Hacker News Reader

Comment by n8cpdx | Hacker News Reader

This article doesn't cover _how_ marvel was able to be successful for so long.

This article from HBR does, and I think is particularly insightful: https://hbr.org/2019/07/marvels-blockbuster-machine

They have a podcast epsidoe released around the same time that covers the same content, if you prefer listening.

People like to criticize marvel (mostly closed-minded people who assume all the movies are the same and choose not to watch them because they 'lower the quality of film' somehow by existing) but there's a lot to learn from them.

There is a lot of fantastically original content coming out of marvel. I thought WandaVision was a particularly fun twist on the history of television.

View on HN

The real secret sauce: Kevin Feige of Marvel Studios, and his team including the top-tier casting director Sarah Halley Finn.

Kevin Feige prevented Marvel movies from getting stale by completely switching the genre every single movie: eg, Winter Soldier (political thriller), Ant-Man (heist movie), Spider-Man Homecoming (high-school drama movie), Thor Ragnarok (Australia/New Zealand comedy), Shang-Chi (mythical Chinese martial arts movie).

Feige has said if a character is ever successful enough to have a third movie, they will always take a very different approach from the prior two movies. Thor Ragnarok is the best example of this: a soft reboot of the personality of a previously dull Shakespearean character into a fan favorite. The success of that soft reboot was enough to give that C-level character his fourth solo movie -- something Marvel has not done before.

None of Marvel's competitors have any producer of Kevin Feige's caliber. Not Warner Bros (DC comics), not Sony (Spiderman-villains universe) and not even Disney's LucasFilm (Star Wars).

Kevin Feige is 48 years old and it's not clear whether he'll retire after the X-Men and Fantastic Four are integrated in the MCU.

His magic touch and keen understanding of the characters have been a key part of the Marvel Studio's success, and it's not at all clear whether it will survive when he leaves.

Marvel Studios could become like LucasFilm after George Lucas sold it. It's a shell of its former self that can barely produce anything passable: Mandalorian and Rogue One just make the cut as being acceptable Star Wars, but very little else.

The Mandalorian is a bit more than "acceptable Star Wars" - they experimented with production techniques that are one step beyond anything attempted before, while resurrecting a side of SW (the 'western' one) that had been effectively lost since the end of the original trilogy.

And the main guy behind it? Jon Favreau, the man who effectively invented the MCU formula (fights and laughs) with the first Iron Man.

Feige is good, but I'd bet more on Favreau to deliver than on any producer.

(also, Thor a "C-level" character? He's had a dedicated monthly comic-book basically uninterrupted for more than 50 years, and features an entire cast of dedicated supporting characters and locations in Asgard... He's definitely an A-lister. IronMan, on the other hand, could absolutely be called a B-lister, since he spent large parts of his publication history effectively as little more than support for the Captain America / Avengers ecosystem, with very bad stories and artists. I would absolutely call "C-listers" Iron Fist, Luke Cage, Jessica Jones, or the Guardians of the Galaxy - definitely not Thor.)

The Mandalorian episodes that Jon Favreau directed are definitely top tier Star Wars. Great writing, great acting, great storylines.

But there are so many lower-quality episodes in that series from less experienced directors with bad acting and weaker storylines. I believe things like bringing back Ahsoka Tano weakens the storyline of the Star Wars original trilogy as much as bringing back Palpatine in the sequel trilogy did. It reduces the impact of sacrifices that were made and raises questions that may never be answered.

I agree the new technique of using "virtual sets" with Unreal Engine rather than green screen [1] is great innovation that helps make way more immersive TV shows with less budget (the first time I saw reflections of CGI characters on Mando's metallic helmet I was awestruck).

I just hope Mandalorian and the other Star Wars series maintain a high quality that we've seen brief flashes of. I'm disappointed when the franchise doesn't live up to my high expectations. Many episodes of Mandalorian are not quite there for me. Some definitely are "perfect Star Wars" though.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpUI8uOsKTM

> The Mandalorian episodes that Jon Favreau directed are definitely top tier Star Wars. Great writing, great acting, great storylines.

> But there are so many lower-quality episodes in that series from less experienced directors with bad acting and weaker storylines.

I feel the same way with “pre-Disney Star Wars films” in place of “Mandalorian” and “Irvin Kershner” in place of “Jon Favreau”.

the writing on mandalorian is ultra bad. The characters are caricatures, the dialog stunted. Their ultra advanced production techniques just look like props with some CG. Rather than a show that would appeal to kids but have depth for adults, you get a mostly simple main character who does inexplicable things. Find the baby using locator, fly off with baby, forget about locator? Leave the baby every bounty hunter is looking for on the space truck with the local dockwoman and go do something else, etc.

