squabble by measuring theatrical grosses , there
are more meaningful metrics than box office.
Filmmakers (not to mention many critics and
many moviegoers) have long voiced alarm
at Marvel’s brand of moviemaking. Steven
Spielberg, you might remember, six years ago
forecast Hollywood’s implosion because of
the over-abundance of mega-budget movies.
Spielberg (whose “Jaws” helped birth the
modern blockbuster) has also pointed out that
movie culture inevitably moves in cycles. “There
will be a time when the superhero movie goes
the way of the Western,” he told me.
Even Christopher Nolan, whose Batman film
“The Dark Knight” is widely considered the
genre’s greatest triumph, has said he’s no longer
interested in franchise movies given the way
they’ve come to be manufactured.
“The cinematic landscape has changed since I
started making Batman films,” Nolan has said.
“When we were doing the ‘Dark Knight’ trilogy, I
think it was easier for a filmmaker in the position
I was in to express a more personal vision of
what they wanted to do in a franchise property.”
Marvel’s biggest supporters, I think, would grant
part of the films’ appeal is that they all feel of
one spandex-wrapped piece. They’re so similar
that even Gwyneth Paltrow can’t remember
which ones she’s in.
That’s not to say that personal expression
doesn’t filter into a Marvel movie. Just as in
westerns (and noirs and musicals and any
other genre ever churned out by Hollywood),
filmmakers can craft something individual in
even the most well-oiled factories. It would be
hard to dismiss the cosmic anarchy of Gunn’s
“Guardians” films, the spectacular sweep of Ryan