Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 31
  1. #1
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,502

    Default Axel-In-Charge - May 9, 2014

    With Axel Alonso on vacation, Marvel chief creative officer Joe Quesada talks "Daredevil" on Netflix, the first "Agents of SHIELD" season and lots more.


    Full article here.

  2. #2
    Homo Superior Stormcrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    419

    Default

    Yeah, I still don't like Agents of SHIELD.

    Looking forward to the Netflix series, though this was not particularly informative.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    444

    Default

    I get the impression focusing more on Marvel's multi-media spinoffs is a lot more fun for Joe Quesada now than it was for Stan Lee in the '70s.

  4. #4
    BANNED sonofspam1972's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gurkle View Post
    I get the impression focusing more on Marvel's multi-media spinoffs is a lot more fun for Joe Quesada now than it was for Stan Lee in the '70s.
    To be honest Stan always seems like he is having fun and it's really nobodies fault that all the work he did in Hollywood wasn't quite what it could have been since they didn't have CGI technology.

  5. #5

    Default

    kudos to Joe Q-- finally lots of marvel TV shows, and movies. This should have been happening since the 70s. But back then a lot of potential backers didn't believe in the product and still looked at it as stuff for 5 year olds and that's it.

  6. #6
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    10

    Default

    I like the response about "when will folks get tired of these?" Compared to earlier 'comic book movies,' it seems that Marvel Studios (and, to be fair, people like Christopher Nolan) have changed the dynamic very much into making films of different genres with comic properties. The success of the MCU has been partially that these films which call back to characters known (even tangentially) from childhood *don't* follow the same scripted journey that every 'comic book movie' of the previous generation did and thought it had to as a genre -- instead allowing the writers and directors much more latitude and creativity. As a result, when we as fans wonder what comes next we wonder property-as-genre in a way that hasn't been done before, but establishes Marvel as proper STUDIO, albeit one with a revolutionary shared pool of intellectual property.

    The danger really for Marvel isn't that folks are going to get tired of the movies; the danger is that they're going to get confused by them over time. As more and interlocking stories are required to fully understand what's going on (especially as you add two staggered TV series on ABC and five more released in 13-episode batches on Netflix), that revolutionary system of interlocking storytelling becomes too much work for understanding what Iron Man's up to this year. For comics fans, it's a dream come true, but we're used to both spending too much on our entertainment and working out interlocking serial matters across multimedia already as our hobby, having been trained to do it mostly from an early age.

    Therefore, as much as the *dream* would be to run a continuity for years and years, the best bet might be to basically have a *cycle* that runs Phase 1-Phase 3, including the Defenders serials and the two Agents series, then switch to another non-conflicting but wholly separate "story arc" circa-2018 that spins out in a different direction entirely (to avoid the 'recast' issues by e.g. avoiding the Avengers appearing, while other intellectual property takes over in a new non-national security over-arching story arc).

  7. #7
    CBB 4 LIFE Mr MajestiK's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,123

    Default

    I found this particular exchange quite interesting and revealingparticularly in regards to the popular misconception as to which movie really set of the MCU revolution.

    Albert Ching: Ever since 2000 and the "X-Men" movie taking off and creating a wave that we're still riding of comic book-based movies having major success, people have wondered, is there a ceiling for this? Is there a burnout point? It seems there definitely hasn't been yet. TV is a different world, though. Do you see there being as much room for comic book-based television shows to thrive as much as there has been in movies?

    Quesada: I think there's tons of room. It's all a matter of variety. By the way, you bring up the "X-Men" movie -- I would say it happened before this. I think that "Blade" was the real eye-opener for a lot of people, because "Blade" was a comic book-based movie that did incredibly well, but it was a movie that did incredibly well based on a character that wasn't all that popular or remotely iconic. What he was was a great character who was perfect for reinterpretation. I think people looked at that and said, "Wow, there is stuff to be mined here." Imagine you take a character like this, who wasn't immensely popular, but you did a little bit of a twist here and there, and it worked for the big screen. What happens when you take something that's already immensely popular and iconic?

    I just think it's a matter of approach, making sure that the material is great. Our fans view them as comic book-based movies, but I think a lot of people in the general public don't necessarily view them as, "I'm going to the next big comic book movie." They look at them as, "I'm going to the next big action-adventure summer blockbuster."
    Blade came out in 1998, a full two years before the first X-Men movie but for unknown reasons some people choose to ignore this fact and act like everything started with the X-movies. :smh:

    Major respect to Joe Quesada for setting the record straight and giving credit where credit is due.
    Enjoying the camraderie of friends and family is all that matters in the world.

    Mr MajestiK took a short hiatus and the Chaos Bringer was reborn.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Indestructible Man View Post
    I like the response about "when will folks get tired of these?" Compared to earlier 'comic book movies,' it seems that Marvel Studios (and, to be fair, people like Christopher Nolan) have changed the dynamic very much into making films of different genres with comic properties. The success of the MCU has been partially that these films which call back to characters known (even tangentially) from childhood *don't* follow the same scripted journey that every 'comic book movie' of the previous generation did and thought it had to as a genre -- instead allowing the writers and directors much more latitude and creativity. As a result, when we as fans wonder what comes next we wonder property-as-genre in a way that hasn't been done before, but establishes Marvel as proper STUDIO, albeit one with a revolutionary shared pool of intellectual property.

