MCU Fan Show - Marvel Studios commentary

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This month, Sean talks about sequels!

Discussion prompt via David Rosen:

This perhaps might be an extension of the Marvel fatigue conversation, but I would be interested to hear your take on the different types of sequels that Hollywood puts out and why some types of sequels contribute to franchise fatigue, while other don’t. 

So just to elaborate a little, I think there are generally two types of sequels in Hollywood; the first, which I think is the most common, is the type that doesn’t necessarily offer or add anything new to a storyline, but is essentially just a rehash of a particular premise, either with different characters or the same characters just placed in a different setting. Some examples I would cite would be Jurassic Park, Indiana Jones, Transformers, Terminator, Mission Impossible, and the list could go on. In almost all of these cases, there is a familiar premise that gets overplayed, often leading to franchise fatigue that leads to the death of the franchise. 

Meanwhile, other franchises like Star Wars, Back to the Future, Harry Potter, in some respects the Rocky/Creed movies, and above all the MCU, are telling much longer narratives that can’t all be told in one movie, and keeps audiences engaged and wanting to know what happens next.

Do you think it’s fair to lump all kinds of sequels together, and simply label them as vehicles for Hollywood studios to make money or can/should exceptions be made for legitimate creative purposes when a filmmaker or makers feel that one movie isn’t enough when there is so much of a story to tell? When is the end of a franchise the end and when should audiences and critics allow for a filmmaker or studio to continue to tell a story without being criticized for attempting an easy cash grab? While the MCU is definitely telling a much longer narrative, are there any legitimate arguments to be made that in some cases, there were movies which didn’t necessarily move the overall narrative forward and could maybe be guilty of being a rehash of already played ideas. 

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

0:20 Linc

The Mandalorian episodes are reportedly $15m an episode, but the MCU series are reportedly $25m an episode. But the Mandalorian seems to average 25-35m runtimes, while Victoria Alonso said we're in for "6 hours of Loki" implying his 6 episodes will be an hour a piece.

Could we have misconstrued the value per minute of the shows, and could extra budget for the MCU shows simply be to accommodate ~6 hours screentime by contrast to the ~4 hours of Mandalorian (per season/year)?

`6 hours @ $25m per hour = $150m`

`4 hours @ $15m per 30m = $120m`

This actually goes the other way: per minute, Mandalorian is more expensive.

10:51 Woo S Kim

Seeing "Knives Out" and the success Rian Johnson had with a large cast of characters, do you think he would be a good candidate as a Writer Director for the fifth Avengers film whenever that may be?

15:21 Anthony Lawrey

Thoughts on the rumors (let’s say that it’s true for the sake of the question) that Doom will be the villain in Black Panther 2?

25:54 Linc

In Captain America: The First Avenger, the Red Skull uses weapons powered by the Space Stone. The apparent outcome is that the people he shoots are obliterated, but since it's the Space Stone, could he have been teleporting them somewhere else in the universe, unwittingly?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.