The Problems with the Crossover Universe Phenomenon

[Beaddle]

As Spiderman exits the MCU, is it time we all admit the truth that the real appeal of a cinematic crossover is only truly appealing to comic book characters no one ever heard about? Marvel had Spiderman, X-Men , Daredevil and Fantastic 4. They were their well known marvel characters, so they got sold off to different studios with the least chance of a crossover universe.

DC had Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman, not once was it ever a possibility that Batman needed to appear in superman 1978. I know DC toiled with a JL movie in the 90s but nothing came off it and if anything had, it was not meant to be like Avengers.

Are crossovers cinematic movies as highly appealing as some people make them out to be in a broader context when it concerns superhero IPs that were already established. Is this the reason many people who grew up liking of X-Men, Batman, Spiderman movies or their comics are usually the last people to get onboard with a crossover universe at the expense of loosing the unique appeal of those heroes and DC now wants to reboot Batman with Robert Pattinson without zero guarantee he would be part of the DCEU.

Spiderman leaving the MCU has opened such a complicated conversation about superhero movies, I don' t think many of us are ready for it, regardless on what side you are on

[Star_Jammer]

Not surprising, but I don’t agree.

Also not surprising: you trying to claim your ideas as “truth”. You really need to look up what that word means sometime.

[Midvillian1322]

Not surprising, but I don’t agree.

Also not surprising: you trying to claim your ideas as “truth”. You really need to look up what that word means sometime.

Ahh man come on dont take the bait.

[Star_Jammer]

Ahh man come on dont take the bait.

I’m bored at work.

I was originally gonna post a link to a free blogging website.

[Midvillian1322]

I’m bored at work.

I was originally gonna post a link to a free blogging website.

Lol I was kidding.

[XPac]

As Spiderman exits the MCU, is it time we all admit the truth that the real appeal of a cinematic crossover is only truly appealing to comic book characters no one ever heard about? Marvel had Spiderman, X-Men , Daredevil and Fantastic 4. They were their well known marvel characters, so they got sold off to different studios with the least chance of a crossover universe.

DC had Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman, not once was it ever a possibility that Batman needed to appear in superman 1978. I know DC toiled with a JL movie in the 90s but nothing came off it and if anything had, it was not meant to be like Avengers.

Are crossovers cinematic movies as highly appealing as some people make them out to be in a broader context when it concerns superhero IPs that were already established. Is this the reason many people who grew up liking of X-Men, Batman, Spiderman movies or their comics are usually the last people to get onboard with a crossover universe at the expense of loosing the unique appeal of those heroes and DC now wants to reboot Batman with Robert Pattinson without zero guarantee he would be part of the DCEU.

Spiderman leaving the MCU has opened such a complicated conversation about superhero movies, I don' t think many of us are ready for it, regardless on what side you are on

I don't think you can really make a correlation here. Spider-Man, Iron Man and Captain America all made over a billion dollars. As did lesser known (at the time) characters like Black Panther and Captain Marvel.

We can maybe argue your arguement applies to DC as they seem to have much greater difficulty pulling off a cohensive shared universe (though that sort of sounds like a cop out). But it doesn't appear to be an issue with marvel at all.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

I don't think you can really make a correlation here. Spider-Man, Iron Man and Captain America all made over a billion dollars. As did lesser known (at the time) characters like Black Panther and Captain Marvel.

We can maybe argue your arguement applies to DC as they seem to have much greater difficulty pulling off a cohensive shared universe (though that sort of sounds like a cop out). But it doesn't appear to be an issue with marvel at all.

Two things you have to consider about both of those films.

1. Black Panther was right before Infinity War and a big part of Infinity War was slated to take place in Wakanda so that became an important film. Captain Marvel was right before Endgame and it was billed as a film that led into Endgame and was neccessary to it.

2. They were the first films that were led by a minority and a female character and were heavily marketed off of being groundbreaking in the MCU for that.

Neither Ant Man film got close to 1 billion. Thor has never done it despite being a major Avenger. Neither Guardians did it.

The only solo's that did it were.

1. Iron Man 3. First film post Avengers and heavily marketed as being the fallout from that.

2. Captain America: Winter Soldier. This was basically an Avengers film imo so I don't know if you can really even count it.

3. Black Panther. The film right before Infinity Wars and was touted as having characters that played a massive role in that crossover.

4. Captain Marvel. The film right before Endgame and was touted as having characters that played a massive role in that crossover.

