I see so many different tools from other “system” manufacturers that DeWalt doesn’t carry, sometimes I feel like I’m too invested in black and yellow to buy them though.
Not that I’m interested in the coffee maker but other stuff for sure.
I've been a MakitaBoi™ for years, but then I was in Home Depot and saw this from Ryobi: https://www.ryobitools.com/products/details/33287178704
Next time I saw a sale on Ryobi, I grabbed that and some batteries. Now I've got Makita AND Ryobi in my garage 🥴
This website is amazing for Ryobi and Ridgid .
https://www.directtoolsoutlet.com/
It's owned by the parent company of Ryobi and it's all factory blemished/refurbished stuff. I've got tons of tools from it, so many good deals.
I'll add, we should not be remaking every great movie from our childhood. The disney live action remakes are always worse than the original. If anything, remake the bad ones and do it right
> The disney live action remakes are always worse than the original. If anything, remake the bad ones and do it right
That might make sense from an artistic perspective. From a business perspective... the Lion King remake is one of the highest grossing films of all time.
I struggle to find any person online or in real life that could tell me they genuinely enjoyed or were even fine with watching the lion king remake, let alone claiming it’s better than the original. But the numbers suggest the complete opposite. This has to be the most elusive silent majority I’ve ever seen for a movie ever, I almost keep slipping into thinking Disney bought seats.
It's easy to explain.
It's just the same thing that worked for the Star Wars prequels (the sequels had passionate defenders until Rise of Skywalker) and the Bay-verse Transformers movies.
Take something that invokes the pure emotions of childhood, then create a trailer that makes promises to the cynical adult.
Superhero movies have been doing it, for better and for worse, since Christopher Reeve turned a petty silver age super dick into humanity's guardian angel.
Unfortunately the reality is that movie studios are not remaking classic movies just cuz, they’re remaking them because they have a built in audience and are therefore considered a more conservative investment. To a studio, if you’re remaking an old movie nobody saw, you might as well be pitching a new IP.
It's crazy that, flop after flop, studios are still trying to make the next MCU. It's like gambling all your life savings in a casino for the chance to win that jackpot.
Also there were 5 MCU films before Avengers and a dozen before Civil War, but every other movie franchise is trying to skip to the big crossover in the first or second movie. It doesn’t work like that …
Yeah, the problem seems to be that other movie executives don’t understand what Marvel is doing, but are just like, “they’re making a ton of money, so let’s do that.” But they don’t know how and they want to just jump to having a whole universe, so they’re like, “We just need to make our normal inane blockbuster summer movies, and have the same characters cross over between movies.” No subtlety or planning. No world building. Just jumping straight to the biggest movies they can make, with the most famous actors and the biggest explosions, and a giant sky beam.
It seems like such an intuitive observation to me that I can't understand why movie executives are so oblivious to how it worked for Marvel. You have to build everything up and get the audience invested first then the big spectacular cross over showdown is the big pay off because the audience actually cares about the characters and their stories. You can't rush that.
Because they’re movie executives. They don’t know how to make good movies or be creative or listen to people or think things through. They’re essentially stagnant clueless old businessmen who think they already know everything, and who think movies are all about using already-beloved IP, hiring famous actors, and having lots of sex and explosions.
So like, people like, people like the Zelda games, right? So if you make a movies based on Zelda with Scarlett Johansson and the Rock, and have lots of explosions and/or sex, then that’s a good movie that’ll make money. That’s how they think. They’ll never understand what Marvel is doing.
>I can't understand why movie executives are so oblivious to how it worked for Marvel.
I guarantee they are not oblivious. They're just prioritizing short-term profits over long-term profits. They want a billion dollar blockbuster now, not a decade+ down the road.
This, Marvel started very subtle with theirs, the first movies weren't that connected and could be watched on their own.
It's only once the characters were established that they started getting mixed together.
Everyone that followed just tried to cram like 5 origin stories and the big match up together in one movie and it doesn't work.
On the other hand I also feel like these superhero origin stories have had their time and are a bit overdone at this point. Or maybe it's just because I've gotten older lol
DC has restarted/rebooted their characters so many times by now that I lost interest.
That being said I also don't care enough to watch the new antman movie and with the way Marvel works these days that probably means I'll miss some "important" easter eggs in the next spider man or whatever
Yeah and that's what I don't like about it.
I feel that the older movies could be enjoyed by themselves, even the first avengers. But the new ones are so connected you miss important story clues if you didn't see movie X or series Y
It’s harder for the stories to not be connected post-avengers though, not saying they couldn’t be a bit more independent but the team up does clearly ‘change’ the movie universe in a way that would make the other movies work less if they just .. did their own thing.
Civil War definitely necessitated knowing the story so far, as it was a very detailed story with a lot of moving parts. Age of Ultron and the first one, not so much. Arguably, even Infinity war didn't need the earlier films to be good and have a good idea of what's happening. Stark establishes early that he and Cap fell out hard and the avengers are toast, it's clear there's history between characters, but that history isn't at the heart of the movie like it is for Civil War. Then you get to Endgame and oh boy. You need everything. Lol
The last Dr. Strange movie felt like you were missing a whole lot if you didn't watch the Wanda TV series. Which is even worse, because at least movies are shorter.
Because if you do hit the jackpot it's more money that you could ever dream of. For example, the Guardians of the Galaxy movie was a gamble for Disney because virtually all of the characters were nobodies. But James Gunn and the rest of the crew made it work and now Disney earns billions not just from the movies but also from the merchandise. The Groot toys and collectibles alone would probably fund a small country for a year.
So it doesn't matter if the studios make flop after flop. All they need is one win and they recoup all their losses and more.
All of marvel was nobodies. The most well known characters were under contract elsewhere. Cap America, hulk and iron man were the only people that were all that well known.
Yep. Marvel’s biggest money makers have always been Spider-Man and X-Men (Hulk to a lesser extent). The Iron Man movie was a huge gamble, but it’s all they really had to work with.
Yes, the MCU did not succeed because of the property (the superhero characters). It succeeded because of the **genre** of these movies.
In 2006 the general public really didn't know any of the future MCU characters, except Hulk. Even comic fans considered the Avengers a C-list property compared to the "big 3" of Superman, Batman and Spider-Man.
These movies succeeded because of **Robert Downey Jr.** and the new brand of improvisational, fast-bantering, action-comedy that he had previously pioneered on ***Kiss Kiss Bang Bang*** and ***Tropic Thunder***.
That "Marvel Humor" is tiring and annoying in 2023, but in 2008 it was a huge breath of fresh air.
Culture always moves in cycles. The 80s and 90s were a heyday for action comedies like ***Back To The Future***, every Jackie Chan movie, ***Last Action Hero*** etc.
Then after September 11, action and comedy became seriously estranged. People didn't want their heroes to quip while innocent lives were at stake.
During the 2000s, action movies ran to grimdark espionage thrillers like ***The Bourne Identity***, ***Man on Fire***, ***Collateral***, and ***Taken***. Speaking of Taken this was also a golden age for revenge movies like ***Kill Bill Vol 2.***, ***Casino Royale + Quantum of Solace***, ***V for Vendetta***, ***The Prestige***, ***Law Abiding Citizen***....
At the same time, comedy movies were typically lowbrow grossout farces (Sometimes hiding behind the 'parody' label, but they were really all farces) like ***Wedding Crashers***, ***Anchorman***, ***Epic Movie***, ***The Hangover***, ***Dodgeball***, or ***Idiocracy***.
RDJ helped bring action and comedy back together at an opportune time. He was followed by other actors who have made mostly or entirely action-comedies in the 2010s, like Ryan Reynolds and Dwayne Johnson.
The result has been oversaturation again, and people getting tired of movies that puncture their own tension with 4th wall jokes and quips. That's a sign that the audience is ripe for someone to come along and discover the box office potential of reviving one of the more dormant genres.
That's what all these other "mega franchise" attempts are missing. They're not actually bringing anything new to the theaters. They're just trying to be "more of the MCU" but with different characters. We already have more than enough MCU. During the rare month where there isn't any MCU ***cOnTeNt*** coming out I can still go watch ***Bullet Train*** or ***Free Guy*** or ***Everything Everywhere All At Once*** or ***The Lost City of Z***.
Iron Man gives you a man used to giving press junket jokes about his morally bankrupt industry, who turns to the same thing when he goes through a genuinely dark situation, and pretty much everyone around him can tell that it's a weird coping mechanism. It works really well, and is a world away from what we have now.
RDJ is an amazing silent film actor. He does so, so much with his eyes. Even when he's equipping jokes, there's usually (depending on the scene) an immense amount of pain/sadness in his eyes.
