“Listen, I love big ass shared universes in movies, as well as huge franchises. But I’m a little worried about the numerous shared universes being planned by the studios, without having a strong base film to grow from – or in some cases, NO base film to grow from. Star Wars had the original Star Wars, the Marvel Universe had the original Iron Man, the Dark Knight series had Batman Begins, even movies like Transformers and Twilight – these were movies audiences loved, and the audiences demanded more from these characters. But these days studios are trying to grow trees without a strong seed. Execs and producers and sometimes even directors are focused on the big picture, without perfecting the task directly in front of them – making a great movie. And studios are trying to grow franchises from non-existent films or middling successes. It’s like they aren’t taking audiences into account at all anymore.
I know George Lucas, Kevin Feige, John [sic] Favreau, etc, had ideas where their films would potentially lead in the face of success. But I don’t think it ever got in the way of making that first movie count as if it was the last, of making it something wonderful that people would love whether it led to other films or not.
In short, I think this new business model is flawed. I think filmmakers and studios should be prepared for the big picture, but never, ever let it get in the way of making a single great film. Be a little more experimental and see what works as opposed to trying to force success. And mostly, remember that we as an industry exist to serve the audiences, to communicate with them – they have a voice in what we create as well. We are not here to dictate what they want to see, mostly because that’s simply not possible.”
Spider-Woman is not an easy character to find non sexualized pics about. I tried to find the panel where she'd discussing something with Carol Danvers on a bike but my Google-fun failed.
0
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
I thought the ick was more that (that) Spider-Woman is terrible a pheromone zing!
I wonder if Gunn, indirectly talking about DC and Spidey, is also trying to tell Marvel to back off a bit. It's just the Favreau name drop that seemed timely placed.
I thought the ick was more that (that) Spider-Woman is terrible a pheromone zing!
I wonder if Gunn, indirectly talking about DC and Spidey, is also trying to tell Marvel to back off a bit. It's just the Favreau name drop that seemed timely placed.
I don't see why Marvel should. Their universe is growing right on schedule and if they keep this up their track record will remain unbeaten. Even a few failures won't slow their progress, they've made it very hard for them to fall. No other shared universe studio comes close to Phase 1, never mind what's coming in Phase 3.
I thought the ick was more that (that) Spider-Woman is terrible a pheromone zing!
I wonder if Gunn, indirectly talking about DC and Spidey, is also trying to tell Marvel to back off a bit. It's just the Favreau name drop that seemed timely placed.
I don't see why Marvel should. Their universe is growing right on schedule and if they keep this up their track record will remain unbeaten. Even a few failures won't slow their progress, they've made it very hard for them to fall. No other shared universe studio comes close to Phase 1, never mind what's coming in Phase 3.
Well, Ant Man is maybe symptomatic of Marvel corporate trying to push some movies in a direction that the directors don't want to go.
It may be that Gunn managed to get through 80% of what he wanted, but the other 20% combined with Wright's experience may be leading him to think "hey, make sure the movie can stand on its own feet without the shared universe stuff before adding those things in".
I thought the ick was more that (that) Spider-Woman is terrible a pheromone zing!
I wonder if Gunn, indirectly talking about DC and Spidey, is also trying to tell Marvel to back off a bit. It's just the Favreau name drop that seemed timely placed.
I don't see why Marvel should. Their universe is growing right on schedule and if they keep this up their track record will remain unbeaten. Even a few failures won't slow their progress, they've made it very hard for them to fall. No other shared universe studio comes close to Phase 1, never mind what's coming in Phase 3.
Well, Ant Man is maybe symptomatic of Marvel corporate trying to push some movies in a direction that the directors don't want to go.
It may be that Gunn managed to get through 80% of what he wanted, but the other 20% combined with Wright's experience may be leading him to think "hey, make sure the movie can stand on its own feet without the shared universe stuff before adding those things in".
Wright's situation wasn't like most Marvel directors, he's a perfectionist - that's why it took so long before he started shooting it. When it was time to make the movie Marvel Studios priorities had changed since they narrowed down their formula and that took away freedom Wright was used to with his movies. Wright lost his chance from Phase 1, that was when he had the right environment to do what he wanted, but he didn't deliver and here we are. Making a shared universe became a higher priority for the MCU, which I feel was the right decision and it's paid off.
Marvel made many mistakes early on with trying to co-ordinate a shared universe, which is why Iron Man 2 was hurt by it. They were experimenting and sometimes mistakes happen. That's no longer the case, they've got the shared universe perfected and having Wright do his thing would have messed up their momentum.
This isn't to say MCU's movies shouldn't be able to stand on their own, on the contrary. Gunn's argument is to focus as much on making the best movie they can which stands on its own and does what they want in the big picture. It may not look like it at first glance but GOTG was a huge game changer to the big picture he was talking about. The hard part is doing both simultaneously and making sure the movie is good.
Fav suits his example better than Wright since Gunn was discussing what would be Phase 1, while Wright was in Phase 3. That context is important to setting the foundation for a shared universe from the beginning, especially for a first movie.
edit: Whedon's relationship with Gunn was the opposite for what Wright was doing. Whedon wanted Gunn to be less conservative. What matters is how Gunn knew when to toe the line and deliver without freaking out Fiege, while Wright didn't.
Brainiac 8Don't call me Shirley...Registered Userregular
Not to mention a Marvel movie can be part of the greater whole and still successfully stand on its own, for example Winter Soldier. The main story and twist had HUGE ramifications for the MCU as a whole and wouldn't have been possible without what came before it, but you wouldn't see anyone attempt to say that it wasn't its own movie.
The problem with the non-Marvel studios doing shared universes is that they're only looking at it from the business side but don't have anyone who could make it work on the creative side. It's entirely possible to do a share-universe rather haphazardly and still have it turn out well. It's been done in comics plenty of times, most of the time it sucked but there are those rare instances where it did work. The Image re-imagining did a great job of cleaning house and sowing together a bunch of old and new stuff. It's also been done in animation. Beast War somehow managed to shove their story into the original Transformers continuity and it worked out really well. The DCAU managed to push a bunch of shows with wildly different styles and tones into a single giant universe.
0
Options
minor incidentexpert in a dying fieldnjRegistered Userregular
Just a little reminder: that Dracula movie that came out last month? It was Universal's attempt to create a Universal Monsters shared universe that would include future Wolfman and Frankenstein movies.
Yep.
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
Just a little reminder: that Dracula movie that came out last month? It was Universal's attempt to create a Universal Monsters shared universe that would include future Wolfman and Frankenstein movies.
Yep.
Woah
Now I am kinda bummed that wasn't good! I have a serious soft spot in my heart for classic horror.
Just a little reminder: that Dracula movie that came out last month? It was Universal's attempt to create a Universal Monsters shared universe that would include future Wolfman and Frankenstein movies.
Yep.
Actually it was a stand-alone movie that they later shoved in a scene that could make it a prequel to a shared monster universe, but it's vague enough that they could ignore the hell out of it if didn't do well.
So basically the worst possible attempt at shared universe building.
+2
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
They probably skimmed the till and only put in Nick Fury Jr. as opposed to Nick Fury a hyuck hyuck hyuck.
Spider-Woman is not an easy character to find non sexualized pics about. I tried to find the panel where she'd discussing something with Carol Danvers on a bike but my Google-fun failed.
Yeah, that was directed at the artist, not you, @Harry_Dresden
Just a little reminder: that Dracula movie that came out last month? It was Universal's attempt to create a Universal Monsters shared universe that would include future Wolfman and Frankenstein movies.
Yep.
Actually it was a stand-alone movie that they later shoved in a scene that could make it a prequel to a shared monster universe, but it's vague enough that they could ignore the hell out of it if didn't do well.
So basically the worst possible attempt at shared universe building.
What?