It was unbearable to watch from a story perspective so I stopped about 3/4 of the way through season 1. being "ok star wars" seems to be the very best it can aspire to.

It's just a pastiche of star wars with some mixed in memberberries.

I agree. I find there are sometimes flashes of Star Wars perfection, and it has all the pieces to be consistently top-tier. The depth they put into expanding upon the culture of the side species like the Jawas was great.

But so much is wasted on bad character decisions, bad dialogue, bad acting and more. Just overall bad writing.

There's so much potential, but it doesn't live up to what I expect from Star Wars. And that's so disappointing.

I hope Disney/LucasFilm does better, because Star Wars continues to be a very important franchise to me and many others.

>There's so much potential, but it doesn't live up to what I expect from Star Wars.

clone wars was more sophisticated than mandalorian, and its a cartoon.

I've given up on star wars - I don't bother to even check out new stuff. It's dead and disney is wearing its corpse.

Clone Wars was 7 series of 10 to 22 episodes each - 133 episodes, many of them barely watchable by anyone over 10 years of age. The good ones are really good, but there is a lot of dreck too, particularly the first 3-4 seasons. Take 16 random CW episodes and I don't think you'll find a better level of sophistication in it than in The Mandalorian.

You're right but I think overall Clone Wars is more sophisticated than Mandalorian. Mandalorian isn't being released into a vacuum.

Been pretty much dead to me since midichlorians. Despecialised editions only here.

The clone wars started really bad, but it got better and better with every season. I mean there are always a couple of meh episodes per season, but overall they're getting better, and the last season is getting better than episode III.

That's pretty good for an animated kid's cartoon.

Wow, you haven't given up yet? Because they gave up on making stuff for us a long time ago..

I think it's pretty clear that Mando is not the brightest bulb in the box.

It's not 'mando' its that the writers are writing a story where the characters go do things the writers decided without having internally consistent logic or motives.

The character is dumb because the writers are bad.

I also "loved" how they started with "he's good, but not that good" to "yeah, he's an invincible undying god" in the span of three episodes.

And the original Death Star had an unprotected exhaust tunnel going all the way to the critical core... It's StarWars, some suspension of disbelief is necessary. "Mando" is a guy who simply struggles with anything that is not bounty-hunting, and acting as a parent clearly sends him in complete confusion more often than not.

I know there are weak episodes, some almost on purpose (like the village defense, a homage to samurai films from a simpler era), but I don't agree about The Mandalorian being bad overall because it just isn't. It delivers worldbuilding, ambience, and characters (ironically, the ones under helmets end up being more memorable than the others...); the soundtrack is insanely good, the production art alone is fantastic, and it's a miracle that it's a tv-series at all. My kids just love it in a way they've not loved any other SW material.

The only thing I would change is Gina Carano (bad actor, bad casting, and turns out she's a bad person too), but that's it.

I disagree strongly. It's so poorly written that mando does stupid things because the writers are stupid. He's no boba fett that's for sure.

Boba Fett is your example of a smart character? The character that jetpacks within lightsaber reach of a Jedi then gets knocked into a sarlacc pit by a blind guy with a stick?

You can’t beat jedis from range - they use their lightsabers to block blaster bolts using the force.

You have to overwhelm them.

>And the original Death Star had an unprotected exhaust tunnel going all the way to the critical core... It's StarWars, some suspension of disbelief is necessary.

bad writing does not require suspension of disbelief to handle, that requires poor critical faculties. Luckily kids tend to have both.

Also, architectural flaws in a government project are more believable than revolving lists of characters being inexplicably stupid at just the right plot moments for their stupidity to have maximum effect, and then going back to competence once the twist of their stupidity has done its work, which most dramatic series rely on for their momentum.

And what about all those poor government contractors, installing toilets for stormtroopers, blown to hell by some left-wing radical in the name of some mysticist religion... /s

I think there is a lot of revisionism around, about how "good" the original StarWars movies were. Yes they were fun, did worldbuilding very well and all that, but they weren't exactly particularly clever cinematic masterpieces. What followed them in many cases was much worse (the prequels are atrocious), but still, I don't see them as particularly better than stuff like The Mandalorian.

It’s always funny to me how much dumber the writing in Star Wars (1977) gets when it strays away from its source material (The Hidden Fortress and The Dambusters)

You forgot to add "In my opinion." Every adult I've introduced Mandalorian to loves it.

I am an adult. I enjoyed it, but didn't love it.