5. Spider-Man: Far From Home. The film immediately after Endgame and was billed as the fallout from it.

There's something in common with every single one of these. Each one was either directly before or after an Avengers film. Each one was heavily marketed as being relevant to the Avengers film it was close to (Captain Marvel and Black Panther being lead ins, Iron Man and Spider-Man being the fallout). The only exception to this is Civil War which had the entire Avengers cast fighting each other and was a psuedo Avengers film more than a solo Cap film.

The fact that the only solo films crossing a billion have that in common, makes me think it's two frequent to be a coincidence that Marvel solos only can make a billion if they are heavily tied to and in close proximity to an Avenegrs flick. That makes me believe the residual effects of Avengers hype plays a big role.

[XPac]

Two things you have to consider about both of those films.

1. Black Panther was right before Infinity War and a big part of Infinity War was slated to take place in Wakanda so that became an important film. Captain Marvel was right before Endgame and it was billed as a film that led into Endgame and was neccessary to it.

2. They were the first films that were led by a minority and a female character and were heavily marketed off of being groundbreaking in the MCU for that.

Neither Ant Man film got close to 1 billion. Thor has never done it despite being a major Avenger. Neither Guardians did it.

The only solo's that did it were.

1. Iron Man 3. First film post Avengers and heavily marketed as being the fallout from that.

2. Captain America: Winter Soldier. This was basically an Avengers film imo so I don't know if you can really even count it.

3. Black Panther. The film right before Infinity Wars and was touted as having characters that played a massive role in that crossover.

4. Captain Marvel. The film right before Endgame and was touted as having characters that played a massive role in that crossover.

5. Spider-Man: Far From Home. The film immediately after Endgame and was billed as the fallout from it.

There's something in common with every single one of these. Each one was either directly before or after an Avengers film. Each one was heavily marketed as being relevant to the Avengers film it was close to (Captain Marvel and Black Panther being lead ins, Iron Man and Spider-Man being the fallout). The only exception to this is Civil War which had the entire Avengers cast fighting each other and was a psuedo Avengers film more than a solo Cap film.

The fact that the only solo films crossing a billion have that in common, makes me think it's two frequent to be a coincidence that Marvel solos only can make a billion if they are heavily tied to and in close proximity to an Avenegrs flick. That makes me believe the residual effects of Avengers hype plays a big role.

I think the fact that so many super hero movies are starting to cross the 1 billion mark is creating a sort of phenomenon where crossing that threshold is becoming a measurement of sucess. Which isn't entirely fair. Yeah, Thor and Guardians didn't earn a billion dollars, but they still earned well over 800 million dollars, which still sort of proves the point.

[A Small Talent For War]

I think the fact that so many super hero movies are starting to cross the 1 billion mark is creating a sort of phenomenon where crossing that threshold is becoming a measurement of sucess. Which isn't entirely fair. Yeah, Thor and Guardians didn't earn a billion dollars, but they still earned well over 800 million dollars, which still sort of proves the point.

That is a strong point. Venom "approached" a billion dollars but didn't cross it (I think), but the perception of its success is more because it was a surprise. Critics hated the movie and it seemed like fans were split (but more on the negative side of the split), but it still managed to make a hefty amount of money anyway.

I remember when Box Office started to become a big part of the press about movies back around TERMINATOR 2 in the early 90's. Blockbuster movies had been a big part of the movie news since Star Wars and probably throughout the history of popular motion pictures, but a big part of T2's story (and later TITANIC's) was how much it had cost. Normally, stories about movies costing so much were bad news - like HEAVEN'S GATE. So, if Terminator 2 didn't rake in several boatloads of cash, there was a good chance that we would not get more movies like it which was bad news for a young man like I was back then. Terminator was one of my favorite films in high school, and I was glad it was a hit. Before then, BLADE RUNNER had been one of my favorite movies, but it was a box office bomb, so cinema on the whole went a different direction.

Marvel movies, though, are a very different model than other superhero or action movies. I remember thinking of my experience after seeing the second X-Men movie, and it was that these movies felt less like films in that genre - less like The Matrix, for example - and more like movie adaptations of a television show that never existed. As if someone had made the Star Trek movies, but Star Trek the television show had never existed.

The Marvel movies have essentially perfected that "series" feeling for a cinematic form. So, they stand out from other superhero movies and even other connected superhero or action movie worlds like Star Wars or The Fast and the Furious.

[XPac]

That is a strong point. Venom "approached" a billion dollars but didn't cross it (I think), but the perception of its success is more because it was a surprise. Critics hated the movie and it seemed like fans were split (but more on the negative side of the split), but it still managed to make a hefty amount of money anyway.