    The danger really for Marvel isn't that folks are going to get tired of the movies; the danger is that they're going to get confused by them over time. As more and interlocking stories are required to fully understand what's going on (especially as you add two staggered TV series on ABC and five more released in 13-episode batches on Netflix), that revolutionary system of interlocking storytelling becomes too much work for understanding what Iron Man's up to this year. For comics fans, it's a dream come true, but we're used to both spending too much on our entertainment and working out interlocking serial matters across multimedia already as our hobby, having been trained to do it mostly from an early age.

    Therefore, as much as the *dream* would be to run a continuity for years and years, the best bet might be to basically have a *cycle* that runs Phase 1-Phase 3, including the Defenders serials and the two Agents series, then switch to another non-conflicting but wholly separate "story arc" circa-2018 that spins out in a different direction entirely (to avoid the 'recast' issues by e.g. avoiding the Avengers appearing, while other intellectual property takes over in a new non-national security over-arching story arc).
    Good post, but I disagree about continuity being confusing. That logic operates on the assumption that knowledge of continuity is required for enjoyment of the story- the most continuity heavy film Marvel has done has been Winter Soldier and it did a fine job of bringing people up to speed within the story. I think that the self-contained nature of television shows and movies makes continuity in that arena much, much more convenient, actually. We have yet to get a movie like Serenity, which leaves people who haven't seen the build up completely lost. It may happen, but that is definitely an issue of execution, not continuity being inherently confusing.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Mikekerr3's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    2,311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr MajestiK View Post
    I found this particular exchange quite interesting and revealingparticularly in regards to the popular misconception as to which movie really set of the MCU revolution.



    Blade came out in 1998, a full two years before the first X-Men movie but for unknown reasons some people choose to ignore this fact and act like everything started with the X-movies. :smh:

    Major respect to Joe Quesada for setting the record straight and giving credit where credit is due.
    Becasue most people just thought that Blade was just another Vampire movie, and had no idea that there was a comic.

  10. #10
    CBB 4 LIFE Mr MajestiK's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mikekerr3 View Post
    Becasue most people just thought that Blade was just another Vampire movie, and had no idea that there was a comic.
    I would have expected Albert Ching to have done the relevant research before interviewing Joe Quesada though.

    That's what good journalists are supposed to do.
    Enjoying the camraderie of friends and family is all that matters in the world.

    Mr MajestiK took a short hiatus and the Chaos Bringer was reborn.

  11. #11
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mikekerr3 View Post
    Becasue most people just thought that Blade was just another Vampire movie, and had no idea that there was a comic.
    Your average movie goer gets a pass, for not automatically knowing. But even then it's kind of a stretch, as that sort of thing gets around. Especially in this day and age, almost 20 years after the movie came out. As I know people who don't even read comics that know Blade is based off of one. (Just don't ask them whether he is a DC or Marvel hero.)

    But for a senior editor of CBR to repeat the same thing? That's a little...worrying.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr MajestiK View Post
    I found this particular exchange quite interesting and revealingparticularly in regards to the popular misconception as to which movie really set of the MCU revolution.

    Blade came out in 1998, a full two years before the first X-Men movie but for unknown reasons some people choose to ignore this fact and act like everything started with the X-movies. :smh:

    Major respect to Joe Quesada for setting the record straight and giving credit where credit is due.
    Not really. Blade was a vampire movie that happened to be based on a comic book character. It wasn't created, or marketed, as a comic book adaptation. The 14-year run we've had of popular and successful super hero movies begins with X-Men. The X-Men movie would have happened with or without Blade, but none of the Marvel Studios movies would have happened without X-Men.

  13. #13
    Senior Member John Ossie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Liverpool, Merseyside, England
    Posts
    1,203

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stormcrow View Post
    Yeah, I still don't like Agents of SHIELD.

    Looking forward to the Netflix series, though this was not particularly informative.

    I'm not a big fan of Agents of Shield either but there are some aspects of it I like, mainly Coulson and Skye's story arcs.

    As for Netflix I don't have access to that so I'm hoping for dvd releases for the ones I'm interested in.

  14. #14

    Default

    That Noto art almost makes me regret dropping Black Widow. Almost.

    I can't wait for more info to be released about the Netflix series. I need to know if Elektra will be getting a second shot at live action!

  15. #15
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Teek View Post
    Not really. Blade was a vampire movie that happened to be based on a comic book character. It wasn't created, or marketed, as a comic book adaptation. The 14-year run we've had of popular and successful super hero movies begins with X-Men. The X-Men movie would have happened with or without Blade, but none of the Marvel Studios movies would have happened without X-Men.
    It's a shame that Joe Quesada completely disagrees with the bold. All you did was repeat what he was saying is patently false. The fact is that no one really cared about superhero movies, until Blade. As the the vast majority of the ones prior to Blade were either awful or viewed as something not to be taken seriously.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •