comes in...
I dunno though dude, all the comic book nerds I know buy both and other publishers as well like me. Reading both Marvel and DC doesn't seem unusual at all.
Time constraints. Even with a good team it takes time to make a good movie. But if the studio wants it done in a few months corners will be cut. This is one issue out of many.
I think the big problem with these films and why the new ones are failing is that you need to be really big fan to actually watch them. You had to start when they started and was watching them all the time. For anyone who was not fan at that time, there is absolutly 0 reason to start now. They make new films only for people who watched the films before, but some of these people will eventualy fall off. Yes, there will always be new people that watch the new film even when they did not seen any of the older films before, but there will also be much more of those, who was watching the older films and then stoped (for any reason, lack of time, lack of interest, new stuff coming in, RL things...). Im one of those people that never started caring enough to actually watch these film. Yes, I did see some of the first ones, but then there was more and more and more... and I was always like "yea, i will watch that later", but they kept coming and now there is just way too many of them. Its fine to go and watch series of 3-4 films... but like 20 with shows and other stuff around? No frcking way.
The most exciting thing Marvel did was Netflix Daredevil. That stoy was small, on a human scale and the small cross over features were a... well, feature. No need to bring in a bunch of other hero's all the time. I tapped out on that one as soon as it became clear I had to watch all of Iron Fist to keep understanding the entire story. But season 1 of Daredevil and season 1 of Luke Cage and Jessica Jones were good small stories.
The big high stakes stories tend to come at the end of a writer's run and the soft reboot as another writer takes over and reboots things to serve the types of stories that writer wants to tell; I'm not so sure it's diminishing returns so much as tying up loose ends, proving you could write a global or cosmic stakes Avengers or JLA story to get in the running for writing those books, and providing a respite after the storm atmosphere for the next writer to ease into their run on the book. Also going out with a bang and consequently higher sales certainly obviates any criticism that you left the book because of poor sales.
Great point. The writer's voice and their intentions for a character are usually clearer at the start/midpoint of their run before the high stakes crossover stuff happens. Big climactic storylines are usually more formulaic, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, as they give us a break before the next batch of more personal day-in-the-life chapters.
Honestly marvel could easily restart from zero after the introduction of multiverse, they could make standalone movies of each characters from different universe and see the difference. Since comics has so many storylines, they can bring back down the stakes again and make great movies again
The second they got the rights to Fantastic Four and X-Men, they should have put EVERYTHING into making them happen as soon as fucking possible. Now the road to the two single most anticipated characters they've yet to adapt will be paved with mediocre, bad, and horrible films and tv shows, many of which nobody asked for.
The biggest problem with raising the stakes is that often... you really aren't. We don't really care about the abstract notion of billions of unnamed fictional people. So threatening more of them does nothing. No stakes are raised by going to trillions more people we aren't invested in being at risk. Once you've gone big you raise the stakes by going snall again, personal. You hit the character in their home life, you hit characters the audiences care for, and in a way that isn't just exactly like every other problem they face. And the personal stories are the ones folks talk about 20 years later. Going between those is the real secret sauce for the genre. Batman saves the world, sure, but he also buys harley a dress or sits with ace. Spidey smacks around some alien invaders, but then aunt may marries doc oc. (Of course, being lazy and stupid about personal stakes results in fridging, so YMMV)
I learned of the term 'planned obsolescence' recently, an economic phenomena, a natural byproduct of monopoly whereby the lifecycle of consumer products is reduced in order to increase profits, seems like the same kind of thing is happening in cinema, predictable plots without substance, bland characters, everything is watered down in order to appeal to an international market. Consumers could theoretically choose something better but that is unlikely to happen because we are creatures of habit.
i got into comics in a big way about the same time as you, the early 2000s. i had dipped my toes in a bit before hand here and there, and was turned off by the very issues you cite here, the cost (of money and brainspace) in following multiple different titles to "get the whole story." but in the early 2000s i decided just grab a book that looked interesting to me and read it. if i liked it, i'd get the next issue. if i liked the characters i'd try other books with them, but not sweat it with other books with other characters i didn't like. i found i was able to follow the story just fine, and i got the full experience on the stories and characters i cared about, and if i didn't get everything for "knife-fist guy" then i was okay with it. also i find the assertion that most people are dedicated to either DC or Marvel...not my experience. people who only watch the movies, maybe (and that's fine, i don't want to gatekeep), but i've found any geek who is a comic book reader, while she or he will have a preference, still knows a good deal about both of the Big Two.
I realised this when people were confused about Scarlet Witch in Dr Strange 2. Only then I realised that so much work has to be done before watching that movie ie follow Wandavision.
No story can go on forever without a nosedive in quality, hence the constant reboots, because you can't kill the golden goose forever either in this age of brand recognition
Their fall from grace started with the shift to quantity over quality. Mainly the TV shows. There are way too many. Which not only is too time-consuming (and kinda required), but also it hinders quality control. You get a a few great shows like Loki and Wandavision, but also a barrage of lackluster ones. (It's happening with Star Wars too, so this is more of an overarching Disney problem). Then it started happening to the movies. The quality dropped as well as they keep pumping them out aimlessly. This resulted in the inevitable fatigue. Audiences are tired of getting disappointed by most entries. They really need to slow down and focus on fewer movies (they should halt the shows for a while). Take their time to polish the scripts and hire more talented directors. They've been struggling without the Russo Brothers and James Gunn.
I was saying this to my friends a couple weeks ago. I had just watched Ant Man Quanumania and Secret Invasion and thought, yeah, this continuity is getting to be absolutely fuckered. With the Infinity Saga they managed to do the thing that comic books have been trying to do for decades, make a sensible and well-told crossover event, but capitalism never sleeps and so the show must go on and now it's so fucking convoluted that nothing can tie it all together again in a sensible way. The need for every superhero to fight world-ending stakes means that Earth is threatened on like fifty different fronts and none of them make sense relative to one another and it's just exhausting.
Wait...wait...It's 'not that common' for comic readers to read both Marvel and DC comics? I have been an avid reader of superhero comics for over three decades now, and I have found this to be patently untrue.
