The short answer: Yes they are. I’ve been waiting years to say that.
If you are a film or pop culture enthusiast like me, you’ve definitely noticed the amount of cinematic universes and movie franchises that have been flooding theaters for the past few years. I’ve seen all of the Marvel and DC movies and have to say, I am not impressed. (Side note: I’m leaving out Christopher Nolan’s excellent The Dark Knight Trilogy and my personal favorite film based on a comic book character, Todd Philipps’ Joker. This article is mostly about Marvel movies and similar IP expansions. Also, Joker is the anti-comic-book comic-book movie, which alone makes it Oscar worthy to me.)
Since the release of Iron Man in 2008, Marvel Studios has released 24 different superhero movies that make up the Marvel Cinematic Universe. This has directly contributed to the increase in cinematic soap operas. In other words, there is no such thing as a standalone superhero movie anymore. They are all intricately (and haphazardly) tied together in increasingly convoluted ways. This trend has leaked into other genres of film. It’s rare to see a successful one-off film (think: Titanic, The Goonies or E.T.) marketed as a blockbuster anymore. And it’s even rarer to see mid-budget dramas and comedies anymore because they’ve become so risky for studios. (Think: Lost in Translation, Pulp Fiction, There’s Something About Mary, or Boogie Nights.)
Movie franchises and cinematic universes have backed themselves into a corner. They've become overstuffed and chaotic from the constant pressure to sustain themselves for the sequels to come. The very existence of Marvel and other brand expansion movies is making it impossible for filmmakers, even the ones with the most industry clout, to get their movies made.
How the hell did we get to this point?
It's easy to just blame Hollywood's need for safe bets on comics and remakes, but that wouldn’t be fair. It’s actually the result of a slow drip evolution that started all the way back to Star Wars and Jaws in the late 1970s. Before those two films, there was no such thing as a summer blockbuster. Sure, there were a few rare, successful films that eventually led to sequels, but the kind of movies that spewed multimedia franchises — books, toys, video games, etc. — didn’t exist yet. Star Wars created them. That’s when Hollywood studio executives realized that when you grow something as an all-encompassing brand, you were guaranteeing the future success of anything remotely to do with it.
For a while the effect wasn't super noticeable. You still had trilogies and sequels but most movies were still one-offs. In the 1980s, Ghostbusters and Indiana Jones were huge, but there were years and years in between each sequel. When Back to the Future was made, it was the first time a studio made its sequels back to back in order to release them close together. After that, sequels came to be assumed and expected. And after Lord of the Rings and 2001’s Spiderman, the franchise model was created. In 2008 when Marvel came out with Iron Man, they reinvented the cinematic universe and here we are today.
It’s important to understand just how much the international market, especially China, factors into which movies get made. Movies like Transformers and Fast and the Furious don't need much translating in a foreign market. This is also the reason why the Asian American romantic comedy, Crazy Rich Asians didn't do well in China. Comedies are made for a domestic audience because the references are so culturally specific. What we find funny or amusing will not be found amusing overseas. Sarcasm is never understood. The same goes for indie flicks. And political films. If your movie doesn't have a shot at making a billion dollars and being successful in the increasingly important Chinese market, and if it doesn't have the potential to tie in with video games, theme park rides, and merchandise, there's a very slim chance it will even get made.
What about the role of television?
One of the reasons we're hitting peak franchise era is because we are also smack in the middle of a major cultural shift in television.
Up until 20 years ago, there were only four networks available and that's what everyone had to watch. When you have to create content for such a broad market, that content gets watered down and made for the lowest common denominator. This is why TV got nicknames like “the idiot box” and “the boob tube.” Television’s entire purpose was to sell soap, soft drinks and cars. So for high quality entertainment, people headed to the theaters for Hollywood films.
Back in the network TV days (1950s to early 2000s) it was pretty much impossible to make intelligent TV and complex storylines. It was too much to ask of an audience that had to wait week after week for a new episode.
Then HBO came along and changed the game. They started producing TV shows like The Wire and Band of Brothers. This coupled with the ability to binge a series because of the introduction of DVD box sets is what allowed television shows to become more complex and more intelligent. You can have a lot of character development with plenty of room for nuance. Characters don't have to reset and have all of their problems resolved at the end of the half hour.
In the 2010s, streaming services like Netflix came along and completed the cultural shift that ushered in the era of peak TV. Their model of releasing an entire series in one day was revolutionary and changed people’s viewing habits.
But Netflix doesn’t just stream TV series. With Netflix producing Oscar-nominated masterpieces like Roma, Uncut Gems, and The Irishman, what we are currently witnessing is a dismantling in Hollywood that is on par with the end of the silent film era and the collapse of the studio system.
Where does this mean for the future of cinema?
Recently Martin Scorsese (my favorite director of all time) declared that Marvel movies “were not cinema.” He went on further and said, “honestly, the closest I can think of them, as well made as they are, with actors doing the best they can under the circumstances, is theme parks. It isn’t the cinema of human beings trying to convey emotional, psychological experiences to another human being.” Then Scorsese was asked to offer his opinion again, and he doubled and tripled down. “We shouldn’t be invaded by it,” he clarified. “We need cinemas to step up and show films that are narrative films.”
Then Francis Ford Coppola chimed in, stirring up the debate by calling Marvel movies “despicable.”
With more and more filmmakers like Scorsese and Coppola speaking out against Marvel movies and the over-saturation of cinematic franchises, hopefully “franchise fatigue” will finally take over and we can start to appreciate film as an art form again rather than just a vehicle for corporate brand expansion.
If you’ve been following the Marvel vs. Scorsese debates online, you’ll notice a common thread. —those who are anti-Marvel are labeled irrelevant, old, and hateful. Those who take the pro-Marvel stance have deemed themselves progressive, culturally aware and — this one is hilarious — woke. This is the question: why is criticizing Marvel and disliking comic book movies considered a moral failure that also deems you irrelevant and out of touch? They are pretty bad movies to a lot of people, myself included. Even their best films, the first Guardians of the Galaxy and Black Panther, are awful and lacking in soul and artistry. (Yes, I said it. Fight me.)
Both men are offering popular culture an incredible opportunity. “They’ve planted this issue at the center of the conversation, staking their credibility on an argument that radically challenges the status quo. And instead of carping about them, we should all take a big pause and listen to what they’re saying. Because this isn’t really about putting down Marvel movies. It’s about asking what, in the future, we want our popular culture to be? Do we want a movie culture where everything is programmed and scannable, with no hidden levels, so that movies no longer reflect the mystery in ourselves? Some might say, ‘We do!’ But I would say be careful what you wish for. Instead of rising up to damn what Scorsese and Coppola have said, maybe we should spend a few moments considering why they said it. Are Marvel movies cinema? We’ll be a healthier culture if we let the debate begin.” (Owen Gleiberman, Variety)
I believe what Scorsese and Coppola really mean to say is that originality in cinema is dead. Everything is a sequel, spin-off, re-imagining, part of a saga, or an adaptation, etc. What the issue is now is that studios are no longer interested in making anything else but easy-to-sell blockbusters. The mentality is this: just let Netflix and Amazon make the edgier films. Despite its liberal facade, Hollywood is truly conservative because like a bank, it only wants to shell out money for something that is financially safe. And since great art comes from originality and transgression, it is always a risk.
Honestly, I hope more directors and actors are asked their opinion of comic book movies and their effect on the film industry. Are they headed for the small screen and digital streaming platforms? Or are IP expansion franchises the future of filmmaking? What will happen to the communal experience of watching a movie in a crowded theater?
It’s time to have this debate. Bring it the fuck on.
Recent Posts
Follow Me on Instagram
I usually do a write up of the events I’ve organized or hosted and my most-read articles at the end of the year. This was an unusual year (obviously, there is no need to go into it here) so I didn’t bother. Instead I want to highlight a project of mine that I am particularly proud of — it’s my new podcast show, Unverified Accounts, that I cohost with my frequent collaborators, Chris Jesu Lee and Filip Guo. If you're a big movie/TV/book buff, have leftist sympathies, but can't stand 'wokeness' dumbing down our culture, then we're the podcast for you. So far in our 25 episodes, we’ve covered a range of contentious topics.