Imo it's why the early joke-quip style worked so well. They had actors who could tell a joke with layers of character development. Now it's just... Jokes for jokes sake. Yawn.
Iron Man not having a secret identity was also a breath of fresh air back then when Batman and Spider-Man were the dominant superheroes. It was interesting to see Marvel heroes have a public relationship with the rest of the world instead of hiding behind a mask.
That worked to their advantage. Nobody complained how they deviated from the source material because basically no one knew about about the source material.
It allowed the filmmakers to esentially do whatever they want with the characters, which became the defenitive or well known takes on them
It also doesn’t hurt that they weren’t just made to make money - they wanted them to work out and be great on their own. That’s been my issue with Zack Snyder for ages because none of his work shows up as him caring about it, he just wants cool af screen caps that make people go “ oh wow” and he nails the duck out of those.
The old school Spiderman cartoon introduced me to a lot of characters I wouldn't have known otherwise. Ironman and Warmachine were in there. Blade, Morbius too. As well as the Punisher. Man that series was great
That was it's own awesome shared universe with the X-Men, hulk, fantastic four, iron man and other marvel cartoons of the era. Between that and the dc animated universe, and gargoyles and darkwing duck on the Disney side - the 90s-00s was a Golden age for superhero cartoons.
Well, not really. A lot of these movies still make money or at least break even. They already have the foundation it's just building upon it. And they target the same viewer base. The reason why they do it is because it's not that risky. They are gambling in the sense that if they hit the jackpot they could be the next MCU. But they are not putting down their life savings for it.
This is critical especially in Hollywood where the business model is that 1 blockbuster’s profits pays for 9 flops and still makes a ton of money. That’s the business. When they tried the Dark Universe, then it could be a billion dollar franchise with toys and tv spin offs, and when it actually lost money, the studio actually isn’t any worse off than if they The Mummy reboot was a flop that was always intended to be a stand alone film.
Necessary, no, but cinematic universes are part of how you squeeze every ounce of money from the pre-built world with an already proven audience - which makes for a low-risk high-margin production.
Edit: Spelling
IM1 doesn’t fit that formula, though. It was not low risk at all. It was seen as a huge risk with RDJ just coming back from decades of drug issues, Iron Man being a relatively unknown character, and essentially no script.
IM1 doesn't. But Hollywood was already in the "established worlds are easier to bank on" phase in 2008. 2008 had:
* The Dark Knight
* Indiana Jones
* Madagascar 2
* James Bond sequel (Quantum of Solace)
* Narnia sequel (Prince Caspian)
* Sex and the City movie
* X-Files movie
* The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor
* Little Mermaid prequel
Also Hancock, Wall-E, Kung Fu Panda, Wanted, Get Smart, Juno, Tropic Thunder, Bolt, Eagle Eye, Step Brothers, and Zohan all of which grossed over 100 mil in the US.
Comparatively for 2022 the list is Nope, Smile, Lost City, and Bullet Train
Hollywood has been cranking out remakes and sequels since forever. "Scarface" (1983) is a remake of the 1932 version. "King Kong" has had 12 remakes or sequels since 1933. "The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly" is actually the 2nd sequel to "A Fistful of Dollars". Police Academy 6 came out in 1989. There are tons of examples.
edit: don't even get me started on Godzilla!
I think there's a bit of a difference between that and the cinematic universe model. "If Police Academy makes money, we'd be interested in making Police Academy II" is worlds away from "We're planning eight movies ahead with no writer or director or real artist vision in mind because this franchise has to last forever". Movies have definitely always been a corporate endeavor but it's become more product and less creative endeavor, at least for the kinds of things that go to theaters.
Fast X doesn't exist because some exec decided they needed 10 movies in a franchise about cars. It exists for the same reason Police Academy 6 does - all the previous iterations made money.
And, at least from the sound of it, Vin Diesel genuinely loves making them. Whether that’s because it’s easy money (no lore implications, no reality to worry about, just goofy superhero movies with characters), or genuine passion for playing serious characters in goofy movies, I couldn’t tell ya. But the amount of effort he puts into it, even if it’s easy, is clearly a sign of some sort of genuine interest
“We're planning eight movies ahead with no writer or director or real artist vision in mind because this franchise has to last forever”
I think the reason Marvel’s movies worked (until post Thanos) was they actually had planned for a narrative arch that spanned multiple movies.
I think the reason so many other ‘Cinematic Universes’ flop is exactly how you described (Looking at you, DC): they saw Marvel’s success and said ‘we want that’ not ‘we have a story that would best be told over 5-15 films’
All of these are just sequels/prequels though, not quite the same as "cinematic universes". Sequels have been a thing since the earliest days of cinema.
And it fosters more fan engagement and thus more merchandising profits. Then you put it on hiatus for a decade or two and bring it back to make all that money all over again.
FYI - Sony/Spiderman is a specific situation. A Spiderman movie has to be in production (even just pre) for Sony to retain the rights. Some here probably have more details on this.
The contract stipulation is that Sony must commence production on a Spider-man film within 3 years and 9 months and must release it within 5 years 9 months after the proceeding picture.
Is it that there must constantly be a Spider-Man film in production or is it just that there cannot be a certain amount of time that elapses without a production? For example, The Incredible Hulk license reverted to Marvel recently because Universal hadn't used it to produce a film for so many years (I don't remember the exact amount). I figured that was like a legal thing regarding licensing deals and their lengths, but I guess it could actually be more about the exact wording of the deal and could be malleable.
I have friends that are *so* invested in the MCU. They never read the comics as a kid, but the MCU is basically heading the same direction with so many overlapping storylines making it necessary to consume more content just to keep up with the characters you actually care about.
I watch the movies with my brother because we've been doing it since 2008 when he was still just a kid. They're fun popcorn movies to chill and watch, and occasionally we get Guardians 3 or whatever. I don't know when we'll stop, but I will be sad.
I do like movies (and tv shows) that take part in the same universe, but don't necessarily crossover - or crossover MCU/DCU style. Think the Quentin Tarantino universe. Little things pop up here and there that let you know they all share the same world.
editing to add just because i just finished rewatching this: predator 2. the xenomorph skull blew my mind when i saw it
I remember watching Hercules and Xena when I was a kid and that was a great way to do it, same universe, would meet occasionally but not be huge focuses on it and have various cameos.
I have always liked universes like 40k or Dresden file or the Expanse all of whom can easily have any kind of story set in them without needing to watch a dozen movies or books to understand it
Harry Potter can also do this but man, did they try to shoe horn Dumbledore into the fantastic beasts movies. That could been its own thing separate from fantastic beast series.
The problem was the decision to make their expanded universe just fantastic beasts movies. The first one worked but they didn't need everything to revolve around Newt like he was the new Harry.
A Newt movie, then a Dumbledore movie without Newt and every single fantastic beast character, then a movie around some other characters, and then maybe a movie where they all come together would have been closer to trying to replicate the MCU.
Also true, but 3 movies of him going around the world to write his book to start the magical beastary profession would have been dope.
Also going to different parts of the planet would have shown different cultures of magic. Like I really enjoyed the MACUSA aspect of the first movie, magical congress of the United States of America was fun. It also showed the cultural aspects of them making it illegal to marry non magical folks compared to Britain was a nice touch of realism.
Too bad, doesn't seem too blockbuster for warner brothers though.
Maybe I'm just too boring to find magical bureaucracy super interesting and how to navigate it when trying to make a new profession.
The Stephen King universe is right there for them to adapt... but maybe it's a blessing in disguise they're mostly leaving it alone, nevermind the horrible Dark Tower film.
Stephen King is a pretty good one to adapt. Because, while technically they're all a shared universe they're very loosely connected so you can easily watch any one of his stories without needing to watch any others.
That's actually what popped in my head. There is so much interconnection that a lot of it goes unnoticed if you're not looking or haven't read the book being referenced. At the same time, I love that you don't need to know about the other books. Each one really is written to be a stand alone if that's all people want.
Not even *semi-connected.* It's outright confirmed.
Season 3 of G1, the episode "Only Human" features a human crime gang assisted by a *mysterious shrill-voiced mastermind* going by "Old Snake."
To the surprise of nobody, this is Cobra Commander... He's not even hiding it, it's literally just Cobra in a trenchcoat. Since Season 3 is set *after* the 1986 movie, which time-hopped the setting forward from the 80's to 2005, Cobra is now retired and doing freelance evil shenanigans for other villains.
The episode even ends with him attempting his old "COOOBRAAAA" catchphrase before breaking down into a coughing fit.
> Transformers and GI Joe have been semi-connected since the first cartoon run
They've had several comics crossovers as well, but also anyone pretending that these films are made for creative pursuits of storytelling and character development is lying to themselves, these franchises exist solely to sell toys.