"Never force people to watch something that's bad in order to understand an upcoming project". Yes Boba Fett/Mando we are looking at you. I'm never gonna watch the next Mando saison because of their shit.
I keep to indies comics 90% of the time due to the over-saturation in marvel and Dc-with exceptions for known classics and older works (because they just hit different). You pretty much expressed why, but I know in my heart of hearts I am just a hipster both before and after it was cool
I think superhero movies peaked with the Thanos story. I really enjoyed the X-Men reboot until the Apocalypse story. I thought the first two with Fassbender and McAvoy were quite good and good for repeated viewings. I’m officially burnt out on the genre though and it’ll take something really great for me to pay attention again. Maybe Secret Wars, but I’m skeptical. Another great, thought provoking piece from Evan.
Im not anti superhero movie, but I am definitely anti superhero movies at the expense of everything else. It sounds like Marvel is planning to seriously scale back their content output which is welcome. And I think the success of Barbenheimer shows that audiences are (finally) looking for more variety in the films they see. Hopefully studios pay attention.
I've been telling people this for awhile. That a multiversal crossover event that leads to a reboot is inevitable with Marvel. It's the life cycle of comics so there's no reason not to assume it would end up the same way with films. I don't know that it will ever be as big as it was with The Infinity Saga, but by the time the MCU reboots, there will be a whole new younger generation waiting to consume whatever content they produce, so we'll see how it goes.
The best thing Marvel and DC gave was introducing me to a series of top notch creators whom I’ve followed into the indie scene. There’s still good superhero stuff but I avoid almost all of that stable outside of a few specific standalone tales
The thing is; Villians do NOT have to become bigger and bigger, that is simply the easy solution to progression (and the one requiring the least amont of creativity)
Super heroes will go the way of the western, yea they are still around but will come at a frequency of any other genre. It will never reach the same amount of saturation ever again.
I grew up near a used book store that sold overstocked comics for 10 cents an issue, so I have a lot of Dark Horse, Image, and Vertigo. With so much random stuff, I still don't really understand why people would limit themselves to just one publisher. I'm happy with Lobo, Deadpool, the Mask, and the Maxx. Teams are dumb. Enjoy what you want.
Why is this cycle specific to the superhero genre rather than scifi or fantasy more generally? The less romantic answer might be the MCU's path has been dictated by commerece more than a specific storytelling culture
Feige understands this, but Chapek took the bat out of his hands and treated MCU writers like they were assembling cars on an assembly line. This was an unforced error that could have been avoided if not for the corporate obsession with feeding the streaming monster. Fingers crossed that Marvel regroups soon
They screwed with shows, it is easier to watch mediocre movies but watching mediocre shows is too time consuming.
Yep. I usually don't watch series. It only takes the ending to ruin a whole show.
I would feel sorry for those one piece fan if they're ending turn out bad. 20 year down the drain
@@Watch-0w1I think its impossible to give shows like One Piece a good ending that isnt predictable. Naruto had a good ending after 720 Episodes and 11 movies bit it was also what everyone thought would happen. If you step out line of fan expectations after decades you're bound to crash and burn
@@StrafprozessordnungNaruto had a standard ending with a lot of poorly tied up loose ends. Orochimaru changing his mind for no reason, all the underdeveloped romances tied up at the same time, the fabrication of a legendary big baddie that was never even hinted... It wasn't bad, but it was definitely not a good ending.
@@rodrigovda not interested in a big argument about it (sry) but I have seen the show twice (+ every filler and movie) and I think Narutos ending is one of the best shōnen endings in the scene. I have been in the situation of having to write an ending to something that an entire team of people worked for an extended amount of time. You will never catch all the details and tie up every lose end (sometimes you even deliberately drop one thing to make another work). While yes, theres always room for improvement I think the Naruto ending is well done and I have rarely ever heard anyone complain about it except for die hard fans of side characters
@@Strafprozessordnung
unpredictability is overrated anyways. But i guess most people see it different in our "spoiler" culture. I do see value in the unkown and in the "first impression" of something, but i don't need that for the stories i listen to. At least not for those big commertialized stories.
Honestly, I don't think Marvel will ever be that big again. We've watched superheroic stories so many times, we're perpetually bored of it. Two good superhero films a year is a limit for most adults right now (like No Way Home, Guardians 3). Hollywood will have to figure out a new blockbuster format, like it did many times before 2008.
The blockbuster format is dead unfortunately. You arent going to achieve the big box office hits anymore when you have streaming. Its why the cinema is dying. No one is going to go and spend $20 plus concession stand and fuel to see the movie on the big screen, when you can watch it in the comfort of your home for half that cost.
@@Ryanthusarthat never stop Netflix from making movies
@@Ryanthusarwell you bet your ass I'd really want to see Oppenheimer on the cinema though... and some other flicks potentially
@@Ryanthusar Nah. People have been saying that since forever and yet new films keep breaking records at the box office. The big screen, the audio and the whole experience simply remains unmatched by a TV.
Also $20 seems like a lot. Don't think I've ever paid that much for a movie ticket (and fuel is not an issue if you live in a city).
I still fork out for the cinema for any film I actually care about (often ~8 a year). The cinema is way better than streaming and until I can afford a home theatre I will continue to go. Not to mention the experience of IMax. I have only ever seen one home setup that was even close and it cost thousands to set up. Most streaming sites don't even support that standard anyway, even if you had the setup, so the $20 even 10 times a year, is far cheaper than what you would have to pay in order to fully replicate it. People who don't care about the extra quality are also not really the kind of people who would keep the movies alive as many of them would have waited for home video in the past as well@@Ryanthusar
My problem isn’t the inter-connectivity per se. It is the entire multiverse concept and how it actually cheapens the stakes. I think it’s worth saying that the traditional idea of “raising the stakes” has an unintended side effect after a while. When you continue to increase the stakes from neighborhood to city, city to country, country to world, world to galaxy, etc, I think the audience gradually stops noticing; that is to say, stakes are not what connect a story to the audience. Characters are the what (or rather, the whom) to which the audience latches. We did not care about the universe-altering stakes of Thanos’s conquest for the stakes themselves. We cared because all of the characters we came to know over the twenty-something movies leading up to Infinity War were threatened by Thanos, and for us, these superheroes are the physical and emotional proxy for the vast peoples of the universe from Earth to Knowhere-the peoples that wanted to fight Thanos and simply were not strong enough to do so. We care about those characters because they were written and developed well enough for the audience to relate or connect with them in some way. The stakes just contextualize the danger the heroes are in and help add tension.
