ByJack Foster, writer at
Things, comics, movie adaptations, source materials, Excelsior!
Jack Foster

Just out of curiosity, is it a delight to have several movies regardless of quality or quantity all based on the same brand? Sure opinions might seem to differ but is that the main reason why Marvel has been immensely successful with FOX, SONY and Disney? I know these three versions haven't been flawless, but hey, the greater the number, the more significant the history of the franchise/ universe is right? Let's take a more deeper look at how Marvel has evolved from absolutely nothing to one of the most dominant brands in the cinematic world.

Where it all started this century, let alone Blade that came out a couple years earlier.

Marvel may have started off dark and gritty but Bryan Singer's first installment in the X-Men franchise was a unique setup for new superhero movies to come, for it released early in 2000, featuring a variety of awesome characters, a mutant registration act and best, it had a Magneto, unlike many other villains, Magneto is simply more evolved, I'd pick him over Professor X any day. X2 couldn't be more bigger and better than what it already was as a follow up to this movie (not to mention it was really underrated), the characters had a suitably larger depth, the action scenes were more firmly directed and the plot was insanely wider.

Letting aside the negative factors such as X3 or Wolverine Origins, the first two movies had a knack of consistent approach in comic book adaptation or chapters of a franchise in general. Though Disney's Marvel Cinematic Universe is practically considered the real Marvel, I haven't given up on FOX just yet, given that First Class and DOFP revived the franchise from three horrendous letdowns that almost killed it, bring on X-Men Apocalypse, I say!

There was a time when Spider-Man movies were good, but that's probably not remembered right now...

With the upcoming version of Spider-Man in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, we take a look back at the point that started it all. Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 2002 was the first comic book prequel to surpass $800 million at the box office and delivered a powerful storyline though occasionally cheesy at times, followed up its damn near perfection sequel that brought the depth of the character to an entirely new level. As I seem to recall, the first Spider-Man movie almost had a Wolverine cameo but it couldn't be filmed, guess that's kind of unfortunate due to copyright issues, but we could have hoped for one, maybe Spider-Man would have collaborated well with the X-Men, had he been owned by FOX, but that may have delayed the duration of release on the basis of their planned schedule. Unfortunately, the series went downhill after Spider-Man 2 but hopefully the character is partially in the right hands now that SONY and Disney have collaborated with each other to make an MCU version of Spider-Man, now here's a reboot that makes sense.

The brilliant kick-starter to assemble a universe.

It's still fascinating how Iron Man managed to accomplish so much as a prequel despite being the first one of its kind. Regardless of how other MCU standalones turned out to be, this one literally set the benchmark back in 2008.

A secondary prequel to an everlasting franchise, which is unique in every way!

Here's a prequel that outdoes even Iron Man in the sense it explains everything we need to know about the previous X-Men movies, combining all the major characters at a younger stage, not to mention this scene literally stole the show. It explains the younger stages of Charles, Erik and Raven, how Charles and Erik met, how the X-Men were recruited, including trying to get some others including Wolverine and best, how Charles lost his damn legs.

An all time team up flick on top of several accomplishments.

Needless to say, the Avengers nailed the accuracy of its comic book counterpart in addition to whatever was already done before.

2014 comic book movie showdown!

With the exception of The Amazing Spider-Man 2, every Disney/ FOX movie performed impressively well on the big screen and outdid their potential, like CATWS that made Captain America more prominent, DOFP, that erased almost all the mistakes made by the franchise and GOTG that took the MCU to an entirely new level, plus Disney and FOX were for once actual rival competitors!

Sure lack of copyrights might mean lack of proper comic book adaptation and lead to plotholes at times, unless if they are adjusted to the need, which is being done pretty well for now. Avengers: Age Of Ultron was exuberantly satisfying and Ant-Man is not too far away but the real deal comes down to 2016, where the competition is filled with anticipation as FOX has planned three releases and Disney has planned two. What do you think, should all of Marvel's characters be on the same boat as one another that may result in relatively slow productivity overall, thereby taking years to be established or simply split into various aspects with both quality and quantity and a fairly more significant history?


Latest from our Creators