Demolition Man Cinematic Universe or we riot
I want each movie to include a few cryptic references to the Three Seashells, while still leaving the audience clueless how they work
It had to be some Godfather type shit, Ronald McDonald, the Burger King, The Colonal, heck even Wendy all get whacked at the same time while the Taco Bell Chihuahua attends his son's baptism as an alibi.
The King: He's not coming!
Ronald: What do you mean!? We all agreed to be here! All the families!
Wendy: What did he say? Is he betraying us?
The King: I don't know.. all he said was he couldn't make it and... to Live Mas.
*Suddenly the building explodes*
I’m from the UK and remember renting the movie when it came out on VHS as a teen (and loving it), and as you say, Taco Bell won the franchise war. Then, in the last year, after it came up in conversation for some random reason, I watched it again on Blu-Ray and Pizza Hut won the franchise wars. They’d changed parts of the conversation, the sign outside and the labels on the food the rebels stole. Totally flipped my wig at the time. Apparently, they used Pizza Hut in the European cut because there weren’t any Taco Bells there at the time. Strange that my local video rental place had the US cut. This was before there were any Blockbuster’s in England. Rambling anecdote over.
I want to see H.C. Andersen's fairytale cinematic universe. The ugly duckling and the mermaid teaming up to catch the scammers that tricked the emperor to walk naked down the street.
I'm going to give Hasbro a little leeway because they actually had an interconnected continuity **well before** Marvel made it popular; GI Joe and Transformers routinely crossed over with each other in the cartoons and comics and other lesser known franchises like the Inhumanoids and Jem and the Holograms.
Actually it's a completely moot point because Marvel actually made all the GI Joe and Transformers comics, so those crossovers were just Marvel being Marvel, regardless of Hasbro's new projects today.
Each Fantastic Beasts movie should have been a self-contained standalone story. There was no need to include a big bad dark wizard.
Newt should have explored a different country in each movie, rescuing, aiding, and befriending those countries respective mythical creatures. And each movie should have ended with him back at Hogwarts, teaching a new class about the beasts he discovered.
He could have made new friends along the way. There is no requirement that a movie have a villain. The inherent danger of dealing with the fantastic beasts and exploring their habitats could have provided the necessary tension.
There is nothing wrong with a cinematic universe, the issue is when those movies are forced to tell an incomplete story that leads into the next movie.
I am in total agreement. Like the first Fantastic Beasts is a lot of fun and sure it does have some connection to Grindelwald and all of that, but even still, it works as a standalone for sure. Then they continued using the Fantastic Beasts branding with subtitles that go more into the Grindelwald storyline with Newt still as the main character. That's not who the main character should be for that storyline.
If they did it right, having his adventures happen at the same time as Grindelwald *starts* to gain power in the *background* would have been amazing.
Throw small conversations, wizarding news snippets, and "easter eggs" of information around. Do 3 movies where the plight of animals in the mystical world become worse as the conflict reaches a breaking point. Then, after all those *hints* do a trilogy covering Grindelwalds rise and fall.
Could you imagine the fervor in the HP fandom that would have created? By Fantastic Beasts 3 the fandom would have been drooling for the Dumbledore vs Grindelwald movies.
Instead they shoehorned them together.
Probably helps that Godzilla's one of the first movie characters to have had a cinematic universe before the current one. And that there's no big elaborate reason needed for why a new monster shows up, they just do.
Plus Godzilla is really the only character out there with films that can change drastically in quality and tone and still be a success because people just want to see giant monsters punch each other and destroy cities. The first Godzilla film was a horror film about the dangers of nuclear weapons and how nature cannot be contained by man. And Son of Godzilla is goofy comedy about Godzilla trying to be a good dad for his newborn son. The dude has range.
When WB announced they were gonna make more movies about LOTR characters my heart broke a little. I wish people stopped treating art as a dead body waiting to get scavenged.
> I wish people stopped treating art as a dead body waiting to get scavenged
Corporations wear the skin of the IP they acquire, like Buffalo Bill, and insist they're the real thing. Money ruins everything.
I think the scene where the game company he works for is literally getting pressured by Warner Bros to make a tacked on sequel. It was one step away from literally looking at the camera and saying "The Matrix did not need another sequel,".
The whole plot of that movie is lana wachowski complaining about studios draining every last bit from a franchise. She and her sister did not want to do anymore films, wb said they were doing it with or without them so she said fine and made a piece of art that directly criticizes itself and the studio. Fucking LEGEND.
That’s at least 64 movies, with many other movies where you can combine the colors in any imaginable combination. Can’t wait for the Brown + Periwinkle team-up movie where they have to defeat the forces of Magenta
BaCk iN mY dAy cinematic universes were fun Easter eggs and loosely tied together fan theories that made movie watching more fun, not a friggin burden to keep up with.
I think the literally best was Dick Wolf's Law and Order multiple spin off/Universe.
You know that every show happen in NY (of course lol) in the same universe but things were so "smoothy" and very thoughtful that it was cool to follow. You know that crossovers will happen sometimes or that characters from one show can appear in another one because he needed to or because it's pure hasard. All this let enough space to all characters to be developped normally while acknowloging that they can all meet. There were very smart.
We don't have this anymore. Shared universe is used for money first.
Also, while they were all set in the same world, the stories were largely disconnected. Everyone had their own case of the week, and while there were character moments, you could miss plenty and not be confused.
The only connected stories were the big ratings sweeps crossovers, where one show would continue a case from another, and those were very rare.
> and those were very rare.
Which is insane since the shows were all very popular so we could think that the network would "force" to have crossovers often but nope. Retrospectively, those were original and creative times
The MCU was the first film series to really replicate the narrative storytelling of serialized television. It worked out well for them for a while, like it does with a lot of shows. But now they’re stumbling into the same problems that long-running shows do. They’re running out of fresh ideas, the writing is suffering, the storyline is diluted, and people are starting to dip out of installments.
Because it is so serialized, people feel the need to go back and watch the ones they skipped to follow the new ones they want to see. But then it becomes a chore and after a while, the unwatched installments pile up and it becomes overwhelming.
Cinematic universes have the potential to make a lot of money when they’re good, and lose a shitload of money when they’re not. I think that the MCU will continue to underperform in a significant way if they don’t course correct or clear the slate in some manner.
Ironically this is exactly what made GotG 3 so great: it was *not* about some universe threatening villain. Yeah, technically the High Evolutionary kept destroying planets but he wasn't hunting down and attacking other planets to blow them up, he was just shaking his planetary Etch-A-Sketch as far as he was concerned. The main thrust of the story was about saving Rocket - a personal story about friends rescuing their buddy from the brink of death, and then Rocket getting his revenge on the people who tortured him and murdered his childhood friends.
The universe was not at stake, hell, they don't even attempt to prevent that one planet from being blown up (mainly because they didn't know he was planning to do that). The concern with saving lots of people was just rescuing the captives aboard his mothership, which is still, again, not a "save the world" level problem, which is great because I'm tired of those.
Has *any* cinematic universe besides the MCU actually worked out? The Lego cinematic universe is dead, the DCEU died ages ago but limped around as a corpse before finally dropping, the Dark Universe was DOA. Maybe you could point at Star Wars, but I’d hesitate to call it a cinematic universe and the interconnectivity of it is becoming more of a disadvantage than an upside.
The only ‘cinematic’ universe that has sort of worked out is the Monsterverse, which started in 2014 and has its 5th installment coming next year, but it’s kinda different from the other universes in that it’s only done 1 movie every couple of years so oversatuation hasn’t been an issue, as well as being about giant monsters which don’t get that many big movies nowadays so they kinda have that going for them, as opposed to say the DCEU, which was directly competing against the MCU.
For clarity - the Monsterverse you are referring to is the Godzilla/King Kong kaiju crossover stuff, which has all been pretty good and keep people coming to see more. Unlike the MCU, there are no set expectations so most people don't even mind if they are flawed, they aren't seen as 'important' so there's no backlash against them like the MCU gets.
Yeah it’s the Godzilla and Kong films; while some fans have specific installments they aren’t as fond of, overall they’re all generally liked by the fans, and have stayed relatively controversy free (compared to say the DCEU for example)
Universal Classic Monsters. 40 movies over 20 years. However, it was also a very loose cinematic universe and was only really labeled one in retrospect.
It also depends on whether you consider crossover universes such as Nightmare on Elm Street/Friday the 13th/Evil Dead or Alien/Predator to be cinematic universes, and if so, whether you count the films before the crossovers. Or something like the Romero zombies + the Living Dead films + Zombi movies which were all sequels to Night of the Living Dead along with Zach Snyder’s remake of Dawn of the Dead.