The multiverse says, “Hey, remember that superhero you cared so much about? Well, there’s like, an _infinite_ number of them, including a smaller-but still infinite-subset that are _just like the character you know.”_ I still end up really, really sad over the one I know that died, but when a new one enters scene, I still need to be endeared to them. No Way Home had a shortcut for this: It gave us three different versions of Spider-Man that we were _already invested in,_ and it spent time letting us know where each of them were as well as developing them even a bit further. These stories still have to do the leg work, and most of them do not do that. In Guardians 3, an entire subplot is dedicated to how Gamora 2 feels *nothing* for Peter. She does not share the same bonding experience with the Guardians or Peter that the first Gamora had. She is a different person, and Gunn does a great job walking the audience through the same stages of grief that Peter experiences, and even getting us to appreciate her in the way she learns to at least appreciate him.
At the end of the day, the hardest thing for the multiverse saga to do is _make me care._ If they can make me care again, I’ll play catch up, but so far-with a few exceptions that thankfully do not really tie into the larger story-they have not.
And for that reason, I’m out.
I'm looking forward to the trend dying off...but not before the Elric of Melnibone series gets the acclaim it deserves.
Really well said.
👏🏼
Beautifully put. I feel like the studio has forgotten what it seemed to originally understand, that there is only one kind of stakes in any story, personal stakes. If it's not personal, the audience doesn't invest. This cycle of stakes inflation that Evan explained so well is like the inflation of ego, the larger it gets, the less substantial it becomes, until all of reality is at stake, and no one in the story actually matters. The MCU has made itself the infamous "bagel with everything," a vast circling continuum of everything that ever will, or even could exist in its multiverse... and in the middle is an empty hole where we should care, but we don't.
Because there's no personal connection to the MCU anymore. There's no Tony or Steve in the center of the film universe, carrying the stories. And the remaining characters are pale imitations. Once, the MCU built on its successes. Now it's trying to anticipate its successes, and build on that. But Doctor Strange never came together as a lead character, let alone the foundation of a franchise. Captain Marvel has potential, but she's still too undercooked. Tom Holland's "Friendly Neighborhood" Spider-Man isn't built to carry the MCU, unless it all comes to Queens. Nick Fury was only ever meant to be a mentor of heroes, not a protagonist himself. Sam and Bucky fumbled their initial chance to be lead characters, and the studio seems to have already given up on them. Hawkeye is retired, his story is kinda done. Meanwhile, Wanda and Vision was set to take over as the center of the MCU, until they used up Wanda as a throw-away villain for a hero that never worked. And Ant Man is far, far too lightweight, and always will be.
I mean, maybe if someone put some or all those characters together in a new Avengers film that really solidifies each character the way the original Avengers did, they could pull the MCU out of the death spiral it's in. But that doesn't seem to be on the menu. Even if they attempted something of the kind, they've lost their spark of inspiration. Everything has been attempts to remind us of their past glories, or recreating the lightning in a bottle they once caught, as though it's just a formula they can repeat. The DCEU failed because it was trying to recreate the Marvel formula. But now, Marvel is trying to do the same thing, and failing in the same way.
What neither seems to understand is that Marvel initially succeeded by trying new things. They don't seem to do that anymore, at least, not with conviction. I don't see them coming up with anything as daring and audacious as GotG, or as authentically emotional as Winter Soldier, or as earnest as Avengers. They're too busy trying to be those old movies. And what made those movies great was a combination of originality and conviction. But even when they're truly original, they don't seem confident. What they invest in is the formulas that have been squeezed for all their impact long ago.
I largely agree. I think there’s only so much we can expect in terms of originality, but Marvel has so many characters to choose from that they have no excuse for not doing something relatively new and interesting for the MCU.
Even though it wasn't the greatest film, I think the third guardians did a really good job of pulling things back. It focused on character building with stakes that, while "big" for the heroes, were ultimately small potatoes compared to what came before. It paid off the development of basically all the guardians very nicely.
I remember I used to read my mate's Marvel comics and you're right. Even with money completely removed as a factor, the mental and time investment costs are astronomical.
Sorry, did you actually change the thumbnail, or do you have the greatest foreshadowing of all time?
Yeah that got me too lol, he’s definitely changed the thumbnail. That image of RDJ didn’t exist when this video was uploaded.
i already saw this video 1 year ago and i still fell for it and clicked just to be sure xD
I watched nearly all the MCU movies in the lead up to End Game, not always in the theater but mostly on Netflix and redbox. I remember finally sitting down at home to watch End Game and then when I learned that there was going to be more stuff after that, I checked out.
Like, I used up all my emotional investment to get through the last two movies, anything after that would be like that scene in Matilda where that kid has to eat an entire chocolate cake. No thanks, Marvel, I'm full lol
Absolutely, for most people who are not deeply embedded into comic book culture, there is only so much of this you can take. Story, concept and character driven movies for adults are making a comeback.
I am not an MCU superfan but I will absolutely still watch movies/shows if they are good and not really tied in to everything else. Guardians 3 was great for example, I didn't have to have watched all the shows leading up to it. I didn't even really need to remember Guardians 2. It was just a good movie without all the bullshit.
@@souradeepsengupta95 I think comic book people would be the ones to get the most tired of it actually. Because they keep introducing characters and the comic guys would look up all about these characters so they check out even more actually
Same. Endgame was endgame for me.
Great video. I think it's fair to say that the issue with the MCU post-Endgame is an oversaturation with a lack of focus. I'd argue that general fans have a fairly decent tolerance for mediocre superhero films that work in service to the crossover event. What they have almost no tolerance for are mediocre superhero films that don't seem to matter in the long run. This, I believe, is the biggest contributor to audiences' current frustration as the MCU has been fairly aimless (not to mention DC is about to reboot hence a lack of interest in DCEU leftovers) and most content seems to have mainly been to fill up the Disney+ library. However, Bob Iger's recent comments on prioritising quality over quantity does inspire confidence that they will at least work on shifting things to gear like they did on the tail end of Phase 2 and James Gunn has been saying all the right things in regard to rebooting DC so I'm still optimistic.
The real issue is that the films aren't mediocre, they're horrifically bad (excepting No Way Home which is still seriously flawed and Hawkeye, I haven't seen GotG3).
@@ludwigamadeushaydn706 Guardians 3 did the right thing in my mind. Gunn focused on resolving all of the characters rather than waste script lines playing into the current multiverse storyline. If you like Guardians, it’s a great closing chapter to their story.
"most content seems to have mainly been to fill up the Disney+ library."
That's what "content" does, after all: fill a container. It's no accident that streaming platforms have switched their vocabulary to talk about "content", rather than films and shows. We'll see how much this promise of focusing on quality is fulfilled, because the last few years have definitely felt more like padding than art.
Naive thing you
Don't trust what Bob Iger says after his comment on the ongoing strike.
I also went DC, I got hit hard by the cartoons, Batman TAS, Superman TAS, Justice League, Teen Titans, Static Shock, Batman Beyond. I even liked Green Lantern (the cartoon).
The best marvel property right now is Spiderverse. Unencumbered by shared continuity, the reset feels fresh
Yeah, I kinda had a similar introduction into comics like you. Smallville was sorta my cornerstone, but i really took off when I got this huge book called The DC Encyclopedia.
However, I never wasted my money with the single issues, I'd save my money up and once a month splurge on two or three graphic novels or trade paperbacks, whichever you wanna call them.
The same company that put out the DC Encyclopedia eventually put out a Marvel Encyclopedia, but instead of getting into the main universe, I was more invested in the Ultimates line.
My interest in Marvel comics waned when Ultimatum happened, and by then I had friends providing me digital scans. The death knell for me and DC came when they had that era where they refused to let Batwoman get married and they had an art contest where they wanted you to draw Harley Quinn about to unalive herself in the bath tub.
Luckily, by then, The MCU was in its golden age, and I had that to keep my interests. The CW shows were... There too, but in the last 3 years, I've noticed I've given up entirely. Marvel is too bloated, and DC just isn't winning me over with the promise of a reboot.
SuSuperhero movies are the fast food of movie industry
I agree.
Really good video. I was wondering why the quality of the video was so much better than I was expecting. Then I realised it wasn't that copycat channel Nerdstalgic.
I've always been Marvel for Movies and DC for shows and animated content.
You're completely right about the batting average. The only great movies in Phase 4 were Shang Chi and Spider-Man. I'm still all in for Superheo content, but I think we've past the Golden Age of MCU films.
I really disagree with your premise. I think that the comic books that paved the way used the solutions for generating interest that they had at the time - which was stake-raising. But having tested that for several decades with Superheroes, Cowboys, Animes and Shark Jumps, I think that we've evolved as writers and audiences to realize that not every story needs to be bigger than the last thing in order for us to write/watch it. As an audience, sometimes watching someone save their son or help their friend or fight corruption, or cope with their mental health can still seem important even if we acknowledge that these same people just jaw-punched a literal god to save the universe 2 years ago. And to top it off, a lot of these stories are actually more powerful as a result of their smaller, but more personal stakes.
I remember reading online a condensed summary years ago,
of a comic book character's (very long) arc one time,
and it just dawned on me at that moment how ridiculous it was.
It was like, and I'm just loosely paraphrasing from memory here,
*_“But then he had a son with that woman, but she didn't know he was a clone of his son, then the mother of his other secret son, from a parallel dimension, broke the space time continuum, and sent that son back with the robot father from the fake one, back to before he knew he'd seen him the first time, so then he had a baby with her, but it was a girl because her mother had made a deal with the devil to wipe his memory in exchange for the son, who was actually his father, which is why he disappeared when the other-dimension him met him after the clone had started making robots... etc. etc.”_*
And it was at that moment I totally stopped caring about comic book superheroes.
The lack of boundaries is the death of art.
I think this is an overarching problem that the MCU is going to have to grapple with. When they started out, they were able to just take entire decades of character events and throw them in a blender, distilling some of the consequential stories from their entire runs into discrete films that had crumbs to tie into the overarching arc. As someone who had lapsed out of reading comics, it was a breath of fresh air. But now after 15 years and however many hours of content, the cinematic universes are becoming as labyrinthine and hard to follow as the comics they were spawned from. The more runtime that's consumed with setting up other events or referring to other stuff people feel like they need to know going in, the less breathing room there is for good stories. (And ultimately whatever soap opera stuff is happening in a comic book, I think people are willing to forgive it if they like the actual story.)
😂hahah I totally get that , I've been there. But you got to remember that characters bio is a 60 yr story arc, with hundreds of issues and dozens of writers, with more than a few retcons and reboots.
Personally I think it's best to only learn a characters general power set and alignment. Then keep your own continuity for them
@naryanr
Nope. The lack of boundaries is the beginning of art.
@@IkeOkerekeNews Well there has never been a complete lack of boundaries.
So I guess you think art hasn't happened yet.
@@naryanr
What you mean by this?
Ironically, Phase 4 reminds me MORE of classic comic storytelling than Phases 1-3. It’s just heroes doing their own thing in different corners of the world. Sometimes there’s an occasional crossover but mostly you’re limited to their POV and that’s ok. Say what you want about the good-to-disappointing ratio, but at least Marvel’s willing to experiment with their genre variety.
with what happened to multiverse of madness I wouldn't say Marvel is willing to experiment with genre variety.
@@DANiel25178 It went full PG-13-bordering-on-R horror movie. Which is what one might expect from hiring Sam Raimi to direct.
Great video and even more relevant with certain comic crossover events nowadays. There’s huge universe spanning ones still happening and then mini ones that only happens on a small scale.
It’s simultaneously great and such a drag to keep up. Think that’s why I just stick with certain characters/teams but even then someone like miles is getting dragged into another event.
I remember in college thinking "I'll just keep up with the Batman comics" and then realized it would be like 8 comics per month and I didn't want to dedicate the energy to it. I'll just pirate the comics.