That's the BEST possible way to start a shared universe. It's how Marvel did it. It's the only smart way really.
Make a standalone movie and then add a hook that could lead in to a future shared universe but doesn't have to.
Just a little reminder: that Dracula movie that came out last month? It was Universal's attempt to create a Universal Monsters shared universe that would include future Wolfman and Frankenstein movies.
Yep.
Actually it was a stand-alone movie that they later shoved in a scene that could make it a prequel to a shared monster universe, but it's vague enough that they could ignore the hell out of it if didn't do well.
So basically the worst possible attempt at shared universe building.
What?
That's the BEST possible way to start a shared universe. It's how Marvel did it. It's the only smart way really.
Make a standalone movie and then add a hook that could lead in to a future shared universe but doesn't have to.
That's not remotely how Marvel did it. SHIELD was all over Iron Man, and culminated in that post credits scene. It wasn't slapped on out of the blue at the last minute because Marvel was aping another studio.
Just a little reminder: that Dracula movie that came out last month? It was Universal's attempt to create a Universal Monsters shared universe that would include future Wolfman and Frankenstein movies.
Yep.
Actually it was a stand-alone movie that they later shoved in a scene that could make it a prequel to a shared monster universe, but it's vague enough that they could ignore the hell out of it if didn't do well.
So basically the worst possible attempt at shared universe building.
What?
That's the BEST possible way to start a shared universe. It's how Marvel did it. It's the only smart way really.
Make a standalone movie and then add a hook that could lead in to a future shared universe but doesn't have to.
That's not remotely how Marvel did it. SHIELD was all over Iron Man, and culminated in that post credits scene. It wasn't slapped on out of the blue at the last minute because Marvel was aping another studio.
No, that's exactly how Marvel did it. SHIELD wasn't all over Iron Man, there was one character who appeared from the government to be the government agent character. Nothing about Coulson's character in Iron Man needed anymore explanation and if Iron Man had ended up being a stand-alone film, literally nothing about it would feel like it was unexplained.
Iron Man is shot as a completely stand-alone film. It's got a few hooks that you only notice if you already know the material and thus know that SHIELD are something important but the film in no way relies on that fact. You could replace SHIELD with another random government agency and nothing about the film would change.
This is very deliberate. It's shot as a stand-alone. They set up the film so they can make it part of a larger universe but in no way does that need to happen for the film to work. The only parts that might not make sense in a stand-alone are the after-credit bits, which are after the credits for exactly that reason.
Just a little reminder: that Dracula movie that came out last month? It was Universal's attempt to create a Universal Monsters shared universe that would include future Wolfman and Frankenstein movies.
Yep.
Actually it was a stand-alone movie that they later shoved in a scene that could make it a prequel to a shared monster universe, but it's vague enough that they could ignore the hell out of it if didn't do well.
So basically the worst possible attempt at shared universe building.
What?
That's the BEST possible way to start a shared universe. It's how Marvel did it. It's the only smart way really.
Make a standalone movie and then add a hook that could lead in to a future shared universe but doesn't have to.
That's not remotely how Marvel did it. SHIELD was all over Iron Man, and culminated in that post credits scene. It wasn't slapped on out of the blue at the last minute because Marvel was aping another studio.
No, that's exactly how Marvel did it. SHIELD wasn't all over Iron Man, there was one character who appeared from the government to be the government agent character. Nothing about Coulson's character in Iron Man needed anymore explanation and if Iron Man had ended up being a stand-alone film, literally nothing about it would feel like it was unexplained.
Iron Man is shot as a completely stand-alone film. It's got a few hooks that you only notice if you already know the material and thus know that SHIELD are something important but the film in no way relies on that fact. You could replace SHIELD with another random government agency and nothing about the film would change.
This is very deliberate. It's shot as a stand-alone. They set up the film so they can make it part of a larger universe but in no way does that need to happen for the film to work. The only parts that might not make sense in a stand-alone are the after-credit bits, which are after the credits for exactly that reason.
Coulson was a glorified cameo who appeared occasionally through the film until at the end where he had his own team of agents back him up in the field. That's SHIELD's presence, subtle world building. Dracula Untold didn't have anything like that.
Just a little reminder: that Dracula movie that came out last month? It was Universal's attempt to create a Universal Monsters shared universe that would include future Wolfman and Frankenstein movies.
Yep.
Actually it was a stand-alone movie that they later shoved in a scene that could make it a prequel to a shared monster universe, but it's vague enough that they could ignore the hell out of it if didn't do well.
So basically the worst possible attempt at shared universe building.
What?
That's the BEST possible way to start a shared universe. It's how Marvel did it. It's the only smart way really.
Make a standalone movie and then add a hook that could lead in to a future shared universe but doesn't have to.
That's not remotely how Marvel did it. SHIELD was all over Iron Man, and culminated in that post credits scene. It wasn't slapped on out of the blue at the last minute because Marvel was aping another studio.
No, that's exactly how Marvel did it. SHIELD wasn't all over Iron Man, there was one character who appeared from the government to be the government agent character. Nothing about Coulson's character in Iron Man needed anymore explanation and if Iron Man had ended up being a stand-alone film, literally nothing about it would feel like it was unexplained.
Iron Man is shot as a completely stand-alone film. It's got a few hooks that you only notice if you already know the material and thus know that SHIELD are something important but the film in no way relies on that fact. You could replace SHIELD with another random government agency and nothing about the film would change.
This is very deliberate. It's shot as a stand-alone. They set up the film so they can make it part of a larger universe but in no way does that need to happen for the film to work. The only parts that might not make sense in a stand-alone are the after-credit bits, which are after the credits for exactly that reason.
You are completely missing the point of what I'm saying. This isn't a debate about how stand-alone something is; I'm talking about intent.
Dracula Untold was never, EVER intended to be part of a larger universe. Ever. It wasn't until it was already filming that they decided to shoe-horn in a scene to POTENTIALLY set it for their shared universe (but also being vague enough that they could completely drop it if they the movie tanked). They literally took an unrelated Dracula movie and decided to try and make it part of this shared universe after the fact.
Iron Man was the first film from a new movie studio that was dedicated to making a shared universe of films. Incredible Hulk was filming at the same time as Iron Man. While the post-credits scene wasn't part of the script, Iron Man was intended to exist alongside Incredible Hulk. SHIELD being an (albeit minor) presence in the movie was deliberate decision towards that goal.
There's no equivalent in Dracula Untold. It's a random Dracula movie that Universal decided "Hey, we're doing this shared universe thing in a few years anyway, might as well make this part of it." at which point they had the filmmakers fart out an extra scene.
+2
Options
Brainiac 8Don't call me Shirley...Registered Userregular
Also, further proof that Shield wasn't originally meant to be much more than what they showed is that Marvel is now slightly ret-conning how long Shield has been around.
In Iron Man it was as if Shield was a newer organization and didn't even go by their acronym yet. (thus all the jokes about how long their departments name was) Now though, we have Agent Carter showing the beginnings of Shield and I'm pretty sure they'll call themselves Shield. (Mind you I could be completely off base and they still only go by their longer name, but I'm pretty sure they'll say SHIELD.) This isn't even mentioning the 'history lesson' given in Winter Soldier about how long Hydra had been secretly infiltrating Shield.
Also, further proof that Shield wasn't originally meant to be much more than what they showed is that Marvel is now slightly ret-conning how long Shield has been around.
In Iron Man it was as if Shield was a newer organization and didn't even go by their acronym yet. (thus all the jokes about how long their departments name was) Now though, we have Agent Carter showing the beginnings of Shield and I'm pretty sure they'll call themselves Shield. (Mind you I could be completely off base and they still only go by their longer name, but I'm pretty sure they'll say SHIELD.) This isn't even mentioning the 'history lesson' given in Winter Soldier about how long Hydra had been secretly infiltrating Shield.
