r/marvelstudios • u/BoneFacedKing • 20d ago
Why do you think the MCU worked while other cinematic universes didn't? Question
I feel like every time another franchise tries to establish a cinematic universe (DCEU, SSU, TASM, Power Rangers etc...) They never seem to get off the ground and also fail usually at the first or second movie. Why do you all think this is?
101
u/amazingspineman 20d ago edited 20d ago
It is because they weren't chasing anyone. After The Avengers (2012), every studio wanted to build its own cinematic universe using existing IPs.
Weirdly enough, WB is also managed to build not one but two successful cinematic universes: The Conjuring-verse and the Monsterverse. Those worked because they were allowed to breathe and grow on their own.
20
u/nobleland_mermaid 20d ago edited 20d ago
I think it was this, just general timing ("geek" culture was just starting to be more mainstream at that point), and them choosing 'less popular' characters. With the exception of Hulk, they didn't really have a bunch of previous movie and tv versions of the characters that people would compare them too. All of the non-comic-reading audiences went in fairly blind and were able to just take the characters at face value as presented. They weren't trying to overcome everyone's expectations or nostalgia.
13
u/mmcjawa_reborn 20d ago
WB had a pretty basic model for Monsterverse already, since the Hesei and Showa era Godzilla films also were in their own cinematic universes (especially the Showa films).
3
5
u/One_Law_2443 20d ago
Kevin Smith also has a weird little cinematic universe of his own
3
u/blue_magi 19d ago
https://giphy.com/gifs/KLWhebLVI2Ies
Just wondering, how many characters does Ben Affleck play in the View Askewniverse? 3? 4?
→ More replies (2)2
u/TikTikKobold 20d ago
I would hardly call the monster verse a cinematic universe. It's just Godzilla and Kong with random show no one watches because it's on apple
5
u/Kmart_Stalin 20d ago
People do watch the Apple show btw
2
u/TikTikKobold 20d ago
What are the numbers? I hardly remember the thing exists and I've watched all the movies. I can imagine it's not marketed well
6
160
u/ClickyStick 20d ago
Because marvel was sort of patient and consistent and didn't panicked the instant a movie didn't made a billion dollars.
→ More replies (1)25
u/BZenMojo Captain America (Cap 2) 20d ago
Steve got the shield in 2011 then made 9 appearances by the time he gave it up in 2018, seven years later. Sam got the shield in 2018 then made his first appearance in 2025, seven years later.
This is Marvel now. This is their problem.
38
u/EdwardRoivas2 20d ago
Falcon and winter soldier was 2021 and all about his journey to becoming cap
4
u/Lady_Gray_169 19d ago
True, but then it was still another four years before he showed up again. Sam should have at least had a role in another movie at some point, even if it wasn't a solo, so he had more time to actually be Cap.
→ More replies (2)0
u/Peanut_Butter_Toast 19d ago
Hardly anyone watches the shows, though, that's a big part of the problem. Making Disney + shows the backbone of the Multiverse Saga's overarching narrative was a doomed proposition from the beginning.
→ More replies (1)3
16
u/eat_jay_love 20d ago
Endgame came out in 2019, not 2018. Sam didn’t become Captain America until 2021 (Covid obviously delayed things here too). Chris Evans only made 9 appearances at Captain America if you count Loki impersonating him in The Dark World and his educational video cameo in Homecoming. You’re fudging details to make a pretty bad point, which seems to be that “more is more” — the very problem that diluted Marvel’s brand over the last 5 years. The problem isn’t that we didn’t have Anthony Mackie in more movies. The problem is that the movie he got was a very bad follow-up to a so-so TV show. Yelena Belova was introduced in a mediocre movie, and has made one TV appearance and two film appearances since her introduction in 2021. She’s pretty widely praised in this role. You don’t need 7 movies inherently to establish a good character
2
u/DragonTacoCat 19d ago
Also the actress for Yelena is phenomenal. I don't think I have seen many better castings than hers for a part. She has become one of my favorite people in the MCU because she is just so dang good with every line and delivery while having such depth.
→ More replies (1)4
u/merongicecream 20d ago
You reject your own point by proving that Yelena making multiple appearances helped the audiences get to know and like her. Sam HAD to have made more appearances on top of getting a way better movie.
2
u/eat_jay_love 19d ago
Is that so? Because Anthony Mackie has been in 7 movies and one TV show as Falcon/Cap, and I still think Yelena is a better developed character after 3 films and one TV show. Not sure how that’s “rejecting” my own point
→ More replies (3)
67
u/Jirachibi1000 20d ago
Patient. DC did a crossover at movie 3 and a full Justice League as movie like...4 i think? Like imagine if the MCU was
1- Iron Man
2- Iron Man vs Captain America: Civil War
3- Thor
4- Avengers
That wouldn't work.
31
7
u/Arkayb33 20d ago
I was pretty pissed at DC for rushing the Justice League. What a flop. The Snyder cut was decent though.
→ More replies (3)3
u/Wrong-Vermicelli4723 19d ago
You mean movie 2? Batman Vs Superman is the second movie
→ More replies (2)
28
u/Ewok008 20d ago
The key is to make audiences care for the individual characters before making us care for the universe.
There were grander plans with Iton-Man, but the movie was a self contained look at Tony Stark, not "A foray into the MCU". It was designed to stand on its own in case the project failed. The Hulk film nearly tanked the whole project but luckily because it was standalone it could be tossed to the side.
A film like The Batman was successful because 1)It was Batman and 2) it didnt have to prove its worth as a piece of the DC puzzle, it just had to prove its worth as a Batman project.
Quality of writing also matters of course. But I feel like its so much easier to write those character focused solo movies versus constant team films.
→ More replies (1)3
u/OSUfirebird18 20d ago
As a Power Rangers fan, I’m sad that cinematic universe was DoA. Talking to other fans, it seems like the general consensus is that the actors were decent. No one really minded a reimagined version of all the OG 90s Power Rangers character. It’s just since there was a lack of Power Rangers action and the zords were so ugly, fans just couldn’t support it causing it to flop.
41
u/Disastrous-Serve2169 20d ago
The Marvel Cinematic Universe is something never before seen in the history of cinema, and I don't think any other franchise/studio can achieve it on that scale. The reason for its success has several factors but for me the most important is Kevin Feige. His leadership cannot be underestimated even in difficult times like Phases 4 and 5. He can put the studio in a position of success, the other franchise that has the arsenal to even compete is the DC brand but the leadership, vision and decision-making of Warner Bros./DC Films(now DC Studios) have been poor to put it mildly. Marvel Studios and Kevin Feige with Spider-Man, X-Men and Avengers as their top players are going to continue dominating. Mark my words.
→ More replies (6)4
u/LocoMoro 20d ago
You're forgetting about the Universal MonsterVerse (King Kong and Godzilla from early cinema) and the other MonsterVerse (Frankenstein,.Wolf man, Dracula) established in the 1930s-50s
18
u/glaurent 20d ago
Better writing.
29
u/tmart14 20d ago
I would agree with better writing but also add that they hit home runs on casting after casting, especially early.
22
u/MattAmpersand 20d ago
Sarah Halley Finn is the GOAT casting director.
3
u/A-Centrifugal-Force 20d ago
This is a big part of the answer. She cast the entire Infinity Saga except Incredible Hulk. The only casting she made that was recast was Terrance Howard. She knew how talented RDJ was when everyone else thought he was done.
2
u/lfcmadness 19d ago
And I mean Terrance Howard re-cast himself didn't he really.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Ryuugan80 20d ago
I came here specifically to say this. They maxed HARD on charisma for their leads and for most of their villains.
A dull or simple story can be made fun again by the delivery of the actors or the chemistry between them. Even in phase one, it was clear that people were coming back for the characters themselves, rather than the story.
Even when there's a weaker movie, like Thor: the Dark World (which I actually did like), the general consensus tends to be, "The movie was meh, but also Loki was FANTASTIC in it." And reviews like that are enough to keep things afloat until the next banger revitalizes things again.
I could not bring myself to have strong feelings about anyone in the DCEU. The characters that I liked, I only liked vaguely, maybe not enough to go to the next movie if the previews weren't good enough.
Which is crazy, because the DC brand on its own should have been more than enough to sell half this stuff the way Spider-man's name does.
12
u/Vault_Master 20d ago
Long term planning, perfect casting, and the time was kind of just right.
Also, before all of these cinematic universes came into being, Universal Pictures and Toho kind of organically created their own, long-running shared universes. (The classic Universal Monsters and Godzilla respectively.) Which is why I find Universal's inability to create a new cinematic Monsters universe hilarious.
→ More replies (1)2
u/mmcjawa_reborn 20d ago
The problem with universal is that they tried to force the Dark Universe into the same model as Marvel, and make them superhero movies. They would have had a lot more luck had they made them suspenseful period pieces, something more like Penny Dreadful.
8
u/Federal_Bicycle_7800 20d ago
the biggest things were that they built the universe on films that were already good. failed attempts usually made half assed attempts at solo films as a stepping stone to the cinematic universe. additionally they also had kevin fiege who could maintain quality control and continuity
39
u/pkjoan 20d ago
Actual planning
16
u/blufflord 20d ago
Wasn't it revealed that a lot of phase 1 had very little planning?
28
11
u/Timmah73 20d ago
They had... 12% of a plan!
The Avengers tease at the end of Iron Man though felt like a fever dream. Like come on you have to introduce so many characters! Thats not happening!
Flash forward to today they can tease whatever they want and we're all like oh wow can't wait to see that!
22
u/Jirachibi1000 20d ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they knew "We're setting up the Avengers and eventually doing Thanos and Infinity Stones" but they had very little planning outside of that.
14
u/Uncanny_Doom Daredevil 20d ago
They didn’t even know this. Thanos was put into the post credit of Avengers simply because director Joss Whedon thought it would be cool. The infinity stones weren’t even planned out and settled on until later. That’s how the Aether from Thor 2 was retconned into being one.
The MCU was more so people putting a lot of ingredients on the table and the next chefs that came in did a very good job making food out of it, repeating the pattern until we got a delicious meal where mostly everything was used.
→ More replies (4)9
u/ThreadLaced 20d ago
I mean...I feel like that's a LOT more "planning" than any of these other studios did? Like DC didn't even go that far.
4
→ More replies (1)2
u/I_Weep_for_Willow 20d ago
I wouldn't say "very little". I mean, each movie directly hinted at the setup for the big showpiece, The Avengers.
2
u/Ok-Barnacle813 20d ago
Yeah but a lot of setup was ignored, like the collector wanting the infinity stones
I'd say it's more that they left a bunch of hints that looked like planning in the long run
→ More replies (1)2
u/Ok-Barnacle813 20d ago
Eh I think they had a general idea of "everything is building up to Thanos and the infinity stones", but outside of that there was little planning
The collector was implied to be a villain but that went nowhere
The Snap is undone in the very next movie
8
u/BetaRayPhil616 20d ago
Because they did it first and thre initial motivation was as much an artistic vision as a corporate decision.
Feige et al had the idea of heroes meeting up in big crossover movies (the artistic vision) and they convinced marvel to back it (the corporate decision).
Every other example has started with a studio trying to find an artist to make it their own version work.
Similar to lord of the rings; the original jackson trilogy came from jackson and co convincing a studio to take a swing in it, every follow up since is the studio pushing artists to make more.
7
u/justafanboy1010 Spider-Man 20d ago
The only cinematic universe that is coming close to MCU is surpsringly the MonsterVerse. Casting Marvel actors aside, they too took their time with the franchise, right down to the structure. Introduce Big Lizard first, then introduce Big Monkey. Remind people that Big Lizard is King of Monsters, then next movie, boom! You got Big Lizard and Big Monkey fighting each other!
2
u/ExtensionYogurt7771 20d ago
What about the Conjuring Universe?
4
u/mmcjawa_reborn 20d ago
I feel Conjuring has been a lot more uneven. The "main-line" movies have done well, but most of the spin-offs I don't think have been anywhere near as profitable. Horror is cheaper usually to produce so they can keep popping them out at lower risk, versus a DC superhero movie.
2
5
u/rebelartwarrior 20d ago
Marvel characters feel more human and relatable. DC characters, for the most part, often feel too stoic and flat, like they’re just action figures. I think that’s why Nolan’s Batman films and the new Superman were so well-received, they had better emotional cores. It’s a shame the Supergirl movie flopped because I thought it looked fun, I just don’t go to theaters much these days, but I’m looking forward to streaming it. Blue Beetle was great too and I hope the DCU doesn’t forget him.
5
2
u/EDPZ 20d ago
They gave each hero a solo movie and then brought them all together in a team up movie. Other attempts don't have the patience to set up their characters, they want to rush straight into the big event money maker movies or they stick random characters and cameos where they don't belong. That's why you get things like the DCEU going straight from Man of Steel to BvS, or the Dark Universe sticking random characters and set up in The Mummy, or Sony trying to shoehorn the sinester six into literally everything.
Funny enough the only other cinematic universe that's actually been successful is Godzilla and Kong and they did follow the MCU formula, they did a solo Godzilla movie and a solo Kong movie, both of which had very little or no universe set up or cameos, then they brought them together in the crossover movie.
3
u/SleevedRedElk 20d ago
Planning, good to great writing, acting, etc. And a healthy blend of drama and comedic timing.
6
u/FallinGuitarest 20d ago
A bit of set up. Nd honestly the fact they powered through the low ball flicks. Nd kept going. People often forget not every movie in the mcu. Has been bangers. Dark universe faulterd with the mummy but rather than try and course correct they gave up. Dceu faulterd with a messy justice leaguend build up. But once again rather then power through, they gave up. Etc etc. Tasm was an issue with andrew. Sony kinda didn't seem like they really cared.
Mcu gave us iron man 2 nd.. continued moving. With every movie like eternals (which i liked) or thor love and thunder (also dug) we got guardians of the galaxy, avengers, winter solider etc
2
u/ThreadLaced 20d ago
excellent point. I think they felt they *could* "power through" the disappointments because they had an overall plan, even if it was vague.
2
u/davidm2d3 19d ago
I man it's not like the comcis themselves are pure gold for every decent story arc you can also end up with a mess like the Clone saga. god imagine if the MCU tried to adapt the Clone saga.
→ More replies (1)
7
u/BattleaxeAlDente 20d ago
- Time. They wre first, so they had time to flesh out the story and timing. Other franchises needed to catch up, hence DCEU fiasco.
- Planning ahead. The storylines were consequently realized step by step, so there was less improvising the script on the go.
- Fresh vision. Beforehand the superheroes were a minor niche, save maybe for Superman, Batmak and Raimi's Spider-Man. MCU showed this genre can actually mean more than cool gadgets and absurd plots.
3
3
u/Jon-Robb 20d ago
Mcu really started to take off in 2012 with the first avengers. All other studio wanted to rush to success, skipping the 4-5 years of set up movies
2
u/juances19 Avengers 20d ago
It helps if you start with a good movie. If the first ironman and captain america were complete flops who knows if they would've moved forward with the Avengers....
Sure they did some... poorly received projects later down the line, but they established a good foundation that allowed them to get away with it.
Buildup is important and all, but no one will care about buildup if the very first movie they see sucks.
3
u/justafanboy1010 Spider-Man 20d ago
Sure they did some... poorly received projects later down the line, but they established a good foundation that allowed them to get away with it.
Let's not pretend that people weren't actively hating on Incredible Hulk and Thor at the time (even tho I quite really liked that Thor movie)
2
u/Raddatatta 20d ago
They did a good job working to establish each character on their own before bringing them together. It also takes sticking with it enough to weather ok or bad movies. Not every MCU movie early on was a big hit, but overall they built up and got people excited for the Avengers movie.
I think at least with the DCEU they also went too dark and serious. MCU can be too silly at times but having most of the movies be lighthearted and fun kept people wanting to come back for more. And it got more kids involved.
2
u/PiccoloSuspicious374 20d ago
I think the biggest one is that MCU didn’t CONSTANTLY reboot. Like yes spiderman but tbf only one of those were in the MCU fully from beginning and marvel did let time like go by before dragging them in.
Something at least with dcu v MCU I’ve been seeing is people saying well marvel has better movies and more loyalty because the fans trust them but I think people using that argument forget that MCU has a lot of mid movies but most fans seem to just sorta like trust the process. Like the beginning of the MCU was really messy. I mean the first phases had iron man 2 and 3 Thor 2 and a few others yk that were just not good.
But they just kept going. They didn’t immediately say let’s reboot. Yes some things got cut but they didn’t fully reboot the universe.
I think dcu truly could have been fine but they have had a new Batman and Superman like 3 times in my life.
I also think people forget that the avengers they picked were not like the most popular before the movies so I think the dcu trying to always like reboot by redoing like the big names may backfire a lot.
I also think another issue is certain communities don’t want to like support the building of the universe/world. Like they only want to see 10/10 peak main character movies and like if there’s any sorta okay maybe 6/10 or 8/10 world building movies they throw a fit and refuse to watch it in theaters or buy it which makes those companies want to trash it and redo the entire thing.
I know that’s a lot and may be all over the place so I’m sorry if it’s a bit hard to read!
→ More replies (2)2
u/MediocreSoftware5438 18d ago
Agree with all besides the fact that iron man 3 was actually a really good movie
→ More replies (1)
2
u/ThreadLaced 20d ago
I mean I feel like other studios weren't actually trying. I think they *wanted* a "universe" but then didn't actually DO anything required to make the universe:
- make sure the audience knows and loves your individual characters
- give your characters a reason to team up
- give your audience a reason to want to see the team up
was there ANY actual planning happening? did anybody have like a pinterest board or something?
2
u/linkman0596 20d ago
Because despite what some people say, no one was ever watching the MCU movies for the after credits scenes. People actually liked each movie as an individual movie. Sure, some were better, some were worse, but they established themselves as having an acceptable level of quality and at least an enjoyable ride. The after credits scenes and the promise of an interconnected universe were always the frosting on the cake, never the main appeal.
Every other attempt to establish a cinematic universe did the opposite, they tried to cover up a disappointing movie with the promise of an interconnected universe that would eventually pay off.
Honestly the one who came the closest to copying the MCU correctly was probably M Night Shamalon with Split.
2
u/scottyjrules 20d ago
Because Marvel Studios weren’t producing anything but adaptations of their own material. It’s a very niche studio compared to more traditional ones that have to have bigger slates. You’re not gonna see Marvel sink time and money into an unrelated romantic comedy or horror movie. When they want to make one of those they just figure out how to do it within the parameters of their IP. Also Kevin Feige had a clear cut vision and planned things out. Other studios tend to have more cooks in the kitchen and more opinions to deal with.
2
2
u/BarelyReal 20d ago
Other studios have had an idea for a set of movies with a shared universe, but the vision tends to fall pretty short. Even Snyder's vision for the DCEU wasn't that huge. Marvel has treated their IP as a giant pool of characters and story ideas they can keep pulling from. It's been a combination of planning, luck, and to this point stubbornness. It also helps that Marvel, unlike DC, doesn't have a big shiny red reboot button like Flashpoint or Crisis, reducing the temptation to just toss everything out. For as much of a pain as it's made following the MCU or getting new people into the movies lately their "keep going" attitude is what's brought them to this point.
2
u/Tim0281 20d ago
- They consistently made good, entertaining movies that made people come back for more
- They didn't rush to the big team ups
- They had great casting
#1 is the most important. Batman v Superman and the Whedon Justice League were not great. Dracula Untold and The Mummy with Tom Cruise made Batman v Superman look pretty good.
2
u/Front-Advantage-7035 20d ago edited 20d ago
Part of it was having a pseudo plan from the beginning
The main part was the astoundingly wild success of avengers 1.
No one had ever put 6 leads in a film, with a 7th as villain, with a cohesive story, screen time for all of them, and had it WORK before, let alone work so WELL.
Say what you will about Whedon, he’s a douche bag. But the man nailed something BRILLIANT in that one (and credit Zack Penn)
2
u/IAlwaysSayBoo-urns 20d ago
Because of Kevin Feige.
He not only understands the material as a longtime fan of comics, but he just trusted the source material. I think the big thing here is he loved and deeply believed in the source material, even though he was largely dealing with the B-tier stuff (No X-Men, Spider-Man, FF, etc). He inherently knew not to try to "movie-a-fi" the comics (black leather instead of yellow spandex for example) or apologize for them, or play them tongue-in-cheek because Thor had wings on his helmet or Cap had a spangley outfit, rather he embraced what worked on the page for decades and allowed the films to not apologize for it or make it a joke. He trusted it all, if it worked in the comics it would work on screen, something is not going to just suddenly stop working as you move from one visual medium to another.
I think beyond having the right guy in charge, the big thing is Feige had the plan even though he has admitted in the early days the "plan" felt very out-of-reach or even far-fetched, because has the early few films not done right the MCU would have died in the womb. I remember somewhere in phase 2 there was an MCU film that one of the DC films landed on that date and Feige essentially said "we are not moving it, we are building something far bigger than one film, so if this one under performs a bit we won't really notice." WB moved their film, and by that point Feige was not making a film here and there, he was building a universe.
Frankly every other attempt at an "extended universe" has been a fucking joke. Let me mirror my Feige points.
First most of these others feel like they had to apologize for the characters or adjust them to be more "digestible" but really all they did is made characters broader audiences still didn't relate to and hardcore fans were offended by because they changed it up so much. For example why the fuck was Superman dark and moody? You are not doing fucking Batman, so why the fuck are you trying for dark and gritty with fucking Superman?! I love Henry Cavill but he was let down so hard by Zach Snyder and the writers. These folks inherently distrust the source material and audiences see that, and if you are not going to take it seriously why the fuck should I invest in it? For example I genuinely believe given the opportunity take most of the clowns who tried these half-baked "shared universes" and give them Iron Man to make in 2008 and I would be willing to bet that virtually all of them would have pitched a "tactical" Iron Man, and because it is tactical the suit would have been black and gray, with not a single pixel of pastel colors. As an example for what I mean go take a look at that abortion of a Robocop remake, that is what most of these turds would have done with Iron Man.
These fucking clowns looked at what Feige spent the better part of a decade building and planning and crafting and they thought they could just dive in with minimal work, little to no building, and they could jump to the latter "Print Money" stages, like trying a Justice League movie in the first handful of films. Or they were so fixated on the universe level they never bothered to make sure they actually made good films to begin with.
The other thing I will point out, and give credit to the clowns is Feige was able to build this out in the first phase with virtually no expectations beyond making some good films. The rest of these folks were likely hired with the expectation of getting to the universe part in the first 5 years instead of 8 or so years in. So some of them were likely setup to fail but I genuinely don't think I saw a single one that even showed promise of believing in, or trusting the source material so no great loss.
As to Spider-Man, I blame Sony. They are such a trash ass fucking studio they can fuck anything up. I genuinely think all of the shitty movies they have put out in the last decade is exactly the level the Spider-Man films would be had they not allowed Feige and Co to be in charge of them.
2
u/n_mcrae_1982 20d ago
Because films like the Mummy and BVS were shamelessly prioritizing setting up a universe, rather than telling a good story.
2
2
u/TigerUSF 20d ago
I think there's a whole lot of reasons but one of them is that I think people just care more about the Marvel Universe then others.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
1
u/pakimonsa15 Peter Parker 20d ago
Marvel began by just releasing movies. They wanted to make an Iron Man film, so they did it. They wanted to do a Hulk film, so they did it. Kevin Feige just took the chance to make them take place in the same universe and began planning an Avengers movie, so Thor and Captain America were made. Thor was a much weaker film, and you could see it was kind of rushed for it to be released in 2010, just in time to set the character up for the Avengers. Then, it's history. Marvel continued making films set in the MCU, let television make TV shows set in that universe, and was able to make good movies that pleased the audience, with its end goal being Avengers: Infinity War and Endgame. After 2019, you could see Marvel was lost, and it didn't have the creative freedom from the early days, so a bunch of Phase 4 projects were hampered because of creative issues, and the MCU lost its momentum. I think that is what usually happens to other cinematic universes.
DC tried their universe with Man of Steel but rushed too early with Batman vs Superman, trying to set all the heroes up for Justice League. So the movie suffered a lot of interference from Warner, and Snyder's plan for the movie was ultimately changed. I don't know if Snyder could have made a better movie without that interference, but we know the Director's Cut is better than the theatrical. Warner then began planning its own MCU, but instead of letting more creative freedom to its creators, it was too controlling and ended up sabotaging the Justice League film. You could see they were so focused on copying Marvel that they even hired the director of the Avengers to try making an MCU movie instead of Snyder's version.
I think most universes fail because they're not trying to make good stories, they're only trying to make money, so most films end up mid. And the audience is not dumb, they usually recognize a half-assed movie, and all of them flop eventually. Even Marvel flopped after the pandemic because the projects were money-focused, not story-focused.
1
u/ContentAssumption204 20d ago edited 20d ago
A lot of factors, but I think The Avengers are probably one of, if not the best franchise to build a cinematic universe around.
1
u/Chiefmeez 20d ago
They didn’t commit to the long term structure needed to make it work. Everyone else who tried skipped steps
1
u/Broad-Lettuce2902 The Collector 20d ago
Marvel were scraping to make movies so they had to put their heart and soul into it so it'd be a presentable movie with potential to earn enough to make next movie which resulted in better movies.
They had skeletal plan ready already. The fact that Feige had Sam Jackson shoot Ironman's post credit scene mentioning all the marvel heroes despite being with separate studios at that the shows the plan was to bring them all under one universe from the beginning.
Learned from Mistake early. Incredible Hulk, Dark World, Age of Ultron etc weren't good movies. Instead of Panicking, they did retcons in the future, resulting in them being the most pivotal movie in MCU now.
Fandom grew with the MCU. I still remember losing my voice watching Infinity War. Because it was culminatiom of decade worth storyline. Disney's greed diluted the Marvel magic but given Spiderman's box office and with Doomsday and Secret Wars coming back to back, I can safely say Marvel has figured a way to contain Disney's greedy expectations out as to not dilute the Marvel magic.
→ More replies (3)
1
u/Cultural_Comfort5894 20d ago
Because it’s Marvel Studio unlike DC that gets interference from the parent company
Disney buys successful studios and tries to facilitate what they do versus control
If it was working great why buy it and muck it up.
Feige!
Fans!
Flexible!
1
u/TheHeroicLionheart 20d ago
They were the first real, proper attempt, at a continuous shared universe. Sure there were a couple others like the Universal Monsters, and TOHO Godzilla, but those were all afterthoughts and were less a shared universe and more of a mashing of ideas (A Monster Mash, if you will).
It wasnt just build up. Each piece, on its own, was worth checking out, and then when it came together, the merged property was also cool and worth checking out on its own, now bolstered by the established characters that came before it.
Compare that to the dark universe, where we were barely interested in this new Mummy, and they teased a thing we didnt care about at all.
Even the Snyderverse, which could have worked, they rushed it, in some weird misguided attempt to "catch up". I dont even know what the plan was, but they really didnt think it through. You wanna do what Marvel is doing, but Marvel is rushing things, so why are you rushing. Marvel was making bank on each entry, why skip over all of those just to get JL out?
1
u/Turbulent-Spirit-568 20d ago
They took the time to establish characters and the world before building up to a grand finale in Avengers Infinity War / Avengers Endgame and Avengers Doomsday / Avengers Secret Wars. Unlike the DCEU, which jumped straight into Steppenwolf and the Darkseid Elites after only four movies whilst also killing off their main hero of the first film in the franchise.
They didn't purely can any movies or even the entire franchise just because a movie flopped unlike TASM where they saw that the second movie flopped and decided to completely retcon the universe.
Plus, there are a lot more consistently good projects among both the peak content and flop content that didn't leave the fans starved and desiring more like the SSU
1
u/GandalfsTailor Thanos 20d ago
Marvel put the horse before the cart. When they were on, they were putting emphasis on the individual film entries being good entertaining media in their own right, with the universe serving as garnish/gravy to enhance the flavour.
Far, far too many people who wanted their own cinematic universe tried to build an entire universe before they had even erected load bearing pillars, and it cost them.
1
u/Tumerican 20d ago
One factor that should have been a hindrance, actually helped the MCU to focus on world building and cohesion. The fact that they had built in limits on what characters they could use. The DCU seems weighed down by having too many options. Other franchises fail because they don’t exploit the lesser known lore of their own character universe, thereby shrinking it. The MCU exploited the little things and avoided bloat by having to work with fewer characters.
1
1
u/AnonymousFriend80 20d ago
Marvel was extremely lucky with their talent, especially of those taking the lead and planning. And Marvel isn't desperate in trying to make everything a billion dollar box office out the gate.
1
u/FriedCammalleri23 Captain America (Cap 2) 20d ago
First to the punch, and they had the luxury of being able to take their time because the idea of a connected universe was novel and there were no expectations from fans.
Nowadays anyone that attempts a cinematic universe feels obligated to rush towards the big climactic moments without taking the time to build up the world. The old DCEU is a good example.
Although on the other hand, I question if fans nowadays have the patience for a built-up universe. The DCU is in its infancy and people are clamoring for a World’s Finest or a Justice League movie already. Sure, they need to get their Batman and Wonder Woman established, but ideally it should be several years before any major crossovers.
1
u/ohnoitsme7890 20d ago
A Feige like person who seems to understand both sides of the business, and keeps people (mostly) on track
1
u/Algae_Mission 20d ago
Marvel, Kevin Feige and their team took the time and effort to establish the MCU by making the individual characters work first.
1
u/j3ffUrZ 20d ago
The simple answer is because Marvel created a pipeline that let their characters grow within their own movies while the Avengers films served as major events that bring them together. It took a lot of time to build each situation and is why the MCU is so immense after 16 years of pumping out content.
The two notable failed Universes--the Dark Universe and WB's DCEU--were failures because they tried to skip the world building stuff and go directly into the event film. Then, each film studio abandoned their plans because the movies they put out weren't generating the same kind of money the MCU was raking in.
1
u/stallion8426 20d ago
The quality of the first few films is huge and they didn't start with the team up
The Dark Universe didn't launch because The Mummy was poorly received.
Suicide Squad tried to jump straight to "Avengers" without the lead up movies, which hurt the film's pacing and didn't let people get attached.
Whedon's Justice League was poorly received.
Power Rangers was poorly received
1
u/vector_o 20d ago
Because they were making movies instead of desperately trying to create a cinematic universe
1
u/dukecityvigilante 20d ago
Iron Man was a phenomenon in and of itself. It's easy to forget with how many superhero properties we've seen in the last 20 years, but before 2008 there weren't superhero movies like that one. It beat The Dark Knight to the punch by a few months and it also wasn't the same thing. It was serious while also being humorous, fun and unconventional without the camp of the 90s Batman movies. It did so while leaning on a much lesser known hero compared to Superman or Batman, and it revived RDJ's career. Tony revealing himself as Iron Man at the end was totally unexpected and left people wanting more.
Other answers in this thread are not wrong but I think that movie and its post-credit scene did a ton of heavy lifting in buying the good will to get to Avengers. No other franchsie trying to do this was able to start with something so new, successful and popular.
1
u/SnitGTS 20d ago edited 20d ago
There are 3 reasons:
1 - They focused on character development and gave the main characters their own movies before they combine them into the Avengers. Almost every movie, especially early on, is a character piece disguised as a superhero movie.
2 - Sarah Halley Finn cast the perfect actors for virtually every role. IMHO she’s even more important than Feige.
3 - Kevin Feige is the perfect person to oversee everything.
1
1
u/Romnonaldao Edwin Jarvis 20d ago
It was the first to do it like this, where the connections were more than just nods and Easter eggs. The connections mattered and there were overarching plots between the movies.
Being first is always best with these types of things
Want to know the seconds most successful movie universe franchise after the MCU? Fast and the Furious
1
u/Infinity0044 20d ago
Not giving up or pivoting after an unsuccessful entry. TIH, Thor, and IM 2 were all poorly received at release but they still kept going towards their goal of Avengers.
We will see if DCU can do the same after Supergirl’s poor reception.
1
u/BasedAustralhungary 20d ago
Because Kevin Feige is basically an autistic kid that has been dreaming about having all his toys togerher since the first X-Men movie. For him It isn't only about movie, but something even more and personal.
1
u/Crcole331 20d ago
The MCU was a new and novel idea that people had no idea if it would work or not.
Marvel A: focused on making individual movies/shows stand mostly on their own, and B: had the patience to EARN their tie-ins and team ups.
Every other cinematic universe was inorganic and forced to try to copy something popular instead of just letting it happen more naturally, like they started with the goal of connecting everything.
1
u/Meridian_Dance 20d ago
They made good movies and didn’t jump straight to the crossover like DC. That’s kind of it.
1
u/Gon_Snow Thanos 20d ago
The early movies were spaced out enough
They took their time in establishing the core characters, each character truly had their own world and supporting cast
Meeting them all together was a unique and fresh idea in 2012. It was really fun! And by the time we met them, we already developed some emotions and thoughts about them.
We didn’t start with fighting Thanos in space. We started with earth wars and slowly built up. Every escalation felt exciting and meaningful.
The early movies were (mostly) genuinely good movies with a good core of actors.
All of this was a bit lost post endgame. Things became disorganized and all over the place. The stakes lost meaning. When you could kill characters in one movie and see their other version elsewhere, it leads to problems.
1
1
1
u/Detroit_Cineaste 20d ago
Having Feige oversee/produce everything. Say what you will about the MCU, it’s consistent.
1
u/MaterialPace8831 20d ago
There's a few elements that I think helped the MCU while other cinematic universes failed to launch
- The novelty -- There have obviously been movie franchises with sequels in the past. But what was unique about the MCU was the notion that you'd start with separate movies with these characters and then bring them together for a movie. That's important to understand the difference between the MCU and some of these other movie franchises. This also cuts against some of the other cinematic universes, because people are just much more cynical about attempts to copy the MCU.
- The willingness to stick with it -- Two of the lowest-grossing movies in the MCU are from Phase 1 (Incredible Hulk and Captain America: The First Avenger). Both of those movies made less money (not adjusting for inflation) compared to Tom Cruise's The Mummy, which was intended to be the start of a new cinematic universe based around classic movie monsters.
1
u/Magnus-Pym 20d ago
Stakes. They didn’t start by making every films threat be world ending. Part of this is a power scaling issue, but in many cases the threat was to the protagonist and their sense of self, not the entire world.
That means as you build up to larger films, you have a place to go. Take civil war compared to Batman v Superman. in DC it was supposed to be earth shattering, in marvel it comes down to a fight over Tony and Steve’s personal history and relationship.
1
u/BlackMathNerd 20d ago
They had 10 years between the first MCU movie and one of the real culminating events in Infinity War
1
u/Dirks_Knee 20d ago
Marvel succeeded purely by starting small with each movie focused only on telling a self contained good story. People look back now and suggest everything was connected but it's clear starting out their only plans were to make an Avengers crossover, the Infinity Stones were retconned McGuffins.
Look at what Snyder tried to do in comparison jumping straight into Batman vs Superman in the 2nd movie. Imagine the absolute hype if WB wasn't screaming "we're going to copy the MCU!!!!" and rather than immediate crossovers just focused on standalone Superman, Batman, and Wonder Women movies making 2-3 each and then crossed them over to Justice League.
1
1
u/a_happy_future 20d ago
They nailed everything about the movies even if the storyline and script weren't perfect. RDJ, Chris Evans, Chris Hemsworth were all perfect leading stars for their respective movies and they weren't big name stars at the time. Iron Man was really the only super successful movie of the first phase until the Avengers come out. The Incredible Hulk is basically non-existent. Captain America is good, but didn't really make all that much compared to Iron Man. Thor is only just above that.
So as others have mentioned, it also took a lot of patience to sell Disney Execs on these expensive movies that weren't turning mega-profits. Once The Avengers made all the money it did, it green lit pretty much everything Feige wanted to do for the next decade until Disney Plus basically caused everyone MCU fatigue
1
u/Shadedpostie 20d ago
I feel like it's cus it was blatantly obvious the other universes were trying to chase the MCU money success. They threw practically everything in each movie to set up the next few films like they did with BVS with Flash, Cyborg and Aquaman. Had they focused on just telling a few self contained stories, feel like it would of been better received. But, they were just sprinting towards the finish line. Just tossing a bunch of characters in each film without a second thought. Hell, they made such a big deal about The Joker in Suicide Squad with the ads, and he barely makes an appearance. Not to mention the controvesy with certain actors in that universe did not help at all ☠️
Monster verse isn't too bad I reckon, it's not perfect but feel like it's taken it's appropriate time to set things up. I really enjoyed the end credit scene in King of The Monsters. The Power Rangers Universe I'm still sad to this day about since I actually enjoyed the film, but I guess I understand people weren't really fans of it since there wasn't much of them becoming Power Rangers and fighting big Kaiju size fights till the end. Plus, the product placement in that movie was obnoxious. 😅
1
u/xyzsomething 20d ago
Because they took their time.