Honestly the reason I loved Hawkeye, Ms Marvel, and She-Hulk is because they took a step back from the MASSIVE and focused down on smaller problems. But I also think all the Marvel properties should be touching each other just a little more. Like why wasn't there a teaser for the Marvels at the back of GotG3 (or something like that)? I'm interested to see how Marvel handles this period in the next few movies/shows. DC actually has a huge advantage right now with new management and a hard reboot. Interesting time for these movies for sure.
My informal rule: Once your franchise requires me to switch to a different form of media (movies to TV; TV to video games, etc., movies to comics, etc.) just to be able to maintain understanding of your narrative, I'm out.
The only way to tie it all together in the end of the Kang arc is for the Kang in Loki to win his gambit.
Turn the multiversal war into a closed time loop that leads to the formation of a new Sacred Timeline with one Kang victorious up until the point he is deposed and a new multiversal war begins.
This really outlines my reaction to marvel nowadays. It seems like for the past few years they've been in a soft reboot but won't fully commit to the next thing. The TV shows have actually hampered their progress imo, since the events of the shows aren't having REAL implications in the movies, and even some movies (ETERNALS) have had no effect on the larger story. Mix that with just how meh the stories of these movies have been, and I think we're going to start seeing some hard bombs in the next few years.
Disney wont fully commit due to the cost. Plus the current strike action is going to delay more, and the strike action will stop even more. It doesnt help when you have Iger also cutting back on a lot of Marvel and SW stuff. WB are having the same issues.
I mean they're obviously waiting until they can use the X-Men characters and for the secret wars events so that they can do an actual reset.
I don't know why anyone is expecting decent quality from them until then.
@@calcutlass What are the "secret wars"?
You are right about scope creep. If the Avengers were not saving the galaxy every issue it started to feel off so I switched to West Coast Avengers with a smaller scale and stakes but good stories at their foundation.
As a kid in the late '60s and early '70s, I loved the Bizarro Superman universe. As I recall, it was first introduced in the margins or back pages of regular comics, next a "flipped" dual issue, then gradually became its own single-subject comic. To me, a Mad magazine fan, it was literally the comic writers "taking the mickey" out of themselves, poking their own finger into their own eye.
Saturated by this clapped genre
as a long-standing DC fanboy, i felt this video in my bones.. and it's as you say: to get the maximum value from the crossover event movies, you'll need to keep up with ALL of the tangential movies/shows. you can't JUST read X-Men and Spider-Man [which were 2-5x titles each] anymore, you need to pick up Thor and Iron Man, too. no wonder we're fatigued 😵💫
I'd say its the very essence of the superhero comics that's their fatal flaw - they don't sell stories, thery sell _characters._
You don't buy a superhero comic because you found the story to be intriguing, you bought it because it has your favorite character. So many characters trapped without a purpose, without a real story, forever forced to relive essentially the same story again and again and again, only with the chaning names of the villains and the guys that tag along on both sides... and the way the planet\universe\multiverse is threatened this time, of course. Even death is not an escape, because you ARE going to be brought back to sell more comics with your name on them - it's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of "when".
Imagine if films were treated the same way? that we'd be going to cinemas not to watch an interesting movie with a fresh plot and free from any of the baggage and implications of being in a "multiverse", but instead watch Scarface team up with Walther White to oppose Robocop and John McClaine... OH, wait, that's what Disney is trying to do with the Star Wars right now.
In short - interconnectivity needs to go die in a ditch. Leave crossovers and multiverses for the fanfic writers, and actually END your stories with a finale without "but THEN an even BIGGER thing happened!"
I disagree entirely. I think the argument is begging the question. It assumes people buy comic books based upon the character independent of the story. But assertion is based on the false premise that characters are totally divorced from their own internal stories and conceits.
I am a Captain America reader , but I am a Captain America fan not because of the character in a vacuum, what he looks like or his power, but because the character’s story is compelling. It’s the classic rip van winkle, a man plucked out of time and has to deal with changes from his to today, including how today’s social mores and behaviors clash with his own internal moral compass. We see is very prevalent whenever Steve is forced to against his own government because the president being part of a Nazi secret society, or the government wants him to overthrow some tinpot dictator in South America out of some cynical ploy by the us government that believes it has a right to dictate to others how other nations ought to be governed.
Furthermore, what is purpose? You asserted they are without person wothout defining what you mean purpose. Especially, the since purpose in the superhero genre is about, obstensibly, people using the gifts that God gave them in the service of others, fighting for the oppressed, etc, protecting others. yes the same stories are told only because there is nothing new under the sun with regard how evil interacts with good. The only thing about evil is that faces that evil wears changes.
@@justin_messer The problem is that characters are supposed to be designed for a specific plot, not the other way around. Their purpose is to serve the story, that's what makes the story good. In the comics its often the other way around. Especially when your character was invented like 50 years ago, and have already went through every plot permutation you can think of, sometimes even twice. And when comic publishers stumble on an interesting story premise, they start to think "hey, what existing characters we can shoehorn in it?" instead of thinking what new characters would serve this new story the best.
All entirely because franchises sell better than one-offs.
@@DarthBiomech
1. And? I don’t the argument. Characters serve a story in all forms of media. Furthermore, what’s true for superhero stories is literally true for fiction as a whole. Plato literally complained about this when he said that every conceivable play in Athens had already been put on stage, lamenting there is nothing new under the sun.
For superheroes, it’s fun seeing how people with different mores or approaches deal with the situation at hand and seeing how they deal with it. For example, Hickman’s avengers and new avengers run led to the arrogance of Tony stark and Reed Richards causes the multiverse to collapse completely. Had Tony and Reed worked with their friends, instead at odds, they may saved the multiverse. The whole thing becomes a harsh lesson in humility that Reed learned the hardway in secret wars.
@@DarthBiomech also “characters are supposed to be designed for a specific plot, not the other way around.”
That begs the question that there is only one way to write plot or characters.
This isn’t even true historically. For example, Greek heroic literature has stories written around a popular character that they can be put in. Consider, for example, all of the heroic stories that has Heracles do all sorts of wacky things from his labors to his time as an argonaut. Similarly, midieval literature has plots that are written for characters to do. E.g. the Arthurian cycles in France, Wales, and England.