It's definitely the best thing to happen to Star Wars in a long time, but amazing? It isn't. It just goes to show how low Star Wars has fallen that boring drivel that is Rogue One and unassuming adventure for kids like Mandalorian are praised as the best thing since sliced cheese.

Like the comment you’re replying to said: this is your opinion. I loved Mandalorian and looked forward to it every week. I - and my friends who watched it - certainly didn’t see it as boring drivel or an “unassuming adventure for kids” (I don’t even know what that means). But you’re speaking with great conviction as if this is an objective fact. It’s not - we all get different things from it just like any other media. No need to insult Star Wars fans either. You don’t like it - that’s fine - but this is completely subjective.

There are some objective-ish criteria we can apply: plot structure, themes, language and dialog complexity etc.

There are also more subjective criteria which can nonetheless employed like character development and character complexity in general, plot lines and plot wholes, number of literary and narrative devices employed etc.

Mandalorian is a simple linear narrative with an episodic structure with a rather thin plot, little to no character development, and the only "arc" serving as the single motivation for the plot to advance.

This especially evident in Season 2 Episode 7, where they tried to cram a series worth of a character's redemption arc and world building into a single episode.

This doesn't make Mandalorian bad. It's a very enjoyable well executed show with surprisingly few really weak points. This also doesn't make Mandalorian great, or amazing.

In 14 episodes Firefly had more character development, better dialog, working jokes and better acting than 16 episodes of Mandalorian.

As to boring drivel, that's my view of Rogue One: thin plot full of plot holes. The only narrative structure in the entire film is "15 minutes of static talking heads followed by rather uninspired and badly edited CGI action"

Yes I know about the structure of a film, dialog etc. But even with that kind of breakdown it still comes down to whether you like the film or not, which is completely subjective. Back in the day Ebert and Siskel - arguably the top film critics of their day - also knew about all the things you listed and could break down any film in the same way. Yet on the show they had vehement disagreements over certain movies that one liked and one didn’t. I’m not arguing over anything you said - all I’m saying, like the parent comment, is that this isn’t as objective as you’re trying to make it. Experiencing any art is subjective, whether movies, paintings, books, etc. Objectivity requires something that is true for everyone. Your opinions of the series certainly isn’t true for me and my friends, and other people on this thread who’ve said they liked it. So they’re your opinions, and only that.

> is that this isn’t as objective as you’re trying to make it.

I mean, I started with my reply to a comment that literally said this: "Every adult I've introduced Mandalorian to loves it." :D

Of course everything is subjective. We can still say about something "something is enjoyable, even if something is simple and is mostly aimed at kids", or "despite apparent complexity and serious themes something is boring and unimaginative".

For example, basically all of Marvel is based on the formula of "simple but enjoyable". Ain't nothing wrong with that :)

I too am an adult. One of those that saw Star Wars New Hope in the cinema. I gave up on Mandalorian after 4 episodes. Cancelling Gina Carano will make it hard for me return for whatever else they do.

Star Wars is my biggest cinematic disappointment. Empire will always rate as one of the best movies I've ever seen. But making I to III look like a Lego set and making 7, 8 and 9 rehashes of 3, 4 and 5 was... disaster.

I loved Mando while having the exact same opinion on the movies as you…

I don't get it. Did you think I was speaking for someone else?

I found the writing and dialogues mostly terrific.

Glad it’s not superhero movie style, where every character has to explain out loud what he is going to do and why.

Favreau is the Steve Jobs of the MCU, Feige is the Tim Cook.

Just to talk in concrete terms, Jon Favreau only directed Iron Man 1 and 2. He was executive producer on Iron Man 3, and Avengers 1-3. Plus acting credits in MCU Spider-Man films.

He deserves plenty of credit for his work on Iron Man and launching the MCU (and the MCU's film making formula). Favreau has contributed to the MCU's continued market success with the Avengers films.

In my view Favreau's contribution ends there: the MCU is far more than just the Iron Man character, and Kevin Feige seems to me to be the one who has been pushing the MCU forward and keep it relevant.

Kind of a tangent: it's interesting to watch Favreau's Chef as being about Ironman. https://youtu.be/zIA3Iz48irs

I think Thor being C-level comes from a pure MCU standpoint: the first two Thor movies weren't as well-rated as the rest of the Phase 1 and 2 movies. They're the only two anyone considers skipping for newcomers/when re-watching the MCU, with TDW being the least important of the two (and the plot points in the movie are explained in the first act of the movies they were set up for, that being the reality stone and Loki disguised as Odin).

