4) “Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.” has divided many fans. What do you make of the show and how it integrates with the films?
Russell: Speaking of missed opportunities, this show has all the right elements but enough with the name-dropping. It’s time for some major Marvel characters to appear, already. Lady Sif, as previously mentioned, is coming in and we now know that Deathlok is official, too. But c’mon Disney, where’s the Chris Evans cameo? How about some Mark Ruffalo? It is a SHIELD show after all so shouldn’t Sam Jackson show up from time to time? Season 2 needs to make this show feel a lot more connected to the larger cinematic universe. Not to mention a bit more focus on where the story is going before episodes start shooting. The mid-season finale was a real miss. Completely predictable and lots of false “suspense.” At least the mid-season premiere was a step up, but how long will that last?
Todd: No one was more excited about “Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.” than me. I really, really wanted to see a street-level version of the Marvel Film Universe, and with Joss Whedon attached to produce and Clark Gregg as Agent Coulson’s involvement, I had reason to look forward to the show. However, “A of S” has been thoroughly disappointing.
Airing “Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.” at 8 p.m. attracts younger viewers, but network guidelines for that time-slot neuter the show’s action sequences and potential for psychologically compelling villains. The cast (with the exception of Clark Gregg as Coulson and Elizabeth Henstridge as Simmons) are AWFUL. The tie-ins with the Marvel cinematic universe are tenuous at best. Up to this point, Marvel hasn’t authorized any actual comic book characters (Gravitron was teased for the future) for use in the show. Yes, we’ve been slowly watching the origin of Deathlok (America says WHO?) but it may be too late. Worst of all, the show has promised a worthy explanation for Coulson’s resurrection, but all we received was the reveal that he had “many, many surgeries”. WTF? I would accept any explanation (clone, life-model-decoy, the Vision, deal with the devil) but the one they gave.
“Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.” needs to be re-tooled, and fast. I just hope they kill off Fitz, but not Simmons. NEVER Simmons.
Tim: To be charitable, I’ll call this an “area in need of improvement.” I gave it four episodes before deciding that it was a long, long way off from what I would consider a decent representation of what I enjoy so much about the cinematic universe. They seem really gun-shy when it comes to introducing any meaningful elements from the comics, perhaps for fear of stealing the films’ thunder. Easter eggs aren’t everything of course, but even setting that aside, there just isn’t much for a viewer to sink his teeth into. Bland plots, stock characters, little chemistry within the cast, annoying “Whedonesque” dialogue, it all amounts to viewing experience that barely rises to “passable” at best. This should be “Fringe” in the Marvel Universe, but it feels more like Power Rangers in primetime. There’s just too much genuinely good television right now to spend any time on such a frustrating experience.
Honestly, it’s efforts like these that Marvel ought to feel a little reluctant attaching their name to. I’m almost certainly overstating the issue, as I don’t outright hate the show, but there’s a real risk of brand dilution when that type of presentation is what people come to associate with your product.
Nick: It’s a decent show. Nothing more, nothing less. It was sold to us as a television show that fully tied into the cinematic universe, but I haven’t yet gotten the feel that the show really “matters” in the larger scheme of things. Perhaps that will change as we approach the end of Phase 2 and gear up for Phase 3, but I’d like to see the show take on some of the larger storylines and themes in order to make it truly “essential” viewing.
Greg: I was almost as excited about “Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.” as Todd was. Unfortunately, the show hasn’t met nearly any of my expectations. It’s not a bad show, per se, but it’s just so … pedestrian. Clichéd plots, predictable twists, ho-hum action scenes and laughably bad dialogue have plagued the show from its inception. For a stretch of three or four episodes late in the first half of the season, it appeared things were finally on track and picking up steam. In short, it seemed like the show found its identity as a quirky action-adventure show. But then the mid-season finale came, and it was one of the worst episodes of any show I watched in the past year. Many fans are frustrated because the show, which was promised to integrate seamlessly with the Marvel Cinematic Universe, only offers brief hints and mentions at the larger Marvel Universe. Nobody expected Robert Downey Jr. to make a cameo appearance, but where is the usage of Marvel’s deep list of characters? Would it be too much to ask for a cameo from Captain Britain or something?