Just because thematic writing was popular for much of the twentieth century, does not make it the only form of “correct storytelling.”
I’m so glad you’re still making videos
This is why I love the latest One Piece Live Action. It's fresh and a new take on the "superhero" and finally nailing another type of "comic" (manga) adaptation is great for the industry.
"I don't particularly like winning"
- Brennan "IT'LL BE A COLD DAY IN HELL BEFORE I GO OUT LIKE A FUCKIN CHUMP" Lee Mulligan
I don’t think you’re holding the MCU accountable enough when it comes to the quality of the writing of late compared to the general exhaustion we’ve had of weaker material.
The majority of what we’ve had isn’t just mediocre, it’s poor. We had a Thor film that made low brow humor surrounding a subplot about a cancer diagnosis. We’ve got a Hulk-related TV show where Bruce Banner’s trauma and experiences are belittled and/or dismissed in favor of Jennifer’s. Doctor Strange 2 features multiple scenes of characters ceasing any sense of urgency to facilitate the conflict to catch up to them or even just to set up a jump scare.
Continuity gets harder to maintain as you progress but I believe the many continuity problems in the recent MCU are still outweighed by the generally sloppy writing decisions divorced from the overarching narrative that are becoming more and more common. Even with many of the continuity problems existing in phase IV, the MCU could still be at least somewhat strong but Disney’s reduced it to such a paint by numbers project with diminishing attention to detail to the point that far too many recent entries feel like projects made by first year film students with hefty trust funds than a multi-billion dollar IP made by seasoned filmmakers with vision.
Marvel man myself. The stories were drifting as of the late 90s with 2k and on being subpar at best. Got out when their desire to start a new series every week to get number one issues for collectors was interrupting good stories.
This really adds some nice context for somebody like me who only watched the movies and doesn't read comics.
The thing that I think both the execs at Marvel & DC (comics arena included often too tbh) fail to internalize is that you can raise stakes at an emotional level rather than simply the physical & still pack a punch. It’s something that, funnily enough, GotG 3 just proved. The High Evolutionary wasn’t on some specific kick to destroy Earth but simply put was building his own personal ant farm & would need to rob the Guardians of a loved one to get what he wanted. It was still tragic, action-packed, powerful & exciting. Though I personally am not a huge GotG fan & am not as head over heels over 3 particularly as so many are, I recognize that it’s one of the best films in the MCU experiment & I understand why it’s beloved by fans simply because the creatives who made it knew that you can tie stakes to characters without having to include the fate of the universe only for the sake of one-upping what came before. There was quantitatively more at risk in GotG 1 than 3, but that didn’t make 3 a less entertaining film.
I think the MCU’s Secret Wars movie is going to act as it’s big company wide reboot. The event will be so cataclysmic that it’ll completely reset the MCU to day 1 and it will end with a new Marvel movie universe being born, one that’s much closer to the comics
5:40 this would have been the perfect “I am inevitable” quote moment
There is an economic component you’ve overlooked: the largest market growth for films in the past decade has been in the non-English-speaking world, despite most major movies being produced in English. Superhero and action movies lose less revenue when dubbed or subbed because the dialog can largely be ignored - ‘splosions and outfits translate to all languages and literacy levels!
People exhaggerate the importance of seeing all the movies before the next big event. I watched Ragnarok with my buddy who dropped out of the Marvel movies after Avengers I (only picking up a few here and there, like Guardians) and then Infinity War to see what happened to Thor. Just one good movie can give enough incentive to check out the crossover, even if you don't follow the other threads. Iron Man was that movie for Avengers (who honestly gives a damn about Captain America, Thor 1 or Incredible Hulk, hands please?), Winter Soldier/Civil War for Age of Ultron, Ragnarok for Infinity War...
But that's the problem: they haven't made a good movie in the latest phase that hooks into the main plot (Guardians 3 was great, but it was pretty self-contained).
Endgame should've been the end. But y'know how it is with corporations and money
Stan Lee’s concept of “The Illusion of Change” has simultaneously saved and ruined comics.
I feel there's also the matter of people getting tired of the MCU. Not everyone can keep their interest after 25+ movies.
For me Endgame was the moment I thought "That was so good! Now I don't need any more. Let's wrap it up. I'm done with this."
Great Video! I reccommend investing a bit more time into the thumbnail, not that I hate it but in my opinion it doesnt quite reflect the quality of the video! Great work!
I really love the comic book/graphic novel format. I also adore Batman and Superman. It takes a LOT of persuasion for me to experience superhero stories through comics for many of the reasons you state. Without a lifetime of prior access to Marvel or DC in book form, I am more satisfied following stand-alone stories, animation, and films; I just can't recall the last MCU or Snyder film I've cared enough about.
3:24 great explanation of the effort to maintain attention. It’s not easy.
It started off bad then got worse
dc literally happens inside marvel universe because of crossovers and dc reboots but marvel never reboots and therefore
reading anything marvel matters because all of it is cannon. reading dc is just waiting for another reboot, so just read only hyped arks or preffered series. in marvel reading everything incl mystery comics is viable and matters. even robot human torch
0:22 Thanks for mentioning Valiant; the company is a bit of a mess now, but their comics are really worth reading
They had such potential
@@breakupgoogle As I recall, the current company was sold to some bigger company, and they put less focus on the actual comics and more on other media (I’m actually looking forward to the new Shadowman game) and have outsourced the comics to another, smaller indie company starting next year
Cant wait to see you Write 1 Nerd, Mr Nerdwriter1
This is why I just can't get into superhero comics, it's obvious the publishers don't respect their readers and they care more about making money. They overuse crossovers and what's supposed to be events that will forever re-shape the world of the comic in order to encourage fans to buy more issues. Only to find they've painted themselves into a corner, so they take the lazy way out and simply hit the undo button with a soft reboot. Making all the monetary and emotional investment by the fans a complete waste of time. Rinse and repeat.
It's clear they don't give two shits about telling a complete story, it's all about keeping the story running as long as possible so that fans can buy more comics. I man, for fuck's sake, Superman has been running for damned near 100 years. Just how much story is there left to tell? Not that the current writers know, they didn't create the character, they have no idea what how the story was intended to play out.
