The MCU vs DCEU approach to world-building
Of all the complaints leveled against the DCEU, the difference in world building compared to the MCU is arguably the most prominent, to the point where it could even be said to be why other criticisms have been as intense and frequent as they have been to the point where it’s acceptable to accuse Warner Bros of being actively uncaring or disrespectful to their characters I’ve been vocal in my defense of the approach taken, not least because of how exaggerated it has been and how it ignores the numbers, and my feelings that the MCU approach, despite it’s undeniable merits, is not and shouldn’t be the only way to build a franchise nor should alternate ways be dismissed as has been the case with the DCEU.
My intention in this post is not to say advocate for one over the other but to look at both as objectively as I can and analyze the benefits and costs of each. I won’t pretend for a second that I’m nit biased as my feelings on this subject are very well documented and I don’t aim to change anyone’s minds but rather to add a sense of nuance to a discussion which has been frustratingly reduced to a narrative that there is a right way and wrong way to build a universe and Warner Bros have chosen the wrong one.
First, I’ll give a brief definition of each approach as I see it
The MCU approach - This method involves giving characters solo films prior to a team-up in the belief that it will create audience familiarity and emotional attachment so that they will care about them all in a team-up film.
The DCEU approach - This method is far more streamlined and is built around an idea that giving audiences a taste of characters first and then building upon that to build hype for a solo film will bring in audiences as well as not including backstory that is not seen as a high priority (not showing audiences a character backstory that they have already seen multiple times for example). Solo films are, in theory at least, more director driven and stand-alone.
Since the MCU method is the one most often praised as the correct one, I’ll start with that
Audience attachment - While I don’t believe that solo films before a team-up are absolutely necessary for creating attachment, there’s no doubt that it is helpful and can make big team-up films easier as audiences will likely have at least one character they want to see in it.
World-building - The MCU approach can allow for audiences to be introduced to new parts of the universe and meet supporting characters more easily as well as add a sense of depth to the universe as a whole, making it feel more whole.
Easier film making - Introducing a lot of characters in one film can be very difficult and this approach means film makers won’t have to spend as much time on introductions and backstory and can cut right to the important stuff
Building on characters arcs - Through this method, film makers can build on what has been established already in solo films and develop the characters more efficiently in a team-up film as audiences will know their previous films
Freedom for solo directors - This approach can allow directors to set the first impression of a character, which can be critical, and put their own stamp on them. I still believe one of the best examples was the first Thor film where Kenneth Branagh was free to cast an actor of his choosing for the role and he picked Chris Hemsworth, who was perfect. Branagh was a lifelong fan of the character and it would have been unfair for him not to get a say in that element.
The homework effect - This is starting to rear it’s head as an issue for the MCU as it can be very difficult for audience members to understand a major film if they haven’t followed all of the preceding ones so far and films outside of it can be seen as necessary and not in a good way. This also overlaps with frequent accusations of major studios, not just Disney, making things into trilogies that don’t need to be and dragging out stories for more profit.
Continuity lockout - As with the above, this is also starting to be an issue where it can be legitimately confusing to watch films if you don’t have a good knowledge of all the preceding ones. If your favorite Avenger is Captain America and you only want to see his films and skip others, you might find yourself wondering who Scarlet Witch and Vision are and why Steve and Tony are at each other’s throats. If you have no interest in any of those films but just want to watch Thor: Ragnarok because you’re a fan of Taika Waititi, you still have to at least know the plot of the last Thor film and who Doctor Strange is and other elements such as Thor’s scenes with Loki may lack weight if you haven’t seen The Avengers and first Thor film.
Investment - The aforementioned investment from the benefits is a double-edged sword. If you place your bets on a character people love, it works out brilliantly. But if you invest a lot of time and money in a failure, it can be tough to walk back from such a blunder.
This has happened in the MCU with the Inhumans. Disney spent years pushing for them in the comics and shows to take over for the X-Men. Agents of Shield was written to revolve heavily around them to create hype for a film that ended up becoming a TV series that failed spectacularly. This puts Disney in the awkward position of now trying to downplay the characters they spent years building up and Agents Of Shield is stuck being inextricably linked to a mythology no one cares about anymore.
Emphasis on luck - As noted above, this approach requires every piece to do it’s part and that requires a lot of luck. A single failed film can seriously damage future plans or overshadow them considerably. This occured with Marvel and Iron Fist which was intended to build hype for The Defenders which was seen as a crossover event similar to The Avengers.
Unfortunately, Iron Fist was very poorly received by critics which ended up taking a lot of hype out of The Defenders, a fact not helped by Iron Fist being a fairly crucial building block which overlaps with the first downside. This ended with The Defenders, a show that once seemed like it would be one of Marvel’s defining accomplishments, getting a reception which mostly praised it in comparison to Iron Fist.
Aversion to Controversy- When you’re building such a universe, you want everything to work efficiently and that means not having any wild cards. This recently showed up with James Gunn who was dropped the instant any controversy arose about him because Disney didn’t want the bad press. The response ended up creating an even worse controversy which will have it’s own effects on the films.
Accusations of formula - The level of investment means that producers aren’t as willing to take chances. Directors seem and may feel like they are hired to set up the next big film rather than to make something unique and audiences may struggle to find a reason to see it.
Next up is the DCEU approach
Peaking audience interest - The approach taken so far has allowed audiences to get an idea of what characters are like and build hype for a solo film from there. This worked amazingly well with Wonder Woman in BvS and there’s a strong possibility of it happening again with Aquaman and The Flash and Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn. On the Marvel side, it worked with Black Panther and Spider-man in Civil War, especially the latter who had to overcome the ‘’another Spider-man already?” reaction.
Less pressure on creators - Going with the above, actors in solo films don’t have as much pressure on them which is also handy if they’re relatively unknown as is increasingly the case. Creators can build upon what works and discard what doesn’t and they won’t worry as much if they appear first in a solo film. Tom Holland has said that playing Spider-man in Civil War first was extremely helpful for that exact reason. There’s also less pressure on directors to win people over to characters as that’s already happened.
Streamlined stories - I think a fact often missed out in this debate is that audiences don’t need to know or see everything. Things can only be hinted at or referenced in backstories and work just as effectively. This is especially true of characters we’ve seen a lot or whose stories we already know. I can’t give an estimation on how many people wanted another solo Batman film or rehash of his origin so soon but I reckon it was about zero. Further more, the success of the CW show means a lot of people know Flash’s backstory even if it’s another continuity.
Other franchises such as Harry Potter and Lord of The Rings show that backstories don’t need to be seen right away or even at all. Marvel also showed this with Guardians of The Galaxy where their stories are only briefly shown or hinted in non-specific details and Spider-man’s backstory which, in the case of the latter, the average cinema goer already knows and will know exactly what Peter is talking about when he references tragedy in his past.
Creative freedom - Warner Bros has always been a director driven studio and the DCEU has made an effort to live up to that. Whatever your feelings on them, Man Of Steel and Batman v Superman look and feel like Zack Snyder films and Aquaman looks set to follow with James Wan as hopefully will other films. This allows for films that feel unique and has the potential to attract other directors who worry about their vision being compromised for the sake of the franchise. Disney have learned this as well with films like Guardians of The Galaxy, Black Panther and Thor: Ragnarok which weren’t as burdened with world building.
Easier access - Having films that are more stand alone can potentially allow for audiences who are uninterested in superhero films coming on board as they don’t have to worry as much about knowing a lot prior. