FarSky wrote:
given that they started this whole enterprise armed only with their B- and C-listers left in their stock,
This may have been an "advantage" for them, of sorts.
When you make a Batman movie, or Superman movie, millions of people will go see it regardless of quality. And when the quality is garbage, you will have foisted very expensive and valuable crap on your audiences, who will complain loudly, but I suppose you can still make your profit. This loses you the goodwill of the audience who then are far more reluctant to see the rest of the franchise you want to build.
But here's the hard part -- if you make a good --or even
great movie, in all respects, but somehow get the details of the characters that everybody knows so well wrong in ways they do not find forgivable, you will find the results no different than if you made a crappy movie. People will complain just as loudly, and in the end, the goodwill you need will be lost.
Okay, cut to Marvel. Marvel has been playing with characters that for the most part, we did not give a **** about beforehand. They have a great deal of leeway when it comes to making changes that we simply don't mind. I'm sure there are purists somewhere for whom Tony Stark and Bruce Banner being responsible for the making of Ultron is unforgivable, but even when we knew it was a change, we ultimately barely cared.
All Marvel has to do is make a good movie. They don't need to pay close attention to the integrity of how closely it followed the source material (if there were previous die-hard fans of Guardians of the Galaxy, I strongly suspect they went apoplectic when they saw the movie) to keep us interested. Their Cinematic Universe needs only be consistent with
itself. The fact that they have so far remained relatively true to the source material is a credit to them, but the ability to deviate as required in the interest of making a good movie, without angering your audience, is quite useful.