A few weeks after it might have been relevant, I would like to post some thoughts on Captain America: Civil War, and also take the opportunity to do some analysis of its box office returns and how to interpret them.
I generally don't like comic book stories that put superheroes against each other. I am in the minority that didn't like the Civil War comic series that came out in the mid-2000s, both because the focus was on hero-vs.hero and because I felt like it made superheroes "too real." An accident in a superhero fight that killed a few city block's worth of people was the catalyst for the debate on superhero registration, as I recall, and much like DC's depressing "Identity Crisis" series, it's just more realism than should define "escapist" entertainment.
That all being said, I liked the big-screen Civil War. First of all, it has almost nothing to do with the comic, only that it pits Captain America against Iron Man in a philosophical argument that inevitably turns physical. But the reasons are all different and more relatable to the audience. While Steve Rogers is fundamentally opposed to the idea of putting the Avengers under the control of the UN, his more immediate motivation is protecting Bucky. Tony Stark, whom the movie depicts as far less pigheaded than in the comic, is motivated to support UN oversight by the fallout of a battle that was a direct result of his hubris and error (the creation of Ultron).
The big hero-vs.hero fight that everyone is talking about is indeed excellent. I liked it best for the opportunities it gave for certain Marvel Cinematic Universe characters to shine. Most notably and unexpectedly, Ant-Man stole the show and satisfied that Paul Rudd's quirky charm would fit right in with the other Avengers. The Scarlet Witch also got a lot of subtle yet satisfying development, as an individual growing into her powers and as a foil for potential romantic interest Vision.
And then, of course, there are the newcomers. Black Panther met expectations with a strong introduction and performance by Chadwick Boseman, who impressed me a couple years ago as Jackie Robinson in 42. He will be an excellent lead in the Black Panther movie that's in the pipeline. The other big draw of the movie for many fans was the MCU version of Spider-Man, played this time by Tom Holland. I was not as enthused about this; frankly I've got Spider-Man burnout at this point with this being his third reboot. But Holland delivered a spot-on performance. I've got no qualms with his becoming part of the MCU, but I could really take or leave him.
Although I liked the movie, I do think it would have been better as an actual Avengers installment. With CW rounding out the Captain America trilogy, it's becoming clear that Marvel is going to ignore what I consider to be the most iconic storyline of his run (this side of Winter Soldier at least)-- namely, Cap's renouncing of his title and his replacement by the US Agent. It's perfectly understandable why they want to ignore what could be a very controversial story about loyalty to country, as well as the power of the military-industrial complex. I know they'll never tackle that, but I can't help but feel it's a missed opportunity.
Just as interesting as the movie, to an industry enthusiast like myself, is how Civil War is performing compared to expectations, the rest of the MCU, and of course, to Batman v Superman. Predictions were all over the place. Those who saw CW as "Avengers 2.5" predicted high, while at the opposite end of the spectrum were those who predicted that "superhero fatigue" would hurt returns. Both of those approaches were misguided, and CW has performed to exactly the middle.
Cap 1 earned a respectable $176 million domestic as the MCU built towards the first Avengers film. The phenomenal success of that inaugural superhero team-up fueled inflated returns for the movies that followed it (Iron Man 3 was the clearest beneficiary with $409 million domestic). That and the fact that Winter Soldier was a fantastic action thriller (in my opinion, Marvel's best movie) helped it exceed the first Cap by over 40%. And now, as of this writing, Cap 3 is on track to build on Cap 2's cume by 50%.
So much for superhero fatigue. Naysayers feared that the poor quality of Batman v Superman would hurt Civil War, because A) the typical non-geek moviegoer doesn't make the distinction between Marvel and DC, and B) it would sour them on the concept of superheroes fighting each other. Obviously that didn't happen. And, while the average person probably couldn't tell you which superheroes are DC and which are Marvel, I think they understand that the MCU characters inhabit a universe that is separate from that of Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman. They've seen Cap and co. on screen together enough times to get that by now.
But, there is a flipside to that familiarity, and to the increasing interconnectedness of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It's the same problem that comics have faced for decades now, a factor that has contributed to the slow erosion of comic sales. The more expansive and complex you make a universe, the more investment you ask from your audience to become a part of it, and the more difficult you make it for a new viewer to "jump on." The comics industry is always talking about "jumping on" points in comics-- in fact, they frame many of their event books that way in order to attract hesitant newcomers.
Think then, for a moment, about how much you need to know going in to understand Civil War. Cap 2 was removed enough from Cap 1 to function as a standalone movie, but Cap 3? No way. Cap 2 and Age of Ultron are required viewing for Cap 3, and Avengers 1, Iron Man 3 and Ant-Man if you want to be thorough. The increasing necessity of audience investment allows for great, expansive storytelling, but it also presents a growing challenge to the filmmakers to keep each movie accessible.