My thought always was: You always loose readers after ~ 10 to 20 years max anyways. So instead of all those frustruating soft reboots that make things more complicated instead of simpler, just do a hard reboot every so often. 15 Years max. Give the current incarnation of heros a nice ending, then start from stretch. No time travel nonsense.
Also, I'd split it into multiple the franchises. It feels wrong for me to have street-level heroes, aliens and magical beings in the same universe. For DC, have the Batman universe, the Superman universe, and the Wonder Woman universe. All other heros go in to one of them, depending on whether they are more neo-noir, sci-fi or fantasy. And no multiverse hopping between them, unless maybe as a finale of the entire saga. NO fakeout deaths. You die, you stay dead. And for the love of god allow the characters to get married and have kids. Those writers seem almost hostile towards the idea that a superhero isn't single.
Batman has a family, and Superman is married with Lois with a child called Jonathan for years, probably they'll never retired but in most cases they go on with their lives.
this is exactly my story with comic books
but i started in 1993 when superman died
i had to stop in 2008
when i was collecting every single book DC sold
and was spending $200 per month
“online pessimism” is the reflection of not just how “fans” think, it’s simply also average movie goers’ objection to bad projects. Superhero fatigue is upon us and whether you admit it or not it’s extremely conspicuous.
I started reading comics in the mid 80s in late elementary school and from day 1 my favs were Superman and Spiderman. I never felt the need to choose DC or Marvel.
I hated how they turned Peter Parker to a venture capitalist. Of course Doc Ock took over to do it but the storyline remained that a humble newspaper employee can’t be a hero in this neoliberal toxic world. 😢
2:59, never thought of it like that, well put!
I think that the superhero genre expresses how we want to be lost in a world that we want to feel well-versed in, but we also want it to not be our own world.
I think that's going to result in media becoming increasingly interactieve to the point that role-play will see a revival. Could be biased though.
At least he waited till the end of the video to plug his book
The issue is when we say that we never thought would "achieve this"... We should not want this. Movie as a medium is incredibly ill suited to serialization, for obvious reasons. The fact that Marvel succeeded to do it is a marvel (pun intended) of commercialism, but it change the gravity field of the movie making industry in a way it may never ever recover from. The expectation for stake holders is now money making juggernauts, movies after movies after movies of roughly the same think, as long as the money comes in...
I dunno though dude, all the comic book nerds I know buy both and other publishers as well like me. Reading both Marvel and DC doesn't seem unusual at all.
This is a big reason why I never really got into superhero comics, I read a lot of Batman but I mostly read Indie comics or horror E.C comics
How are bad movies inevitable?! It really cannot be that hard to hire competent writers, especially if you obviously have the budget
Time constraints. Even with a good team it takes time to make a good movie. But if the studio wants it done in a few months corners will be cut. This is one issue out of many.
I think the big problem with these films and why the new ones are failing is that you need to be really big fan to actually watch them. You had to start when they started and was watching them all the time. For anyone who was not fan at that time, there is absolutly 0 reason to start now. They make new films only for people who watched the films before, but some of these people will eventualy fall off. Yes, there will always be new people that watch the new film even when they did not seen any of the older films before, but there will also be much more of those, who was watching the older films and then stoped (for any reason, lack of time, lack of interest, new stuff coming in, RL things...).
Im one of those people that never started caring enough to actually watch these film. Yes, I did see some of the first ones, but then there was more and more and more... and I was always like "yea, i will watch that later", but they kept coming and now there is just way too many of them. Its fine to go and watch series of 3-4 films... but like 20 with shows and other stuff around? No frcking way.
Nerdwriter: I don't blame Marvel for breaking the rule.
Me: I'll do it for you.
Disney+ was the worst thing to happen to the MCU.
They went from state of the art movies to 90s network TV level action shows.
I feel like most of the superhero fatigue isn’t from Marvel but from other brands trying to emulate them but failing
You just wait until they can use X-Men and they recast Iron Man and Captain America after secret wars.
They might make a comeback.
The most exciting thing Marvel did was Netflix Daredevil. That stoy was small, on a human scale and the small cross over features were a... well, feature. No need to bring in a bunch of other hero's all the time. I tapped out on that one as soon as it became clear I had to watch all of Iron Fist to keep understanding the entire story. But season 1 of Daredevil and season 1 of Luke Cage and Jessica Jones were good small stories.
The big high stakes stories tend to come at the end of a writer's run and the soft reboot as another writer takes over and reboots things to serve the types of stories that writer wants to tell; I'm not so sure it's diminishing returns so much as tying up loose ends, proving you could write a global or cosmic stakes Avengers or JLA story to get in the running for writing those books, and providing a respite after the storm atmosphere for the next writer to ease into their run on the book. Also going out with a bang and consequently higher sales certainly obviates any criticism that you left the book because of poor sales.
Great point. The writer's voice and their intentions for a character are usually clearer at the start/midpoint of their run before the high stakes crossover stuff happens. Big climactic storylines are usually more formulaic, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, as they give us a break before the next batch of more personal day-in-the-life chapters.
What's next for Superhero Movies?
Nerdwriter1: Do the James Bond Formula
It doesn't HAVE to be like this tho. This is classic greed killing the golden goose.
Honestly marvel could easily restart from zero after the introduction of multiverse, they could make standalone movies of each characters from different universe and see the difference. Since comics has so many storylines, they can bring back down the stakes again and make great movies again
Comics would improve a lot if the characters would age - maybe the life of a character is 20-30 in real life.
Oh it's like a jrpg
Start: Capture a minor criminal
End: Kill a lovecraftian god and save the universe
putting the 'nerd' part of your username to good use now 🤓
The second they got the rights to Fantastic Four and X-Men, they should have put EVERYTHING into making them happen as soon as fucking possible.
Now the road to the two single most anticipated characters they've yet to adapt will be paved with mediocre, bad, and horrible films and tv shows, many of which nobody asked for.
The biggest problem with raising the stakes is that often... you really aren't.
We don't really care about the abstract notion of billions of unnamed fictional people. So threatening more of them does nothing. No stakes are raised by going to trillions more people we aren't invested in being at risk.
Once you've gone big you raise the stakes by going snall again, personal. You hit the character in their home life, you hit characters the audiences care for, and in a way that isn't just exactly like every other problem they face.