That could very easily just be misdirection on the part of SHIELD, which very well fits into the way Fury did things. Keep in mind he intentionally kept the Avengers in the dark about Coulson too... he was playing them. This could just be another aspect of that.
Also, further proof that Shield wasn't originally meant to be much more than what they showed is that Marvel is now slightly ret-conning how long Shield has been around.
In Iron Man it was as if Shield was a newer organization and didn't even go by their acronym yet. (thus all the jokes about how long their departments name was) Now though, we have Agent Carter showing the beginnings of Shield and I'm pretty sure they'll call themselves Shield. (Mind you I could be completely off base and they still only go by their longer name, but I'm pretty sure they'll say SHIELD.) This isn't even mentioning the 'history lesson' given in Winter Soldier about how long Hydra had been secretly infiltrating Shield.
That could very easily just be misdirection on the part of SHIELD, which very well fits into the way Fury did things. Keep in mind he intentionally kept the Avengers in the dark about Coulson too... he was playing them. This could just be another aspect of that.
I can accept that reason for justification in the movie. Outside the movie, it's a retcon.
As Agent Ward mentioned, they wouldn't call it the "Strategic Homeland Intervention Enforcement & Logistics Division" if they didn't really want the acronym to spell out SHIELD. I imagine SHIELD just wasn't really well known (to the public) at the time, hence Coulson being glib about the name. (I mean, the real reason is it's a continuity gag for comics-fans; otherwise Coulson would have just called it SHIELD to begin with.)
+3
Options
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
Carter calls it the Strategic Science Reserve because that's what it is in her day. It becomes SHIELD way later.
Posts
Ick.
Spider-Woman is not an easy character to find non sexualized pics about. I tried to find the panel where she'd discussing something with Carol Danvers on a bike but my Google-fun failed.
I wonder if Gunn, indirectly talking about DC and Spidey, is also trying to tell Marvel to back off a bit. It's just the Favreau name drop that seemed timely placed.
I don't see why Marvel should. Their universe is growing right on schedule and if they keep this up their track record will remain unbeaten. Even a few failures won't slow their progress, they've made it very hard for them to fall. No other shared universe studio comes close to Phase 1, never mind what's coming in Phase 3.
It may be that Gunn managed to get through 80% of what he wanted, but the other 20% combined with Wright's experience may be leading him to think "hey, make sure the movie can stand on its own feet without the shared universe stuff before adding those things in".
Wright's situation wasn't like most Marvel directors, he's a perfectionist - that's why it took so long before he started shooting it. When it was time to make the movie Marvel Studios priorities had changed since they narrowed down their formula and that took away freedom Wright was used to with his movies. Wright lost his chance from Phase 1, that was when he had the right environment to do what he wanted, but he didn't deliver and here we are. Making a shared universe became a higher priority for the MCU, which I feel was the right decision and it's paid off.
Marvel made many mistakes early on with trying to co-ordinate a shared universe, which is why Iron Man 2 was hurt by it. They were experimenting and sometimes mistakes happen. That's no longer the case, they've got the shared universe perfected and having Wright do his thing would have messed up their momentum.
This isn't to say MCU's movies shouldn't be able to stand on their own, on the contrary. Gunn's argument is to focus as much on making the best movie they can which stands on its own and does what they want in the big picture. It may not look like it at first glance but GOTG was a huge game changer to the big picture he was talking about. The hard part is doing both simultaneously and making sure the movie is good.
Fav suits his example better than Wright since Gunn was discussing what would be Phase 1, while Wright was in Phase 3. That context is important to setting the foundation for a shared universe from the beginning, especially for a first movie.
edit: Whedon's relationship with Gunn was the opposite for what Wright was doing. Whedon wanted Gunn to be less conservative. What matters is how Gunn knew when to toe the line and deliver without freaking out Fiege, while Wright didn't.
http://www.blastr.com/2014-7-8/james-gunn-reveals-how-joss-whedon-changed-guardians-galaxy-script
Anyone who says that would be wrong and dumb.