I remember watching the same thing happen over six years with my favorite TV show, LOST. While the show was a hit for its entire run, it did see its average ratings slip by over a third from the first season to the last. In part, that was because the show had become so complex, and the narrative so dependent on seeing everything that had come before it, that it was virtually impossible to jump off the train for even a few episodes and be able to successfully jump back on. The MCU's problem isn't quite as severe, but I believe it will play at least a small role in attendance of the movies as the franchise moves forward.
All this begs the question: is there a "ceiling" for Marvel movies' box office gross? Really, the only people who are asking that question are the ones who had unrealistic expectations for the movie, or those subscribing to the notion of superhero fatigue. As I laid out already, Civil War is performing to exactly what should have been expected of it from the start. Comparing it (or any other Marvel movie, including Age of Ultron) to the Avengers' box office is misguided. A movie like The Avengers comes along once or twice in a generation. It was the culmination of a franchise-building strategy that had never been attempted before, the novelty of which accounts for some of its ticket sales and cannot, by definition, be repeated.
Industry watchers should expect the Marvel movies to continue to perform like other franchise blockbusters. The good ones will make a lot of money. The not-as-good ones will do okay, having decent opening weekends based on brand recognition. I expect that almost all of them will at least be profitable (only 2008's The Incredible Hulk was a loss for the studio). Even the occasional ho-hum entry shouldn't affect their momentum as long as most of them are good. I doubt any will make Avengers numbers again, but that's not necessary for Marvel to claim dominance of comic book movies.
Lastly, and inevitably, we have to compare Civil War to Batman v Superman. More accurately, there is no comparison. The parallels are obvious, but so are the glaring contrasts. Cap 3 has a 90% rating on Rotten Tomatoes; BvS has 27%. Cap 3 has already joined the billion-dollar club in worldwide gross; BvS is limping its way to $875 million. But the biggest contrast lies in audience reaction to the movies and the resulting good will (or lack thereof) going forward.
By all accounts of MCU devotees, Civil War has met or exceeded their expectations, and has audiences pumped for upcoming movies like the Black Panther and Spider-Man solos, and of course, the next Avengers installments. Batman v Superman, though it has earned enough money to be profitable, has cast a dark shadow of trepidation on the future of the DC Cinematic Universe. We've been burned twice now with Man of Steel and BvS, and many are wondering when, if ever, we are going to see a genuinely good DCCU movie. Suicide Squad? Maybe. Wonder Woman? Possibly. The chances are higher with anything not helmed by Zack Snyder, but like a virus, his handiwork has infected the entire brand to the extent that predicted production shakeups inside WB have indeed come to pass. As a comic reader who prefers the DC Universe, I live in hope that the movies will eventually find their footing.
The Marvel Cinematice Universe continues this November with Dr. Strange. I know you'll be there.
I generally don't like comic book stories that put superheroes against each other. I am in the minority that didn't like the Civil War comic series that came out in the mid-2000s, both because the focus was on hero-vs.hero and because I felt like it made superheroes "too real." An accident in a superhero fight that killed a few city block's worth of people was the catalyst for the debate on superhero registration, as I recall, and much like DC's depressing "Identity Crisis" series, it's just more realism than should define "escapist" entertainment.
That all being said, I liked the big-screen Civil War. First of all, it has almost nothing to do with the comic, only that it pits Captain America against Iron Man in a philosophical argument that inevitably turns physical. But the reasons are all different and more relatable to the audience. While Steve Rogers is fundamentally opposed to the idea of putting the Avengers under the control of the UN, his more immediate motivation is protecting Bucky. Tony Stark, whom the movie depicts as far less pigheaded than in the comic, is motivated to support UN oversight by the fallout of a battle that was a direct result of his hubris and error (the creation of Ultron).
The big hero-vs.hero fight that everyone is talking about is indeed excellent. I liked it best for the opportunities it gave for certain Marvel Cinematic Universe characters to shine. Most notably and unexpectedly, Ant-Man stole the show and satisfied that Paul Rudd's quirky charm would fit right in with the other Avengers. The Scarlet Witch also got a lot of subtle yet satisfying development, as an individual growing into her powers and as a foil for potential romantic interest Vision.
And then, of course, there are the newcomers. Black Panther met expectations with a strong introduction and performance by Chadwick Boseman, who impressed me a couple years ago as Jackie Robinson in 42. He will be an excellent lead in the Black Panther movie that's in the pipeline. The other big draw of the movie for many fans was the MCU version of Spider-Man, played this time by Tom Holland. I was not as enthused about this; frankly I've got Spider-Man burnout at this point with this being his third reboot. But Holland delivered a spot-on performance. I've got no qualms with his becoming part of the MCU, but I could really take or leave him.
Although I liked the movie, I do think it would have been better as an actual Avengers installment. With CW rounding out the Captain America trilogy, it's becoming clear that Marvel is going to ignore what I consider to be the most iconic storyline of his run (this side of Winter Soldier at least)-- namely, Cap's renouncing of his title and his replacement by the US Agent. It's perfectly understandable why they want to ignore what could be a very controversial story about loyalty to country, as well as the power of the military-industrial complex. I know they'll never tackle that, but I can't help but feel it's a missed opportunity.