And the personal stories are the ones folks talk about 20 years later.
Going between those is the real secret sauce for the genre. Batman saves the world, sure, but he also buys harley a dress or sits with ace. Spidey smacks around some alien invaders, but then aunt may marries doc oc.
(Of course, being lazy and stupid about personal stakes results in fridging, so YMMV)
I learned of the term 'planned obsolescence' recently, an economic phenomena, a natural byproduct of monopoly whereby the lifecycle of consumer products is reduced in order to increase profits, seems like the same kind of thing is happening in cinema, predictable plots without substance, bland characters, everything is watered down in order to appeal to an international market. Consumers could theoretically choose something better but that is unlikely to happen because we are creatures of habit.
i got into comics in a big way about the same time as you, the early 2000s. i had dipped my toes in a bit before hand here and there, and was turned off by the very issues you cite here, the cost (of money and brainspace) in following multiple different titles to "get the whole story." but in the early 2000s i decided just grab a book that looked interesting to me and read it. if i liked it, i'd get the next issue. if i liked the characters i'd try other books with them, but not sweat it with other books with other characters i didn't like. i found i was able to follow the story just fine, and i got the full experience on the stories and characters i cared about, and if i didn't get everything for "knife-fist guy" then i was okay with it.
also i find the assertion that most people are dedicated to either DC or Marvel...not my experience. people who only watch the movies, maybe (and that's fine, i don't want to gatekeep), but i've found any geek who is a comic book reader, while she or he will have a preference, still knows a good deal about both of the Big Two.
I realised this when people were confused about Scarlet Witch in Dr Strange 2. Only then I realised that so much work has to be done before watching that movie ie follow Wandavision.
When I got into comics I only read IDW and Dark Horse initially. Eventually I got into Spider-Man and got into Marvel.
No story can go on forever without a nosedive in quality, hence the constant reboots, because you can't kill the golden goose forever either in this age of brand recognition
Their fall from grace started with the shift to quantity over quality. Mainly the TV shows. There are way too many. Which not only is too time-consuming (and kinda required), but also it hinders quality control. You get a a few great shows like Loki and Wandavision, but also a barrage of lackluster ones. (It's happening with Star Wars too, so this is more of an overarching Disney problem). Then it started happening to the movies. The quality dropped as well as they keep pumping them out aimlessly. This resulted in the inevitable fatigue. Audiences are tired of getting disappointed by most entries.
They really need to slow down and focus on fewer movies (they should halt the shows for a while). Take their time to polish the scripts and hire more talented directors. They've been struggling without the Russo Brothers and James Gunn.
Stories have to either end at some point or become EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE!
I was saying this to my friends a couple weeks ago. I had just watched Ant Man Quanumania and Secret Invasion and thought, yeah, this continuity is getting to be absolutely fuckered. With the Infinity Saga they managed to do the thing that comic books have been trying to do for decades, make a sensible and well-told crossover event, but capitalism never sleeps and so the show must go on and now it's so fucking convoluted that nothing can tie it all together again in a sensible way. The need for every superhero to fight world-ending stakes means that Earth is threatened on like fifty different fronts and none of them make sense relative to one another and it's just exhausting.
Wait...wait...It's 'not that common' for comic readers to read both Marvel and DC comics? I have been an avid reader of superhero comics for over three decades now, and I have found this to be patently untrue.
"Never force people to watch something that's bad in order to understand an upcoming project". Yes Boba Fett/Mando we are looking at you. I'm never gonna watch the next Mando saison because of their shit.
i had to pause for a second when you called a cinematic universe a tapestry. that just stuck in my mind now. colorful way to think about it.
I keep to indies comics 90% of the time due to the over-saturation in marvel and Dc-with exceptions for known classics and older works (because they just hit different).
You pretty much expressed why, but I know in my heart of hearts I am just a hipster both before and after it was cool
I think superhero movies peaked with the Thanos story. I really enjoyed the X-Men reboot until the Apocalypse story. I thought the first two with Fassbender and McAvoy were quite good and good for repeated viewings. I’m officially burnt out on the genre though and it’ll take something really great for me to pay attention again. Maybe Secret Wars, but I’m skeptical. Another great, thought provoking piece from Evan.
Im not anti superhero movie, but I am definitely anti superhero movies at the expense of everything else. It sounds like Marvel is planning to seriously scale back their content output which is welcome. And I think the success of Barbenheimer shows that audiences are (finally) looking for more variety in the films they see. Hopefully studios pay attention.
I've been telling people this for awhile. That a multiversal crossover event that leads to a reboot is inevitable with Marvel. It's the life cycle of comics so there's no reason not to assume it would end up the same way with films.
I don't know that it will ever be as big as it was with The Infinity Saga, but by the time the MCU reboots, there will be a whole new younger generation waiting to consume whatever content they produce, so we'll see how it goes.
soft reboot sounds like a podcast id obsess about
The best thing Marvel and DC gave was introducing me to a series of top notch creators whom I’ve followed into the indie scene. There’s still good superhero stuff but I avoid almost all of that stable outside of a few specific standalone tales
The thing is; Villians do NOT have to become bigger and bigger, that is simply the easy solution to progression (and the one requiring the least amont of creativity)
Super heroes will go the way of the western, yea they are still around but will come at a frequency of any other genre. It will never reach the same amount of saturation ever again.
Awesome analysis. I miss Coffee on a Tuesday
I grew up near a used book store that sold overstocked comics for 10 cents an issue, so I have a lot of Dark Horse, Image, and Vertigo.
With so much random stuff, I still don't really understand why people would limit themselves to just one publisher.
I'm happy with Lobo, Deadpool, the Mask, and the Maxx.
Teams are dumb. Enjoy what you want.
Why is this cycle specific to the superhero genre rather than scifi or fantasy more generally? The less romantic answer might be the MCU's path has been dictated by commerece more than a specific storytelling culture
Feige understands this, but Chapek took the bat out of his hands and treated MCU writers like they were assembling cars on an assembly line. This was an unforced error that could have been avoided if not for the corporate obsession with feeding the streaming monster. Fingers crossed that Marvel regroups soon