At the time, the first Thor had quite the cultural impact though, at least here in England. "Superheroes do Shakespeare", Sir Anthony Hopkins strutting around, Idris Elba's "Black Heimdall", and a certain female view in Natalie Portman's character, were the talk of the town for quite a while around these isles. The problem it has now is just that is not as funny as the rest of MCU - back then the formula was still being developed and they were trying different things, likely leaving more freedom to directors (see also the difference in experience for Favreau between the first and second IronMan - when clearly the suits stepped in to freeze the setup). I agree the second Thor is basically a footnote (I think I watched it but tbh I don't really remember it), but then Ragnarok comes and it's so fun... Also Thor becomes pretty central to the Avengers storyline, tying up the Earth side and the cosmic side. I think "C-level" is way too harsh.

I'd even put comic Guardians below the C-List. The team that was adapted had one couple year run that followed one continuous story thread.

It was a well-regarded run, and one of my favorites, but without the movie that team may have never come together again.

LucasFilm was a shell if it's former self that could barely produce anything passable long before George Lucas sold it off to Disney.

I've seen a lot of these MCU movies. I tried, but for me they are mostly fluff I forget the second I get out of the cinema. Pure low brow spectacles apart from maybe a couple. Am I closed minded oh great judge of taste and personality?

I've watched most of them, and after you've seen more than a couple with the same protagonist they all start to blend together. They're all pretty entertaining at least, which is why I like to watch them. And occasionally there's one that's actually pretty good and original, which is a nice surprise, but to me those are the minority.

I watched a ton of the earlier Marvel films including the first two avengers movies and you can call me closed-minded all you like it doesn't change the fact that they are mostly the same.

I no longer watch that dreck.

After the second Avenger's movie (Age of Ultron) I found the quality seemed to increase and became fresher and less repetitive (Guardian's of the Galaxy, Thor Ragnarok, Spider-Man Homecoming).

But still if you didn't like the first 8 movies, you probably won't like the next 14 movies.

But I still highly recommend Thor Ragnarok. Even as a standalone movie. Especially if you didn't like the first two Thor movies.

Thanks for the recommendation but I will absolutely not be watching anymore Disney dreck.

Thor Ragnarok is one of the few capeshit movies I have seen and it was pretty bad. The entire dialogue is written around forced oneliners from a minute into the opening scene. Guardians of the Galaxy was OK but nothing to write home about or even make me remember to watch the sequel(s?).

All of them are a steep drop in quality from The Dark Knight and there certainly isn't enough material there for twenty something 3hr films and half a dozen TV shows. Just like The Empire Strikes Back is a legitimately great movie while everything else Star Wars themed asymptotically approaches zero.

The whole idea of world building with dozens of movies is a scourge on story telling and a complete dead end imho.

Ragnarok is one of my favorite movies of all time, as I found it unique, mesmerizing, and incredibly re-watchable. Great comedy, great drama, great action, great world building.

The Dark Knight and the rest of its trilogy are just so ... blah. I just re-watched the 3rd and still find it so tepid and uninspired. I mean, Bane is kinda cool, but the rest is just bad. The story was insipid and hacked.

The multi movie story and world building is the best thing that has happened in cinema in a long time.

So you and I apparently have quite different tastes.

The earlier ones are the most same-y. For example, the three MCU tv shows this year all have radically different tones.

Just to clarify, there has been four MCU TV shows this year so far: Wandavision (great), Loki (great), Falcon and the Winter Soldier (terrible), and What If (good and sometimes great).

All four are made by Marvel Studios (not Marvel Television like Daredevil and Agents of Shield) with actual Marvel actors and firmly take place in the MCU.

It's worth checking out What If. If you don't like the show, I still recommend watching the fourth episode (Dr Strange).

Sure, everyone has different tastes. In my opinion Thor Ragnarok and the two latter Avengers movies (Infinity War and Endgame) are worth a watch even for non-hardcore fans.

Avengers movies (Infinity War and Endgame) are worth a watch even for non-hardcore fans.

While Infinity War can work as an almost standalone movie, if there ever was a movie made for the hardcore fans, it's Endgame. Unless you've absorbed all the lore that came before, 80% of the call-backs and references that the whole movie is built on won't mean anything to you.

I mean the scene in the climax the all the fans lose their shit over and considers the most powerful and pivotal scene in the movie is a character picking up a weapon and saying a word. Nothing within that movie gives any indication as to why any of that is a Really Big Deal.

For me it is an example of superhero inflation. After the third time a city is rampaged you stop to care. They introduce more and more powerful characters to use them in almost medieval battles. I would like to see WWI or WWII tactics super hero movie, but for now I am on a diet and just don't care.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com