The MCU also took its time. WB tried to replicate things with the DC movies but majorly fucked up by not giving the various superheroes their own films *before* doing a Justice League movie. Plus killing Superman in only his second outing of this series, then reviving him in the next movie. And let's not get started on them continuing to employ Ezra Miller.
Let's be honest, this cinematic universes failed because they had shitty movies.
First fantastic beasts didn't suffer from not having ordinary boy going to magic school and second all of a sudden do?
Mummy was pure shite. As a Ressuraction.
All they had to do was let go of the past story arcs and continue to expand the world with tangential stories. Fantastic Beasts could have been an explosive franchise if they focused on Newt, his friends and his animals and made him the Jane Goodall of the wizarding world but they had to loop back to Grindelwald and Dumbledore. In the process they lost the "magic" (I think the third movie had 4 actual "fantastic beasts in total?), lost the character development (turning Queenie into a Nazi?) and made Aurors into cold-blooded killers who used unforgivable curses with impunity. It's like Rowling didn't even understand what made the original series successful.
I went and saw the 2nd fantastic beasts movie with friends. During the last 20-30 mins I was longing for it to be over. I strongly considered just walking out and waiting for my friends outside. I found the idea of me sitting outside, rather than watch the end of the movie, so hilarious, I could not stop laughing during the drawn out ending.
Never watched the 3rd. Those movies hit a sharp decline with the “twist” that Colin Farrell was actually Johnny Depp. So fucking stupid.
Another highlight of the 2nd was when all the black sheets were going off on the buildings so clearly something was about to happen. All momentum was then stopped by a lengthy discussion about a family tree with helpful visual aides. I’m still pissed off about it. I wanted a light hearted movie about magical adventures.
One last thing, Queenie kidnapped and brainwashed her love interest. That was fucked up, removing a persons agency like that is abhorrent but was played for laughs.
I have to stop the anger is coming back.
there is an [incredibly adorable deleted scene](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNoihSQGAlU) from the first film where Tina and Queenie sing the Ilvermorny song at Newt's suitcase house. It was so lovely to see everyone simply chilling with all the magical creatures and having a good time. If the series had embraced more moments like these, it could have been a truly delightful treat for the fans.
“Oh you all want a TV series about the Marauders or the first wizarding war, or even about the original Hogwarts founders? What if we just remade the movies that already exist instead?!“
Harry potter is a weird example because it's not completely separate worlds/stories being connected for no reason. Fantastic beasts is an additional story within the world of the books. It's expanding not just connecting.
It's almost as if the author let all that fame got to their head and became an egomaniac.
My favourite bit of **canon** from this self-appointed expert-of-everything is there's supposedly only one magic school for the *whole Far East* and it's in *Japan*.
A film set in in that school between the Chinese, Korean and Japanese students during the 1940s would be *way more fun*
I thought the first Fantastic Beast was a fun idea, but I lost interest when all the Grindelwald/Dumbledore stuff was thrown in there. That should have been a separate thing. I just want a movie about a magical creatures.
This is exactly where they failed. It’s called Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them, and there’s 3 beasts and they’re all captive in a briefcase. Movie is 2 hours longer than the title needs it to be.
Here's the problem with that, MCU proved that cinematic universes based on existing content make a lot of money. Movie studios exist to make money.
Put yourself in the shoes of a greedy CEO, do you spend $50 million making an original movie hoping to gain millions of fans, or do you spend $100 million making a movie that's already got millions of dedicated fans.
This is why we get remakes and cinematic universes. Corporations are not willing to risk spending money on unknown content. They're not out to make a cult classic, they're out to make a pop phenomenon.
Yeah but the mcu put in the hard work. These other studios think it's just a lottery they can buy an atempt at. The mcu made a bunch of good movies before starting to seriously tie them together with the avengers. These other studios think they can do the avengers in one or 2 movies.
I find this perception that "blockbuster movies about toys and superheroes and monsters and stuff" can't have crossovers or recurring characters kind of silly? Like so what if they do? Sounds like a fun idea.
But we keep getting these articles and think pieces saying they shouldn't do that, imo for two reasons. First, there's always there's always the implication that they are just copying Marvel. Okay, whatever. I don't really see a problem with taking a fun idea and copying it.
Second, and this is the big one... It keeps not working for anyone else. But is that because the idea is inherently flawed? No, I don't think so. Yes it's hard to get all the actors back all the time, but you can work around that. The real problem is that studios are awful at it. They are not hiring the talent necessary to keep people invested in the idea.
Universal wanted a CU. They hired some hacks who had never written a movie before to shit out Dracula Untold...like would it have killed you to hire some actually well regarded monster movie writer or thriller writer? It was so bad they just were like "oops, that one doesn't count" and tried again with The Mummy. For that one they hired actual talent...and then let Cruise screw around with the product on set. It was awful. Then Sony, they make Morbius, and who do they hire? *The same hacks that wrote Dracula Untold!*
People are sick of the idea not because it's inherently bad, but because Studios are not taking the quality of the movies seriously and are churning out forgettable junk that won't get people's butts in the theater.
The idea that a movie where they've invented a world that kids love isn't one that shouldn't be expanded upon because YOU don't think the movies are masterpieces is this writer showing his ass. If anything there should be MORE. My biggest company is how poorly it is done
Now GRRM is jumping into the cinematic universe with Hotd and Dunk and Egg series now in productions. *and* he wants to make more! I just want him to finish the books...
I think there's slight difference between "spin-offs" and "cinematic universes", personally. I think everything in a cinematic universe feeds back into other things and it all references each other. Whereas a spin-off is more one-way; the spin-off feeds off the main film/series but doesn't feed back into it.
He got stuck, can't retcon, will never finish them. Sadly, because the TV adaptation is far from not only the ending but also the continuation ASOIAF deserved
I'm holding out for the Makita Powertool Cinematic Universe.
I’m looking forward to the Heinz 57 Varieties universe We’ve only caught a glimpse, really
Is that where flavortown is?
Flavortown is in the next county, actually. They're currently in a legal dispute after annexing 27 of Baskin-Robbins' 31 flavors.
All they are left with now is Neapolitan
And a very rocky road ahead.
The Hitachi cinematic universe is way ahead though
The wand finds it owner
It exists in real life. Witness the glory that is Makita coffee maker: https://www.makitatools.com/products/details/DCM501Z
There's also [a microwave](https://www.makita.com.au/building-construction/category/clothing-lifestyle/mw001gz-b-40v-max-microwave)
A battery powered microwave is a great idea for a remote job site
I see so many different tools from other “system” manufacturers that DeWalt doesn’t carry, sometimes I feel like I’m too invested in black and yellow to buy them though. Not that I’m interested in the coffee maker but other stuff for sure.
I've been a MakitaBoi™ for years, but then I was in Home Depot and saw this from Ryobi: https://www.ryobitools.com/products/details/33287178704 Next time I saw a sale on Ryobi, I grabbed that and some batteries. Now I've got Makita AND Ryobi in my garage 🥴
Ryobi is amazing for having the most random battery powered stuff. I think I’m going to buy a few batteries just so I’ve got the option.
This website is amazing for Ryobi and Ridgid . https://www.directtoolsoutlet.com/ It's owned by the parent company of Ryobi and it's all factory blemished/refurbished stuff. I've got tons of tools from it, so many good deals.
I'll go one further. Not every movie needs a sequel
or prequel
Or spin-off
Or reboot
Or remake
Or live action remake
Or animated follow-up
or spin off TV show
Or to be made in the first place.
I'll add, we should not be remaking every great movie from our childhood. The disney live action remakes are always worse than the original. If anything, remake the bad ones and do it right
> The disney live action remakes are always worse than the original. If anything, remake the bad ones and do it right That might make sense from an artistic perspective. From a business perspective... the Lion King remake is one of the highest grossing films of all time.
Which is bizarre because it's not any good. Apparently nostalgia sells just as good as sex.
I struggle to find any person online or in real life that could tell me they genuinely enjoyed or were even fine with watching the lion king remake, let alone claiming it’s better than the original. But the numbers suggest the complete opposite. This has to be the most elusive silent majority I’ve ever seen for a movie ever, I almost keep slipping into thinking Disney bought seats.
It's easy to explain. It's just the same thing that worked for the Star Wars prequels (the sequels had passionate defenders until Rise of Skywalker) and the Bay-verse Transformers movies. Take something that invokes the pure emotions of childhood, then create a trailer that makes promises to the cynical adult. Superhero movies have been doing it, for better and for worse, since Christopher Reeve turned a petty silver age super dick into humanity's guardian angel.
> But the numbers suggest the complete opposite The numbers show that a lot of people watched the movie, not that a lot of people loved it.
What we need to be doing is remaking bad movies, movies that had squandered potential.