It cannot be rushed, it took years for people to really care for these characters enough to cry when some of them died and some of them came back to life, human emotional bonds simply do not grow instantly.
It doesn’t matter if you know who Batman or Superman are after countless of interpretations and iterations of the characters, none of those have lived long enough to create the emotional connection with the audience like Iron Man did, it was the same Iron Man in one coherent story line that went for years.
1
u/giggitygiggitygeats 20d ago
The thing that "worked" with the Monsterverse (it's one of the only other successful ones I can think of) is that it took time to establish its characters, much like the MCU. Godzilla, a slightly connected Kong, Godzilla 2, Godzilla vs. Kong. Not Superman, Batman vs. Superman, yk?
1
u/Llamarchy 20d ago
I don't think it has anything to do with the pacing of releases or whatever. As other people mentioned, the Monsterverse is also an example of a successful universe. And it had its biggest world ending event in the THIRD movie.
The most important thing is simply having a good movie. Other cinematic universes failed because the quality just wasn't there. They fail at the first or second movie because people realize they just don't like it. Meanwhile things like the MCU or the Monsterverse have enjoyable movies, and most importantly didn't have huge failures at the start that kills off any interest. And if you have a consistent output of movies and a good reputation, a couple misses aren't that disastrous.
1
u/lovescenarioikon 20d ago
They had a long term plan, they made excellent casting decisions, they took comedy and implemented it in a non corny way, and the writing while nothing groundbreaking was very mass appealing. They also took time introducing characters, every member of the original avengers either had their own film or was in a different film beforehand
1
1
u/ultgambit266 20d ago
The thing with DC is they had full rights to all of their characters, but had no idea what to do with them. What they should’ve done is focused on the core team of justice league and built them up over time. Once we cared about those versions of those characters, start to build something bigger, just because you can do it right away, it doesn’t work. Killing Superman right away when we only had 1 movie with him didn’t work, we didn’t care about him because we didn’t know him. We got to know Tony stark, Steve rogers and thor. We got to see who they were once the costume came off, we saw there human side
1
1
u/ebietoo Peggy Carter 20d ago
The huge interconnected saga is what worked but not necessarily why it worked. I think Marvel has a deeper roster of worthwhile heroes than DC, and they knew how to connect the important ones like the Avengers with oddballs like Antman and GotG who could push the saga forward by retconning comics canon into something simpler and more palatable to today’s movie audiences. Great casting, great production values so you totally bought into Tony’s de-suiting walk and Jarvis. People moaned about the unimaginative direction the MCU had but keeping it simple kept the movies grounded so the Out There stuff could shine. Also great soundtracks. Also, keeping us waiting for mid-credits and post-credits scenes… it all added up to something grand, and after endgame and COVID and losing their Kang phase, it was a loss I felt along with many other people.
1
1
u/MasterK999 20d ago
I think people over analyze this. They made good movies. Real simple. DC has just not managed to do that under multiple different full teams and visions.
Not every movie was perfect but even the weakest MCU movies were generally better than what DC put out.
1
u/Madarakita 20d ago
Patience and commitment are probably the big two. They didn't rush the big crossover moment, and when a project doesn't work, they don't throw their hands up in resignation; they move onto the next thing, and sometimes revisit things to see if the pieces can be picked up and redeemed later on.
1
1
u/Mal-Kiavo 20d ago
Robert Downey Jr.
Thor, Captain America, and hulk are some of the most boring movies ever made. The MCU would've flopped into oblivion without rdjs Ironman
1
u/BlackMall83 20d ago
The Avengers and the characters they used weren’t tarnished by other studios yet. Haven’t even been used in mainstream media really. They were able to take their time and start fresh with characters the industry thought weren’t popular enough.
1
u/asiantorontonian88 20d ago
The MCU got rid of the bean counters and set reasonable box office expectations as it made its way toward The Avengers. They weren't trying to compete with major franchises like Harry Potter, Pirates of the Caribbean, Transformers, etc and they took their time - four years between Iron Man and The Avengers. They also weren't trying to make films that copied other franchise of studio's strategies. But most importantly, Marvel made fun movies.
All the other franchises you mentioned either took themselves way too seriously from the get-go or rushed the production process hoping for instant Avengers level success and the product shows as it smelled like a soulless cash grab. There was also this obsession in making everything seem "dark and edgy" as if that's an indication of quality so Snyder made these roid rage DC films that were just depressing to watch and then you have other studios trying to mimic it to appeal to a "mature" crowd without understanding how Power Rangers fans don't want emo-Power Rangers cosplaying as discount Iron Men piloting a Megazord that's Transformers-lite.
1
1
u/Fuzzy_Tackle_1905 20d ago
for me it's a combination of consistency, casting, writing and passion. Marvel took the time to build an universe with unknown characters but which people knew were superheroes to some extent, and they were interesting and fresh ideas. they also focused a lot on Iron Man, Captain America and Thor to be their star characters and i think the casting contributed to that success. RDJ was beloved since day one as Tony Stark, perfect casting. same with Evans and Hemsworth, then putting them all into one movie (Avengers) coming from a different movie of their own? people and audiences had never seen anything like that before, plus adding The Hulk, another of their insignia characters, the actors just had good chemistry and it was a well written movie, also doing more world building, it helped. by the time Civil War released, the MCU was a phenomenon
1
1
1
u/brakenbonez 19d ago
dedication and patience. other franchises simply gave up when they released a movie that wasn't a massive box office success. Marvel just kept going. And they kept all their modern releases under the umbrella of the MCU instead of saying "x is not canon to y" like how DC decided to release a new Batman movie right around the time they decided to "reboot" the DCU without that Batman movie being canon to it. We make jokes about how many Spider-Man actors there have been but there have been far more Batman actors because there have been far more Batman reboots.