I remember when Box Office started to become a big part of the press about movies back around TERMINATOR 2 in the early 90's. Blockbuster movies had been a big part of the movie news since Star Wars and probably throughout the history of popular motion pictures, but a big part of T2's story (and later TITANIC's) was how much it had cost. Normally, stories about movies costing so much were bad news - like HEAVEN'S GATE. So, if Terminator 2 didn't rake in several boatloads of cash, there was a good chance that we would not get more movies like it which was bad news for a young man like I was back then. Terminator was one of my favorite films in high school, and I was glad it was a hit. Before then, BLADE RUNNER had been one of my favorite movies, but it was a box office bomb, so cinema on the whole went a different direction.

Marvel movies, though, are a very different model than other superhero or action movies. I remember thinking of my experience after seeing the second X-Men movie, and it was that these movies felt less like films in that genre - less like The Matrix, for example - and more like movie adaptations of a television show that never existed. As if someone had made the Star Trek movies, but Star Trek the television show had never existed.

The Marvel movies have essentially perfected that "series" feeling for a cinematic form. So, they stand out from other superhero movies and even other connected superhero or action movie worlds like Star Wars or The Fast and the Furious.

Marvel clearly had a long term plan. From day one they were trying to build towards Avengers... and at the time at least that was somewhat of a gamble (see the DCEU). Obviously there was no gurantee they'd even get 2 movies, let alone at least 5. But they had a vision, had faith in their product, and it worked.

[Jokerz79]

As Spiderman exits the MCU, is it time we all admit the truth that the real appeal of a cinematic crossover is only truly appealing to comic book characters no one ever heard about? Marvel had Spiderman, X-Men , Daredevil and Fantastic 4. They were their well known marvel characters, so they got sold off to different studios with the least chance of a crossover universe.

DC had Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman, not once was it ever a possibility that Batman needed to appear in superman 1978. I know DC toiled with a JL movie in the 90s but nothing came off it and if anything had, it was not meant to be like Avengers.

Are crossovers cinematic movies as highly appealing as some people make them out to be in a broader context when it concerns superhero IPs that were already established. Is this the reason many people who grew up liking of X-Men, Batman, Spiderman movies or their comics are usually the last people to get onboard with a crossover universe at the expense of loosing the unique appeal of those heroes and DC now wants to reboot Batman with Robert Pattinson without zero guarantee he would be part of the DCEU.

Spiderman leaving the MCU has opened such a complicated conversation about superhero movies, I don' t think many of us are ready for it, regardless on what side you are on

Justice League Mortal almost happened in 2007 if not for the Australian Tax Breaks not happening and Writers Strike.

[WebLurker]

I think the only truth about the crossover universe thing is that they're tricky to make well and that the state of the franchises involved has little to do with it.

[CliffHanger2]

I'd say Spiderman did lose some uniqueness going to the MCU. He was kinda like Tony's squire or whatever but those movies did better than the amazing series. so I guess his appeal didn't suffer for it.

Shared universes were never tried before the MCU because no one studio had the resources to put it all together. Now that Disney has done it successfully everyone is getting onboard. DC made the mistake of putting all there eggs in one basket for decades (Batman).

As for X-men and F.F I can't see how being in the MCU is gonna hurt those chars. And I say that as someone who liked most of the X-Men movies and the first F.F movie.

[Powerboy]

Well, except that the whole thing being a crossover (shared universe) has helped make the MCU the biggest phenomenon that has happened in movies for a long time.

Superman (1978) was the first big budget superhero movie ever made. The idea of a superhero movie done on a serious budget was in its infancy. Of course, they didn't consider taking it to it's next step for a long time.

As Robert Redford said in an interview, one of the things that fascinated him about the MCU was that it was such an innovation. Nobody in doing big budget movies had ever done such a shared universe before.

It seems to me that what happened with "Batman vs Superman" is obvious. It wasn't done in a way people wanted such a crossover to take place and went too far against peoples' expectations of those characters. As opposed to the MCU crossover, now in it's 23rd successful act.

I also think that Marvel Comics was conceived of as a shared universe from the start while the early DC characters were not conceived of as existing in the same setting. So there is a factor that it feels a bit more forced with DC than with Marvel.

[WebLurker]

As Robert Redford said in an interview, one of the things that fascinated him about the MCU was that it was such an innovation. Nobody in doing big budget movies had ever done such a shared universe before.

Technically, Star Trek did it first, but that was a TV medium primarily, and hasn't gotten nearly as mainstream.