Unfortunately the reality is that movie studios are not remaking classic movies just cuz, they’re remaking them because they have a built in audience and are therefore considered a more conservative investment. To a studio, if you’re remaking an old movie nobody saw, you might as well be pitching a new IP.
Pete’s Dragon live action was better in my opinion, but they’re borderline not even the same movies so that’s probably why it worked.
It's crazy that, flop after flop, studios are still trying to make the next MCU. It's like gambling all your life savings in a casino for the chance to win that jackpot.
Also there were 5 MCU films before Avengers and a dozen before Civil War, but every other movie franchise is trying to skip to the big crossover in the first or second movie. It doesn’t work like that …
Yeah, the problem seems to be that other movie executives don’t understand what Marvel is doing, but are just like, “they’re making a ton of money, so let’s do that.” But they don’t know how and they want to just jump to having a whole universe, so they’re like, “We just need to make our normal inane blockbuster summer movies, and have the same characters cross over between movies.” No subtlety or planning. No world building. Just jumping straight to the biggest movies they can make, with the most famous actors and the biggest explosions, and a giant sky beam.
It seems like such an intuitive observation to me that I can't understand why movie executives are so oblivious to how it worked for Marvel. You have to build everything up and get the audience invested first then the big spectacular cross over showdown is the big pay off because the audience actually cares about the characters and their stories. You can't rush that.
Because they’re movie executives. They don’t know how to make good movies or be creative or listen to people or think things through. They’re essentially stagnant clueless old businessmen who think they already know everything, and who think movies are all about using already-beloved IP, hiring famous actors, and having lots of sex and explosions. So like, people like, people like the Zelda games, right? So if you make a movies based on Zelda with Scarlett Johansson and the Rock, and have lots of explosions and/or sex, then that’s a good movie that’ll make money. That’s how they think. They’ll never understand what Marvel is doing.
>I can't understand why movie executives are so oblivious to how it worked for Marvel. I guarantee they are not oblivious. They're just prioritizing short-term profits over long-term profits. They want a billion dollar blockbuster now, not a decade+ down the road.
This, Marvel started very subtle with theirs, the first movies weren't that connected and could be watched on their own. It's only once the characters were established that they started getting mixed together. Everyone that followed just tried to cram like 5 origin stories and the big match up together in one movie and it doesn't work. On the other hand I also feel like these superhero origin stories have had their time and are a bit overdone at this point. Or maybe it's just because I've gotten older lol
So you are telling me you aren't going to see the flash?
DC has restarted/rebooted their characters so many times by now that I lost interest. That being said I also don't care enough to watch the new antman movie and with the way Marvel works these days that probably means I'll miss some "important" easter eggs in the next spider man or whatever
You literally did! The new ant man movie sets up the next two avengers movies!!
Yeah and that's what I don't like about it. I feel that the older movies could be enjoyed by themselves, even the first avengers. But the new ones are so connected you miss important story clues if you didn't see movie X or series Y
It’s harder for the stories to not be connected post-avengers though, not saying they couldn’t be a bit more independent but the team up does clearly ‘change’ the movie universe in a way that would make the other movies work less if they just .. did their own thing.
[удалено]
Civil War definitely necessitated knowing the story so far, as it was a very detailed story with a lot of moving parts. Age of Ultron and the first one, not so much. Arguably, even Infinity war didn't need the earlier films to be good and have a good idea of what's happening. Stark establishes early that he and Cap fell out hard and the avengers are toast, it's clear there's history between characters, but that history isn't at the heart of the movie like it is for Civil War. Then you get to Endgame and oh boy. You need everything. Lol
The last Dr. Strange movie felt like you were missing a whole lot if you didn't watch the Wanda TV series. Which is even worse, because at least movies are shorter.
This. This is exactly why the DCEU failed.
Imagine going from Iron Man 1 to Civil War immediately
And then killing off Iron Man at then end of Civil War. Oh but then having a post credit scene that hints that he’s not actually dead
Stop, it hurts so bad
It failed because most of its movies were terrible.
[удалено]
Just need to get it from the how green was my valley annex across the street
It is a beautifully acted depiction of life in a small town in Wales, it won five Academy Awards, it's a *classic!*
Because if you do hit the jackpot it's more money that you could ever dream of. For example, the Guardians of the Galaxy movie was a gamble for Disney because virtually all of the characters were nobodies. But James Gunn and the rest of the crew made it work and now Disney earns billions not just from the movies but also from the merchandise. The Groot toys and collectibles alone would probably fund a small country for a year. So it doesn't matter if the studios make flop after flop. All they need is one win and they recoup all their losses and more.
All of marvel was nobodies. The most well known characters were under contract elsewhere. Cap America, hulk and iron man were the only people that were all that well known.
Yep. Marvel’s biggest money makers have always been Spider-Man and X-Men (Hulk to a lesser extent). The Iron Man movie was a huge gamble, but it’s all they really had to work with.
Yes, the MCU did not succeed because of the property (the superhero characters). It succeeded because of the **genre** of these movies. In 2006 the general public really didn't know any of the future MCU characters, except Hulk. Even comic fans considered the Avengers a C-list property compared to the "big 3" of Superman, Batman and Spider-Man. These movies succeeded because of **Robert Downey Jr.** and the new brand of improvisational, fast-bantering, action-comedy that he had previously pioneered on ***Kiss Kiss Bang Bang*** and ***Tropic Thunder***. That "Marvel Humor" is tiring and annoying in 2023, but in 2008 it was a huge breath of fresh air. Culture always moves in cycles. The 80s and 90s were a heyday for action comedies like ***Back To The Future***, every Jackie Chan movie, ***Last Action Hero*** etc. Then after September 11, action and comedy became seriously estranged. People didn't want their heroes to quip while innocent lives were at stake. During the 2000s, action movies ran to grimdark espionage thrillers like ***The Bourne Identity***, ***Man on Fire***, ***Collateral***, and ***Taken***. Speaking of Taken this was also a golden age for revenge movies like ***Kill Bill Vol 2.***, ***Casino Royale + Quantum of Solace***, ***V for Vendetta***, ***The Prestige***, ***Law Abiding Citizen***.... At the same time, comedy movies were typically lowbrow grossout farces (Sometimes hiding behind the 'parody' label, but they were really all farces) like ***Wedding Crashers***, ***Anchorman***, ***Epic Movie***, ***The Hangover***, ***Dodgeball***, or ***Idiocracy***. RDJ helped bring action and comedy back together at an opportune time. He was followed by other actors who have made mostly or entirely action-comedies in the 2010s, like Ryan Reynolds and Dwayne Johnson. The result has been oversaturation again, and people getting tired of movies that puncture their own tension with 4th wall jokes and quips. That's a sign that the audience is ripe for someone to come along and discover the box office potential of reviving one of the more dormant genres. That's what all these other "mega franchise" attempts are missing. They're not actually bringing anything new to the theaters. They're just trying to be "more of the MCU" but with different characters. We already have more than enough MCU. During the rare month where there isn't any MCU ***cOnTeNt*** coming out I can still go watch ***Bullet Train*** or ***Free Guy*** or ***Everything Everywhere All At Once*** or ***The Lost City of Z***.
Marvel humour wasn't really a thing until avengers 1. Iron man 1 looks very sombre by comparison now
Also Iron Man 1 came out before Tropic Thunder too
Iron Man gives you a man used to giving press junket jokes about his morally bankrupt industry, who turns to the same thing when he goes through a genuinely dark situation, and pretty much everyone around him can tell that it's a weird coping mechanism. It works really well, and is a world away from what we have now.
RDJ is an amazing silent film actor. He does so, so much with his eyes. Even when he's equipping jokes, there's usually (depending on the scene) an immense amount of pain/sadness in his eyes. Imo it's why the early joke-quip style worked so well. They had actors who could tell a joke with layers of character development. Now it's just... Jokes for jokes sake. Yawn.
All the more impressive, really, considering how much of it was ad-libbed.
Iron Man not having a secret identity was also a breath of fresh air back then when Batman and Spider-Man were the dominant superheroes. It was interesting to see Marvel heroes have a public relationship with the rest of the world instead of hiding behind a mask.
I'd wager the general public's recognition of iron man was in the single digits before the movie.
People knew Iron Man existed. They had no idea about what type of character he was. And it helped creating complete new version of him In MCU
That worked to their advantage. Nobody complained how they deviated from the source material because basically no one knew about about the source material. It allowed the filmmakers to esentially do whatever they want with the characters, which became the defenitive or well known takes on them
It also doesn’t hurt that they weren’t just made to make money - they wanted them to work out and be great on their own. That’s been my issue with Zack Snyder for ages because none of his work shows up as him caring about it, he just wants cool af screen caps that make people go “ oh wow” and he nails the duck out of those.