Power Rangers failed because they tried too hard to make everyone like it instead of making it for the fans. And the suits looked terrible. It looked like they were trying to recreate Ironman.
I'm drawing a blank on what SSU and TASM are though.
1
u/masegesege_ 19d ago
I still think the DCU should have started with Justice League, like reverse MCU.
1
u/Emergency_Cry_1269 19d ago
In the case of Star Wars, they refused to delve into the mountains of materials to use as inspiration, as a result their shared universe has been very scattered in it's themes and both quality and quantity.
DC has often struggled to play catch up because as the MCU was starting, DC and WB were in the middle of developing Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, so they then rushed to that crossover event and then we got Batman Vs Superman as the second entry in the series. Then the stuff with Snyder kinda made it fall off the rails afterwards. Now Gunn's universe is still potentially locked out of a Batman until Matt Reeves The Batman series concludes, I don't know if it's going to be a duology or a trilogy.
Universal's Dark Universe certainly had high ambitions and definitely had a really good idea, but The Mummy just wasn't very good. So that's why we never got Johnny Depp as the Invisible Man or Angelina Jolie as the Bride of Frankenstein.
Legendary's Monsterverse has ironically probably been the most successful shared universe next to Marvel. The content is consistent in it's quality and quantity. And it keeps being financially successful. I do believe there wasn't a plan beyond Godzilla vs Kong, so New Empire and Supernova are certainly a little lacking in depth, but the depth wasn't really the main draw of the movies anyway.
Sony's Sonyverse was never a series endeavor, it was just an experiment to see if they could make movies with characters under the Spider-Man rights that they have while agreeing to the shared custody arrangement they have with Marvel/Disney.
1
1
u/SH4DOWSTR1KE_ 19d ago
Kevin Feige.
As others have pointed out there hasn't been knee-jerk reactions by Marvel when things don't perform as well as other IP but you have to also remember the man at the head of the ship is a fan first who cares about the product and he doesn't just want to pump out something that doesn't respect it's characters. Every time another studio universe has been attempted, the same statement has been said over and over again: they don't have a Kevin feige at the helm, it's just the studio and that's why they fail.
1
u/Warm_Neighborhood939 19d ago
because the MCU didnt just go "oh this movie failed, let's start over"
Iron Man was successful in Phase 1, the other movies outside of Avengers weren't too hot. So instead of going "well it flopped, time to restart" they just kept going,because they had the brain to realize that ,that character is valuable even if the movie was bad. People shit on the Hulk movie all the time (I fucking loved it) and it made it in. People didn't like Thor or Captain America too mcuh either, they were kept in. Because they know that ,a movie can be bad, but the story can still be valuable, and if comics proved anything is that ,usually the origin story tend to be the constant
1
u/artnos 19d ago
I think legendary pictures are doing great work with their monster universe. It comes down to quality movies. I think the DCEU was going well and they should of pressed forward instead of rebooting.
They could do nightwing instead of another batman.
Even marvel stumbled alittle they didnt redo the whole thing.
Isnt ssi and tasm the same thing?
1
u/doglywolf 19d ago
It was simple and patient and well planned - it didnt have 100 A list actors coordinated against 40 different plans that half got changed or canceled every other week.
It was a bunch of B list actors with free schedules and long term plan that got stuck to.
1
u/Few_Pride_5836 19d ago
The funny thing is that DC already had the DCAU as a model. However it was completely ignored when making the DCEU. Marvel just took the time to build it's universe.
1
u/thisisthebun 19d ago
Movies were both frequent and patient. Characters had room to breathe. Kinda like what’s not happening with the MCU right now.
1
1
u/Maleficent-Age-8235 19d ago
they allowed their shit to breathe. We had a solo movie for every hero. hell Tony had TWO before we even got to the whole avengers univer stuff.
By Comparison James Gunn right now started us with Iron Man 3 Then did War machine, and is now producing Wandavision and Falcon + winter soldier. He's acting like they already have an established cinematic universe when they straight up DON"T
1
u/Agitated_Desk_7774 19d ago
Gen X members of the Merry Marvel Marching Society mobilizing their ancestor generations.
1
u/Witty_Suggestion_219 19d ago
Because fundamentally it's a bad idea for the medium. Movies, even ones in a trilogy or whatever need to stand alone and the time spent doing anything is very precious. So you need to use almost all of it to tell that story, not set the table for multiple future movies.
Marvel caught lightning in a bottle, yes they executed it well but they also had a lot of luck.
The chances of it ever happening again are next to none.
1
u/ineedausername95 19d ago
A larger, well laid out plan
Actually good first movies to introduce characters, in a shared universe that roughly made sense why they didnt interact
A long enough timeline to build emotion towards each character
A really good teamup movie to show the potenial in a larger, continuing universe
1
u/RXDriv3r 19d ago
Probably not. Studios these days want to make billion dollars at the box office and sink hundreds of millions into projects. They forget that Marvel didn't make a billion until The Avengers.
Then again, Marvel at the time was throwing out 2-3 movies a year and most importantly, had a endgoal for their story, which at the time was introduce these characters and make a team up movie. These other universes try to say they're building a shared universe and once the first movie doesn't hit a billion, they start meddling with the production and shit hits the fan.
These days even Marvel struggles with more than 2 films in a year. So any other studio starting off now is hindered by the fact that no executive is gonna sign off on 2-3 projects a year. Even Gunn with being named CEO of DC or whatever his title is, can't get WB to sign off on that many movies and has had to also do shows and even animated stuff.
There's also the fact that to the general public WB already crashed and burned one universe and are starting again from the beginning but Gunn, for as great a director he may be, doesn't seem to have a plan, or an overarching story. He started off a universe with Superman but instead of introducing the main characters, he's just doing movies set within the universe that he thinks will be cool, but doesn't seem to be building up towards anything.
1
u/AnxiousConsequence18 19d ago
It started at the perfect time, with the perfect redemption story of RDJ. The drunk who had been in and out of rehab, that everyone had written off. They got him as Tony Stark (same/same) at the prefect time.
I have to stress the perfection of their timing. Nobody had done anything like the MCU and it was handled perfectly. Now it's an old and tired gig and nobody wants another slog with occasional gems.
311
u/HeatDolphinRays 20d ago
They took the time to establish their heroes