However, I’d have also been satisfied if the show distanced itself almost completely and went for a hardcore spy show vibe – more espionage, fewer Whedonisms. Unfortunately, that seems an impossibility at this point. Hopefully the show will find traction in the coming months, because whether they bring in Deathlok or Madame Web or any of the other rumored characters, it won’t matter if the show’s overall quality doesn’t improve quickly.
5) With Marvel’s success, should its approach become the template for other franchises, studios and companies? What are some franchises that seem suited for the approach, and are there any you wouldn’t want to see the approach applied to?
Russell: It’s worked really well for Disney/Marvel, but I don’t think it absolutely has to be the template every shared superhero/franchise cinematic universe uses. DC, for example, has another option with its hit TV show “Arrow” and upcoming Flash series. Develop characters that way to keep from having to build them all through individual films. Now, I wouldn’t just throw a team of superheroes together for the first time unless they were already pre-established as a team first (X-Men, for example). But some characters are so well established that giving them solo movies in order to build to a shared cinematic universe will feel very unnecessary. Like Batman, for example. But, if somebody wanted to make a shared universe movie for pulp heroes like The Shadow, The Phantom, Zorro and The Green Hornet, solo movies might be a good way to go first.
Todd: I have a feeling that the annual Star Wars films (not counting the “big ones” such as Episode VII) will have an interconnectedness a la Marvel’s. It would certainly make sense as they expand the Star Wars galaxy as to suck every dollar from us fanboys. I was going to say that I hope the upcoming live-action versions of Disney’s princess franchises (screw you, I’m married) would have continuity across films, but I realized that Disney’s basically already doing that with their “Once Upon a Time” TV franchise.
Going large like Marvel/Disney has pretty much only been possible due to their solid planning and vast resources; in addition, the uniqueness of Marvel’s universe and its thousands of characters provide for near-infinite possibilities. I can’t see…GI Joe or Transformers, for instance, having that huge depth of story to pull from.
Tim: Personally, I like that it’s Marvel’s baby. Anything else is going to feel like a pale imitation, but its success all but assures that it will be employed by other studios. Hypothetically , it ought to be applicable to any large, shared universe. I just have my doubts that anyone else will demonstrate the same patience and discipline as Marvel Studios. Fans are savvy to this kind of thing. If it’s half-assed or a transparently cynical cash-grab, it will be punished accordingly.
That said, I’m sort of eyeballing Sony and the Spider-Man franchise. Their 2012 reboot was…OK…but the latest scuttlebutt concerns Venom and Sinister Six spin-off films. That strikes me as putting the cart before the horse. Is anyone clamoring for these like they did when Iron Man teased us with the potential for the Avengers? Having any mission statement is better than none at all, but there has to be enough substance to back it up. Sony following in Marvel’s footsteps just seems wrongheaded and, frankly, unearned.
Nick: Obviously, the approach is tailor made for other comics companies, whether it be DC or Image or basically any other company with a wide enough cast of characters. However, I don’t really want to see the approach applied to Fox’s Marvel stable, which includes the X-Men and Fantastic Four. Tying just two franchises together would seem a bit cheap to me, and I’d have a hard time caring at all about Mr. Fantastic when he’s standing next to Wolverine or any of the other awesome X-characters. I also don’t really want the approach applied to Star Wars, as part of the appeal of the saga is that each film feels far-reaching and epic in scope. There’s no need to do solo movies and then tie them together, as the ensemble has always been the appeal of Star Wars.
Greg: Marvel’s Avengers approach should, in general, provide a solid template for other major franchises. I’m thinking particularly of Warner Bros. and its DC Comics properties. In fact, as Russell recently and eloquently pointed out, Warner Bros. has been granted an unprecedented opportunity to bridge its characters from television to the big screen, in almost an opposite manner from the Marvel method. I also see no reason why the Star Wars universe can’t have side adventures that are smaller in scope than the big-screen films, perhaps focusing on bounty hunters. But not all franchises are created equal, and now that this approach has been established, there’s a real danger of studios rushing too quickly and losing sight of the importance of strong standalone stories. How many films have we seen in recent years that end with teasers for sequels that never come? *cough* Green Lantern *cough
6) On a related note, how directly do you think Marvel has impacted Warner Bros. and DC? What lessons should DC take from Marvel, both positive and negative when it comes to a film universe?
Russell: It’s definitely had an effect on them. We wouldn’t be getting a DC shared cinematic universe if not for the success of the Avengers franchises. The lessons to be learned from Marvel are many, but a few standout. Just because a character isn’t A-list doesn’t mean they can’t make great films and become A-list because of it. Sequels always need to be bigger, but that doesn’t always mean more death and destruction. Villains need to be bigger and characters need depth. That’s where sequels can always be more interesting than origin movies. Try to avoid using the exact same kind of villain/plot over and over again.
Todd: If DC/Warner Bros weren’t run by an infinite bureaucracy of incompetent middle-management, they’d be four films into a shared universe already-and they OWN every character in their universe’s film rights! Again, I’m not sure that there really ARE any negatives in Marvel’s approach, they just keep on trucking and try harder if one of their movies is the rare disappointment.
The longer DC waits to get things up and running, the more the potential for lost revenue grows. They don’t want the movies to stink, but they’re losing valuable time. Nothing until 2016? “Arrow” will have finished up four seasons by then and “Flash” hopefully will have two in the can. At least DC is competent in getting its characters up on the small screen, unlike “Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. ”
DC’s direct-to-video animated films are successful, but they tend to be “done in one” films that stand alone (though this may change as they start adapting “New 52” stories for their DVDs.
Tim: Speaking of half-assed…
Through Warner Bros., DC really should have beaten Marvel to the punch, and done it YEARS ago. Instead, they can be looked to as Exhibit A in proving my point about the high quality of Marvel’s cinematic universe largely being a product of necessity. DC has Batman. They have Superman. They have Wonder Woman. They have complete freedom to make movies about these and every single other character in their catalog. So far, what we’ve learned from their cinematic endeavors is, DC has Batman… and… that’s about it. Superman’s getting there, but Man of Steel was such a divisive film that it can’t be looked to as a comprehensive success. When not faced with the same pressures to perform as Marvel Studios, we see a company resting on its laurels in DC. We see embarrassments like Green Lantern greeted with a shrug and an “oh well” (and my heart breaks for Greg Phillips because of it).
I’m not advocating for anything to be “taken away” from DC. Warner Bros. doesn’t need to farm their properties out (though it couldn’t hurt). Instead, the lesson to be learned from Marvel is better quality and creative control. These things can never totally be traced to a single person; nevertheless, Marvel Studios has a great asset in Kevin Feige, who has largely been credited as their best guiding force. He seems to have a handle on (1) what makes the Marvel characters work; and (2) how to translate that to movies people want to see. I very much get a sense that DC is hobbled by territorial pissing and politicking within Warner Bros. Ego and a lack of coordination seems to undermine legitimate efforts to get shit done. It’s a corporate culture that badly needs to change if the company hopes to compete on the same field as Marvel.
Nick: I think it’s shown DC that some of the secondary characters and concepts can work on film, provided that you have the right tone and the right approach. However, it’s also clear that since the success of Avengers, WB/DC has become rather obsessed with replicating that success and is doing everything it can to get Justice League to theaters as soon as it can. Personally, I think the important thing that Marvel has shown is that you can take your time. There were five solo movies before Avengers ever hit the screen, and I think DC needs to take that same patient approach. They won’t, though, and we’ll just have to see how it turns out.
Greg: Not directly enough. Warner should have jumped on this train four years ago, but the studio’s apparent lack of confidence in its properties delayed the process. Now it appears they’re rushing too quickly, as evidenced by the need to push production of the Batman/Superman movie back an entire year. As mentioned above, the Marvel approach isn’t necessarily the right one for every studio, and Warner must be careful to craft strong, compelling standalone films so that audiences will WANT to see heroes besides just Batman and Superman. Tying “Arrow” and the upcoming Flash series to the films might be a good way to circumvent the big-budget risks accompanying solo films might produce, and Green Lantern just had an origin movie a few years ago, regardless of how poorly it fared. Perhaps a Wonder Woman solo film would be enough to set up a Justice League movie, which could provide in-film introductions of any combination of Aquaman, Cyborg and Martian Manhunter. DC should pursue this alternative method rather than copying Marvel beat-for-beat, but to do so requires time and patience I’m not sure Warner Bros. has.
More on Page 3