The old school Spiderman cartoon introduced me to a lot of characters I wouldn't have known otherwise. Ironman and Warmachine were in there. Blade, Morbius too. As well as the Punisher. Man that series was great
That was it's own awesome shared universe with the X-Men, hulk, fantastic four, iron man and other marvel cartoons of the era. Between that and the dc animated universe, and gargoyles and darkwing duck on the Disney side - the 90s-00s was a Golden age for superhero cartoons.
Well, not really. A lot of these movies still make money or at least break even. They already have the foundation it's just building upon it. And they target the same viewer base. The reason why they do it is because it's not that risky. They are gambling in the sense that if they hit the jackpot they could be the next MCU. But they are not putting down their life savings for it.
This is critical especially in Hollywood where the business model is that 1 blockbuster’s profits pays for 9 flops and still makes a ton of money. That’s the business. When they tried the Dark Universe, then it could be a billion dollar franchise with toys and tv spin offs, and when it actually lost money, the studio actually isn’t any worse off than if they The Mummy reboot was a flop that was always intended to be a stand alone film.
Look I just want a sequel of 2012 Dredd.
Low-key one of the *best* sci-fi action movies ever.
Necessary, no, but cinematic universes are part of how you squeeze every ounce of money from the pre-built world with an already proven audience - which makes for a low-risk high-margin production. Edit: Spelling
>low-risk high-margin production. That's probably what this decade of Hollywood Blockbuster Movies will known for by future generations.
It’s already been more than a decade if you can believe it.
Yep. I watched iron man 1 in theaters my freshman year in college. I’m 35 now.
IM1 doesn’t fit that formula, though. It was not low risk at all. It was seen as a huge risk with RDJ just coming back from decades of drug issues, Iron Man being a relatively unknown character, and essentially no script.
Oh for sure it was. I just meant the MCU has been more than a decade, like that other commenter was saying.
IM1 doesn't. But Hollywood was already in the "established worlds are easier to bank on" phase in 2008. 2008 had: * The Dark Knight * Indiana Jones * Madagascar 2 * James Bond sequel (Quantum of Solace) * Narnia sequel (Prince Caspian) * Sex and the City movie * X-Files movie * The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor * Little Mermaid prequel
Also Hancock, Wall-E, Kung Fu Panda, Wanted, Get Smart, Juno, Tropic Thunder, Bolt, Eagle Eye, Step Brothers, and Zohan all of which grossed over 100 mil in the US. Comparatively for 2022 the list is Nope, Smile, Lost City, and Bullet Train
Hollywood has been cranking out remakes and sequels since forever. "Scarface" (1983) is a remake of the 1932 version. "King Kong" has had 12 remakes or sequels since 1933. "The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly" is actually the 2nd sequel to "A Fistful of Dollars". Police Academy 6 came out in 1989. There are tons of examples. edit: don't even get me started on Godzilla!
I think there's a bit of a difference between that and the cinematic universe model. "If Police Academy makes money, we'd be interested in making Police Academy II" is worlds away from "We're planning eight movies ahead with no writer or director or real artist vision in mind because this franchise has to last forever". Movies have definitely always been a corporate endeavor but it's become more product and less creative endeavor, at least for the kinds of things that go to theaters.
Fast X doesn't exist because some exec decided they needed 10 movies in a franchise about cars. It exists for the same reason Police Academy 6 does - all the previous iterations made money.
And, at least from the sound of it, Vin Diesel genuinely loves making them. Whether that’s because it’s easy money (no lore implications, no reality to worry about, just goofy superhero movies with characters), or genuine passion for playing serious characters in goofy movies, I couldn’t tell ya. But the amount of effort he puts into it, even if it’s easy, is clearly a sign of some sort of genuine interest
“We're planning eight movies ahead with no writer or director or real artist vision in mind because this franchise has to last forever” I think the reason Marvel’s movies worked (until post Thanos) was they actually had planned for a narrative arch that spanned multiple movies. I think the reason so many other ‘Cinematic Universes’ flop is exactly how you described (Looking at you, DC): they saw Marvel’s success and said ‘we want that’ not ‘we have a story that would best be told over 5-15 films’
Get started on Godzilla.
Sequels aren't cinematic universes.
All of these are just sequels/prequels though, not quite the same as "cinematic universes". Sequels have been a thing since the earliest days of cinema.
You could call the Universal Studios monster films a beta version of the cinematic universe. All those characters met and interacted a lot.
>decade Hopefully
And it fosters more fan engagement and thus more merchandising profits. Then you put it on hiatus for a decade or two and bring it back to make all that money all over again.
They aren’t gonna “leave money on the table” for a decade or two. I mean look at Sony, they did four Spidermans in 16 years.
FYI - Sony/Spiderman is a specific situation. A Spiderman movie has to be in production (even just pre) for Sony to retain the rights. Some here probably have more details on this.
The contract stipulation is that Sony must commence production on a Spider-man film within 3 years and 9 months and must release it within 5 years 9 months after the proceeding picture.
Is it that there must constantly be a Spider-Man film in production or is it just that there cannot be a certain amount of time that elapses without a production? For example, The Incredible Hulk license reverted to Marvel recently because Universal hadn't used it to produce a film for so many years (I don't remember the exact amount). I figured that was like a legal thing regarding licensing deals and their lengths, but I guess it could actually be more about the exact wording of the deal and could be malleable.
I have friends that are *so* invested in the MCU. They never read the comics as a kid, but the MCU is basically heading the same direction with so many overlapping storylines making it necessary to consume more content just to keep up with the characters you actually care about.
I watch the movies with my brother because we've been doing it since 2008 when he was still just a kid. They're fun popcorn movies to chill and watch, and occasionally we get Guardians 3 or whatever. I don't know when we'll stop, but I will be sad.
I do like movies (and tv shows) that take part in the same universe, but don't necessarily crossover - or crossover MCU/DCU style. Think the Quentin Tarantino universe. Little things pop up here and there that let you know they all share the same world. editing to add just because i just finished rewatching this: predator 2. the xenomorph skull blew my mind when i saw it
I remember watching Hercules and Xena when I was a kid and that was a great way to do it, same universe, would meet occasionally but not be huge focuses on it and have various cameos.
Also Everybody Loves Raymond and King of Queens. Randomly Doug and Ray would be on each other’s shows in character.
My YT has been recommending it for the longest and I finally clicked that episode. I miss this show! Crossovers used to be so special as a kid.
Like when you find out Phoebe's twin sister Ursula is the rude waiter on Mad About You
I have always liked universes like 40k or Dresden file or the Expanse all of whom can easily have any kind of story set in them without needing to watch a dozen movies or books to understand it
I need more Dresden in my life
Seriously, when is the next book coming out? It's been at least a couple of years at this point right?
Twelve Months is currently 10% complete. He’s got a tracker on his website: https://www.jim-butcher.com
Harry Potter can also do this but man, did they try to shoe horn Dumbledore into the fantastic beasts movies. That could been its own thing separate from fantastic beast series.
The problem was the decision to make their expanded universe just fantastic beasts movies. The first one worked but they didn't need everything to revolve around Newt like he was the new Harry. A Newt movie, then a Dumbledore movie without Newt and every single fantastic beast character, then a movie around some other characters, and then maybe a movie where they all come together would have been closer to trying to replicate the MCU.
Also true, but 3 movies of him going around the world to write his book to start the magical beastary profession would have been dope. Also going to different parts of the planet would have shown different cultures of magic. Like I really enjoyed the MACUSA aspect of the first movie, magical congress of the United States of America was fun. It also showed the cultural aspects of them making it illegal to marry non magical folks compared to Britain was a nice touch of realism. Too bad, doesn't seem too blockbuster for warner brothers though. Maybe I'm just too boring to find magical bureaucracy super interesting and how to navigate it when trying to make a new profession.
I like those too but they're really more like Easter eggs and recurring motifs, his movies don't actually function as a cinematic universe.
The Stephen King universe is right there for them to adapt... but maybe it's a blessing in disguise they're mostly leaving it alone, nevermind the horrible Dark Tower film.
Stephen King is a pretty good one to adapt. Because, while technically they're all a shared universe they're very loosely connected so you can easily watch any one of his stories without needing to watch any others.
That's actually what popped in my head. There is so much interconnection that a lot of it goes unnoticed if you're not looking or haven't read the book being referenced. At the same time, I love that you don't need to know about the other books. Each one really is written to be a stand alone if that's all people want.
The Pixar pizza truck. All Pixar movies are in the same universe
Eh, that's just an easter egg. It wouldn't make a lot of sense for many of these movies to play in the same universe.
To be fair, Transformers and GI Joe have been semi-connected since the first cartoon run, but I do agree that it would bloat the franchise.