Just as interesting as the movie, to an industry enthusiast like myself, is how Civil War is performing compared to expectations, the rest of the MCU, and of course, to Batman v Superman. Predictions were all over the place. Those who saw CW as "Avengers 2.5" predicted high, while at the opposite end of the spectrum were those who predicted that "superhero fatigue" would hurt returns. Both of those approaches were misguided, and CW has performed to exactly the middle.
Cap 1 earned a respectable $176 million domestic as the MCU built towards the first Avengers film. The phenomenal success of that inaugural superhero team-up fueled inflated returns for the movies that followed it (Iron Man 3 was the clearest beneficiary with $409 million domestic). That and the fact that Winter Soldier was a fantastic action thriller (in my opinion, Marvel's best movie) helped it exceed the first Cap by over 40%. And now, as of this writing, Cap 3 is on track to build on Cap 2's cume by 50%.
So much for superhero fatigue. Naysayers feared that the poor quality of Batman v Superman would hurt Civil War, because A) the typical non-geek moviegoer doesn't make the distinction between Marvel and DC, and B) it would sour them on the concept of superheroes fighting each other. Obviously that didn't happen. And, while the average person probably couldn't tell you which superheroes are DC and which are Marvel, I think they understand that the MCU characters inhabit a universe that is separate from that of Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman. They've seen Cap and co. on screen together enough times to get that by now.
But, there is a flipside to that familiarity, and to the increasing interconnectedness of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It's the same problem that comics have faced for decades now, a factor that has contributed to the slow erosion of comic sales. The more expansive and complex you make a universe, the more investment you ask from your audience to become a part of it, and the more difficult you make it for a new viewer to "jump on." The comics industry is always talking about "jumping on" points in comics-- in fact, they frame many of their event books that way in order to attract hesitant newcomers.
Think then, for a moment, about how much you need to know going in to understand Civil War. Cap 2 was removed enough from Cap 1 to function as a standalone movie, but Cap 3? No way. Cap 2 and Age of Ultron are required viewing for Cap 3, and Avengers 1, Iron Man 3 and Ant-Man if you want to be thorough. The increasing necessity of audience investment allows for great, expansive storytelling, but it also presents a growing challenge to the filmmakers to keep each movie accessible.
I remember watching the same thing happen over six years with my favorite TV show, LOST. While the show was a hit for its entire run, it did see its average ratings slip by over a third from the first season to the last. In part, that was because the show had become so complex, and the narrative so dependent on seeing everything that had come before it, that it was virtually impossible to jump off the train for even a few episodes and be able to successfully jump back on. The MCU's problem isn't quite as severe, but I believe it will play at least a small role in attendance of the movies as the franchise moves forward.
All this begs the question: is there a "ceiling" for Marvel movies' box office gross? Really, the only people who are asking that question are the ones who had unrealistic expectations for the movie, or those subscribing to the notion of superhero fatigue. As I laid out already, Civil War is performing to exactly what should have been expected of it from the start. Comparing it (or any other Marvel movie, including Age of Ultron) to the Avengers' box office is misguided. A movie like The Avengers comes along once or twice in a generation. It was the culmination of a franchise-building strategy that had never been attempted before, the novelty of which accounts for some of its ticket sales and cannot, by definition, be repeated.
Industry watchers should expect the Marvel movies to continue to perform like other franchise blockbusters. The good ones will make a lot of money. The not-as-good ones will do okay, having decent opening weekends based on brand recognition. I expect that almost all of them will at least be profitable (only 2008's The Incredible Hulk was a loss for the studio). Even the occasional ho-hum entry shouldn't affect their momentum as long as most of them are good. I doubt any will make Avengers numbers again, but that's not necessary for Marvel to claim dominance of comic book movies.
Lastly, and inevitably, we have to compare Civil War to Batman v Superman. More accurately, there is no comparison. The parallels are obvious, but so are the glaring contrasts. Cap 3 has a 90% rating on Rotten Tomatoes; BvS has 27%. Cap 3 has already joined the billion-dollar club in worldwide gross; BvS is limping its way to $875 million. But the biggest contrast lies in audience reaction to the movies and the resulting good will (or lack thereof) going forward.
By all accounts of MCU devotees, Civil War has met or exceeded their expectations, and has audiences pumped for upcoming movies like the Black Panther and Spider-Man solos, and of course, the next Avengers installments. Batman v Superman, though it has earned enough money to be profitable, has cast a dark shadow of trepidation on the future of the DC Cinematic Universe. We've been burned twice now with Man of Steel and BvS, and many are wondering when, if ever, we are going to see a genuinely good DCCU movie. Suicide Squad? Maybe. Wonder Woman? Possibly. The chances are higher with anything not helmed by Zack Snyder, but like a virus, his handiwork has infected the entire brand to the extent that predicted production shakeups inside WB have indeed come to pass. As a comic reader who prefers the DC Universe, I live in hope that the movies will eventually find their footing.
The Marvel Cinematice Universe continues this November with Dr. Strange. I know you'll be there.
No comments:
Post a Comment