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!
Yep.
Now I am kinda bummed that wasn't good! I have a serious soft spot in my heart for classic horror.
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
Actually it was a stand-alone movie that they later shoved in a scene that could make it a prequel to a shared monster universe, but it's vague enough that they could ignore the hell out of it if didn't do well.
So basically the worst possible attempt at shared universe building.
Yeah, that was directed at the artist, not you, @Harry_Dresden
Because if nothing else, we learned one important fact from that movie: "Wolfman's got nards!"
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!
What?
That's the BEST possible way to start a shared universe. It's how Marvel did it. It's the only smart way really.
Make a standalone movie and then add a hook that could lead in to a future shared universe but doesn't have to.
I can't believe that another film can outdo Goonies, but from the trailer, it looks like Monster Squad might have been be close to it's equal.
I disagree that it outdid Goonies, but it comes really close.
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!
That's not remotely how Marvel did it. SHIELD was all over Iron Man, and culminated in that post credits scene. It wasn't slapped on out of the blue at the last minute because Marvel was aping another studio.
No, that's exactly how Marvel did it. SHIELD wasn't all over Iron Man, there was one character who appeared from the government to be the government agent character. Nothing about Coulson's character in Iron Man needed anymore explanation and if Iron Man had ended up being a stand-alone film, literally nothing about it would feel like it was unexplained.
Iron Man is shot as a completely stand-alone film. It's got a few hooks that you only notice if you already know the material and thus know that SHIELD are something important but the film in no way relies on that fact. You could replace SHIELD with another random government agency and nothing about the film would change.
This is very deliberate. It's shot as a stand-alone. They set up the film so they can make it part of a larger universe but in no way does that need to happen for the film to work. The only parts that might not make sense in a stand-alone are the after-credit bits, which are after the credits for exactly that reason.
Coulson was a glorified cameo who appeared occasionally through the film until at the end where he had his own team of agents back him up in the field. That's SHIELD's presence, subtle world building. Dracula Untold didn't have anything like that.
You are completely missing the point of what I'm saying. This isn't a debate about how stand-alone something is; I'm talking about intent.
Dracula Untold was never, EVER intended to be part of a larger universe. Ever. It wasn't until it was already filming that they decided to shoe-horn in a scene to POTENTIALLY set it for their shared universe (but also being vague enough that they could completely drop it if they the movie tanked). They literally took an unrelated Dracula movie and decided to try and make it part of this shared universe after the fact.
Iron Man was the first film from a new movie studio that was dedicated to making a shared universe of films. Incredible Hulk was filming at the same time as Iron Man. While the post-credits scene wasn't part of the script, Iron Man was intended to exist alongside Incredible Hulk. SHIELD being an (albeit minor) presence in the movie was deliberate decision towards that goal.
There's no equivalent in Dracula Untold. It's a random Dracula movie that Universal decided "Hey, we're doing this shared universe thing in a few years anyway, might as well make this part of it." at which point they had the filmmakers fart out an extra scene.
In Iron Man it was as if Shield was a newer organization and didn't even go by their acronym yet. (thus all the jokes about how long their departments name was) Now though, we have Agent Carter showing the beginnings of Shield and I'm pretty sure they'll call themselves Shield. (Mind you I could be completely off base and they still only go by their longer name, but I'm pretty sure they'll say SHIELD.) This isn't even mentioning the 'history lesson' given in Winter Soldier about how long Hydra had been secretly infiltrating Shield.
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!
That could very easily just be misdirection on the part of SHIELD, which very well fits into the way Fury did things. Keep in mind he intentionally kept the Avengers in the dark about Coulson too... he was playing them. This could just be another aspect of that.
Unreal Engine 4 Developers Community.
I'm working on a cute little video game! Here's a link for you.
I can accept that reason for justification in the movie. Outside the movie, it's a retcon.
They're separate organizations. SSR is SHIELD's predecessor.