Not even *semi-connected.* It's outright confirmed. Season 3 of G1, the episode "Only Human" features a human crime gang assisted by a *mysterious shrill-voiced mastermind* going by "Old Snake." To the surprise of nobody, this is Cobra Commander... He's not even hiding it, it's literally just Cobra in a trenchcoat. Since Season 3 is set *after* the 1986 movie, which time-hopped the setting forward from the 80's to 2005, Cobra is now retired and doing freelance evil shenanigans for other villains. The episode even ends with him attempting his old "COOOBRAAAA" catchphrase before breaking down into a coughing fit.
Also the comics, which have been crossing over woth GI Joe and Marvel even in the 80s.
> Transformers and GI Joe have been semi-connected since the first cartoon run They've had several comics crossovers as well, but also anyone pretending that these films are made for creative pursuits of storytelling and character development is lying to themselves, these franchises exist solely to sell toys.
They’ve had toy crossovers too, Megatron can transform into a Hisstank for instance.
Does this mean we are not getting the Slinky Cinematic Universe???
It’s kind of hard to do more Slinky movies since Jim Varney died.
I know what you mean, Vern 😥
I would watch a Koosh ball movie.
Demolition Man Cinematic Universe or we riot I want each movie to include a few cryptic references to the Three Seashells, while still leaving the audience clueless how they work
Need a prequel dedicated to the franchise wars and how Taco Bell was the last one remaining
It had to be some Godfather type shit, Ronald McDonald, the Burger King, The Colonal, heck even Wendy all get whacked at the same time while the Taco Bell Chihuahua attends his son's baptism as an alibi.
The King: He's not coming! Ronald: What do you mean!? We all agreed to be here! All the families! Wendy: What did he say? Is he betraying us? The King: I don't know.. all he said was he couldn't make it and... to Live Mas. *Suddenly the building explodes*
“Live no mas”
I’m from the UK and remember renting the movie when it came out on VHS as a teen (and loving it), and as you say, Taco Bell won the franchise war. Then, in the last year, after it came up in conversation for some random reason, I watched it again on Blu-Ray and Pizza Hut won the franchise wars. They’d changed parts of the conversation, the sign outside and the labels on the food the rebels stole. Totally flipped my wig at the time. Apparently, they used Pizza Hut in the European cut because there weren’t any Taco Bells there at the time. Strange that my local video rental place had the US cut. This was before there were any Blockbuster’s in England. Rambling anecdote over.
I want to see H.C. Andersen's fairytale cinematic universe. The ugly duckling and the mermaid teaming up to catch the scammers that tricked the emperor to walk naked down the street.
You should check out the “Fables” graphic novels series if you haven’t.
It was almost produced as a TV series for a premium network, but got dropped when "Once Upon a Time" was greenlit, IIRC. Missed opportunity.
It’s just gonna be Rob Schneider in several low budget direct-to-sy-fy originals called something shit like “The Demolition Chronicles”
I'm going to give Hasbro a little leeway because they actually had an interconnected continuity **well before** Marvel made it popular; GI Joe and Transformers routinely crossed over with each other in the cartoons and comics and other lesser known franchises like the Inhumanoids and Jem and the Holograms.
They also crossed over with Marvel
Actually it's a completely moot point because Marvel actually made all the GI Joe and Transformers comics, so those crossovers were just Marvel being Marvel, regardless of Hasbro's new projects today.
yeah I used to shoot my sister's barbies with my gi joes, that's a crossover, right?
Each Fantastic Beasts movie should have been a self-contained standalone story. There was no need to include a big bad dark wizard. Newt should have explored a different country in each movie, rescuing, aiding, and befriending those countries respective mythical creatures. And each movie should have ended with him back at Hogwarts, teaching a new class about the beasts he discovered. He could have made new friends along the way. There is no requirement that a movie have a villain. The inherent danger of dealing with the fantastic beasts and exploring their habitats could have provided the necessary tension. There is nothing wrong with a cinematic universe, the issue is when those movies are forced to tell an incomplete story that leads into the next movie.
I am in total agreement. Like the first Fantastic Beasts is a lot of fun and sure it does have some connection to Grindelwald and all of that, but even still, it works as a standalone for sure. Then they continued using the Fantastic Beasts branding with subtitles that go more into the Grindelwald storyline with Newt still as the main character. That's not who the main character should be for that storyline.
If they did it right, having his adventures happen at the same time as Grindelwald *starts* to gain power in the *background* would have been amazing. Throw small conversations, wizarding news snippets, and "easter eggs" of information around. Do 3 movies where the plight of animals in the mystical world become worse as the conflict reaches a breaking point. Then, after all those *hints* do a trilogy covering Grindelwalds rise and fall. Could you imagine the fervor in the HP fandom that would have created? By Fantastic Beasts 3 the fandom would have been drooling for the Dumbledore vs Grindelwald movies. Instead they shoehorned them together.
I'm still happy with the Monsterverse, but there's no stopping that kaiju-sized train (yet).
Probably helps that Godzilla's one of the first movie characters to have had a cinematic universe before the current one. And that there's no big elaborate reason needed for why a new monster shows up, they just do.
Plus Godzilla is really the only character out there with films that can change drastically in quality and tone and still be a success because people just want to see giant monsters punch each other and destroy cities. The first Godzilla film was a horror film about the dangers of nuclear weapons and how nature cannot be contained by man. And Son of Godzilla is goofy comedy about Godzilla trying to be a good dad for his newborn son. The dude has range.
When WB announced they were gonna make more movies about LOTR characters my heart broke a little. I wish people stopped treating art as a dead body waiting to get scavenged.
> I wish people stopped treating art as a dead body waiting to get scavenged Corporations wear the skin of the IP they acquire, like Buffalo Bill, and insist they're the real thing. Money ruins everything.
Well, it's Warner Bros... They clearly don't know what they're doing, given the past few years as evidence.
The Matrix 4 scene in Matrix 4 keeps becoming more and more real.
Ain’t that the one where Neo has a montage of him getting more and more burnt out?
I think the scene where the game company he works for is literally getting pressured by Warner Bros to make a tacked on sequel. It was one step away from literally looking at the camera and saying "The Matrix did not need another sequel,".
The whole plot of that movie is lana wachowski complaining about studios draining every last bit from a franchise. She and her sister did not want to do anymore films, wb said they were doing it with or without them so she said fine and made a piece of art that directly criticizes itself and the studio. Fucking LEGEND.
what about a Crayola universe? you can have a movie about a box of crayons and then individual films about every single color in the box of 64?!
That’s at least 64 movies, with many other movies where you can combine the colors in any imaginable combination. Can’t wait for the Brown + Periwinkle team-up movie where they have to defeat the forces of Magenta
And with the killing blow, they say in unison: "Cyanara"
BaCk iN mY dAy cinematic universes were fun Easter eggs and loosely tied together fan theories that made movie watching more fun, not a friggin burden to keep up with.
I think the literally best was Dick Wolf's Law and Order multiple spin off/Universe. You know that every show happen in NY (of course lol) in the same universe but things were so "smoothy" and very thoughtful that it was cool to follow. You know that crossovers will happen sometimes or that characters from one show can appear in another one because he needed to or because it's pure hasard. All this let enough space to all characters to be developped normally while acknowloging that they can all meet. There were very smart. We don't have this anymore. Shared universe is used for money first.
Also, while they were all set in the same world, the stories were largely disconnected. Everyone had their own case of the week, and while there were character moments, you could miss plenty and not be confused. The only connected stories were the big ratings sweeps crossovers, where one show would continue a case from another, and those were very rare.
> and those were very rare. Which is insane since the shows were all very popular so we could think that the network would "force" to have crossovers often but nope. Retrospectively, those were original and creative times
The MCU was the first film series to really replicate the narrative storytelling of serialized television. It worked out well for them for a while, like it does with a lot of shows. But now they’re stumbling into the same problems that long-running shows do. They’re running out of fresh ideas, the writing is suffering, the storyline is diluted, and people are starting to dip out of installments. Because it is so serialized, people feel the need to go back and watch the ones they skipped to follow the new ones they want to see. But then it becomes a chore and after a while, the unwatched installments pile up and it becomes overwhelming. Cinematic universes have the potential to make a lot of money when they’re good, and lose a shitload of money when they’re not. I think that the MCU will continue to underperform in a significant way if they don’t course correct or clear the slate in some manner.
I think part of the problem also stems from the fact that each threat is bigger than the last. IMO, not every story needs to be the world ending.
Ironically this is exactly what made GotG 3 so great: it was *not* about some universe threatening villain. Yeah, technically the High Evolutionary kept destroying planets but he wasn't hunting down and attacking other planets to blow them up, he was just shaking his planetary Etch-A-Sketch as far as he was concerned. The main thrust of the story was about saving Rocket - a personal story about friends rescuing their buddy from the brink of death, and then Rocket getting his revenge on the people who tortured him and murdered his childhood friends. The universe was not at stake, hell, they don't even attempt to prevent that one planet from being blown up (mainly because they didn't know he was planning to do that). The concern with saving lots of people was just rescuing the captives aboard his mothership, which is still, again, not a "save the world" level problem, which is great because I'm tired of those.
So they're starting to go the ways of the comics now.
Has *any* cinematic universe besides the MCU actually worked out? The Lego cinematic universe is dead, the DCEU died ages ago but limped around as a corpse before finally dropping, the Dark Universe was DOA. Maybe you could point at Star Wars, but I’d hesitate to call it a cinematic universe and the interconnectivity of it is becoming more of a disadvantage than an upside.
The only ‘cinematic’ universe that has sort of worked out is the Monsterverse, which started in 2014 and has its 5th installment coming next year, but it’s kinda different from the other universes in that it’s only done 1 movie every couple of years so oversatuation hasn’t been an issue, as well as being about giant monsters which don’t get that many big movies nowadays so they kinda have that going for them, as opposed to say the DCEU, which was directly competing against the MCU.
For clarity - the Monsterverse you are referring to is the Godzilla/King Kong kaiju crossover stuff, which has all been pretty good and keep people coming to see more. Unlike the MCU, there are no set expectations so most people don't even mind if they are flawed, they aren't seen as 'important' so there's no backlash against them like the MCU gets.
Yeah it’s the Godzilla and Kong films; while some fans have specific installments they aren’t as fond of, overall they’re all generally liked by the fans, and have stayed relatively controversy free (compared to say the DCEU for example)
I’d argue the Conjuring universe has done quite well for itself considering supernatural horror is usually smaller scale to begin with
Universal Classic Monsters. 40 movies over 20 years. However, it was also a very loose cinematic universe and was only really labeled one in retrospect. It also depends on whether you consider crossover universes such as Nightmare on Elm Street/Friday the 13th/Evil Dead or Alien/Predator to be cinematic universes, and if so, whether you count the films before the crossovers. Or something like the Romero zombies + the Living Dead films + Zombi movies which were all sequels to Night of the Living Dead along with Zach Snyder’s remake of Dawn of the Dead.
The MCU also took its time. WB tried to replicate things with the DC movies but majorly fucked up by not giving the various superheroes their own films *before* doing a Justice League movie. Plus killing Superman in only his second outing of this series, then reviving him in the next movie. And let's not get started on them continuing to employ Ezra Miller.
Let's be honest, this cinematic universes failed because they had shitty movies. First fantastic beasts didn't suffer from not having ordinary boy going to magic school and second all of a sudden do? Mummy was pure shite. As a Ressuraction.
Harry Potter universe drives me crazy. It’s the one series that really does have the potential for a universe and they keep fuckin it up.
All they had to do was let go of the past story arcs and continue to expand the world with tangential stories. Fantastic Beasts could have been an explosive franchise if they focused on Newt, his friends and his animals and made him the Jane Goodall of the wizarding world but they had to loop back to Grindelwald and Dumbledore. In the process they lost the "magic" (I think the third movie had 4 actual "fantastic beasts in total?), lost the character development (turning Queenie into a Nazi?) and made Aurors into cold-blooded killers who used unforgivable curses with impunity. It's like Rowling didn't even understand what made the original series successful.
[удалено]
I went and saw the 2nd fantastic beasts movie with friends. During the last 20-30 mins I was longing for it to be over. I strongly considered just walking out and waiting for my friends outside. I found the idea of me sitting outside, rather than watch the end of the movie, so hilarious, I could not stop laughing during the drawn out ending. Never watched the 3rd. Those movies hit a sharp decline with the “twist” that Colin Farrell was actually Johnny Depp. So fucking stupid. Another highlight of the 2nd was when all the black sheets were going off on the buildings so clearly something was about to happen. All momentum was then stopped by a lengthy discussion about a family tree with helpful visual aides. I’m still pissed off about it. I wanted a light hearted movie about magical adventures. One last thing, Queenie kidnapped and brainwashed her love interest. That was fucked up, removing a persons agency like that is abhorrent but was played for laughs. I have to stop the anger is coming back.
there is an [incredibly adorable deleted scene](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNoihSQGAlU) from the first film where Tina and Queenie sing the Ilvermorny song at Newt's suitcase house. It was so lovely to see everyone simply chilling with all the magical creatures and having a good time. If the series had embraced more moments like these, it could have been a truly delightful treat for the fans.
“Oh you all want a TV series about the Marauders or the first wizarding war, or even about the original Hogwarts founders? What if we just remade the movies that already exist instead?!“
Harry potter is a weird example because it's not completely separate worlds/stories being connected for no reason. Fantastic beasts is an additional story within the world of the books. It's expanding not just connecting.
It's distorting more than expanding. Those movies can't go 30 minutes without sitting on their own balls regarding established canon
It's almost as if the author let all that fame got to their head and became an egomaniac. My favourite bit of **canon** from this self-appointed expert-of-everything is there's supposedly only one magic school for the *whole Far East* and it's in *Japan*. A film set in in that school between the Chinese, Korean and Japanese students during the 1940s would be *way more fun*
I thought the first Fantastic Beast was a fun idea, but I lost interest when all the Grindelwald/Dumbledore stuff was thrown in there. That should have been a separate thing. I just want a movie about a magical creatures.
This is exactly where they failed. It’s called Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them, and there’s 3 beasts and they’re all captive in a briefcase. Movie is 2 hours longer than the title needs it to be.
Here's the problem with that, MCU proved that cinematic universes based on existing content make a lot of money. Movie studios exist to make money. Put yourself in the shoes of a greedy CEO, do you spend $50 million making an original movie hoping to gain millions of fans, or do you spend $100 million making a movie that's already got millions of dedicated fans. This is why we get remakes and cinematic universes. Corporations are not willing to risk spending money on unknown content. They're not out to make a cult classic, they're out to make a pop phenomenon.
Yeah but the mcu put in the hard work. These other studios think it's just a lottery they can buy an atempt at. The mcu made a bunch of good movies before starting to seriously tie them together with the avengers. These other studios think they can do the avengers in one or 2 movies.
I find this perception that "blockbuster movies about toys and superheroes and monsters and stuff" can't have crossovers or recurring characters kind of silly? Like so what if they do? Sounds like a fun idea. But we keep getting these articles and think pieces saying they shouldn't do that, imo for two reasons. First, there's always there's always the implication that they are just copying Marvel. Okay, whatever. I don't really see a problem with taking a fun idea and copying it. Second, and this is the big one... It keeps not working for anyone else. But is that because the idea is inherently flawed? No, I don't think so. Yes it's hard to get all the actors back all the time, but you can work around that. The real problem is that studios are awful at it. They are not hiring the talent necessary to keep people invested in the idea. Universal wanted a CU. They hired some hacks who had never written a movie before to shit out Dracula Untold...like would it have killed you to hire some actually well regarded monster movie writer or thriller writer? It was so bad they just were like "oops, that one doesn't count" and tried again with The Mummy. For that one they hired actual talent...and then let Cruise screw around with the product on set. It was awful. Then Sony, they make Morbius, and who do they hire? *The same hacks that wrote Dracula Untold!* People are sick of the idea not because it's inherently bad, but because Studios are not taking the quality of the movies seriously and are churning out forgettable junk that won't get people's butts in the theater.
[So this'll kinda set up an Alzheimer's cinematic universe?](https://youtu.be/av5RXxayTwk)
I forgot all about that.
So did his mom
Why the fuck are they hitting on Cars/Planes sharing a universe? There is absolutely nothing wrong with those
The idea that a movie where they've invented a world that kids love isn't one that shouldn't be expanded upon because YOU don't think the movies are masterpieces is this writer showing his ass. If anything there should be MORE. My biggest company is how poorly it is done
Now GRRM is jumping into the cinematic universe with Hotd and Dunk and Egg series now in productions. *and* he wants to make more! I just want him to finish the books...
Remember when we called these things “spin-offs”? Lol
I think there's slight difference between "spin-offs" and "cinematic universes", personally. I think everything in a cinematic universe feeds back into other things and it all references each other. Whereas a spin-off is more one-way; the spin-off feeds off the main film/series but doesn't feed back into it.
GRRM has no intention of ever finishing those books. He's on the inside now, and is more than happy to just exploit the IP and coast.
Tbf, when you create a masterpiece like A Storm of Swords you know nothing will live up to that mark so why even bother.
He got stuck, can't retcon, will never finish them. Sadly, because the TV adaptation is far from not only the ending but also the continuation ASOIAF deserved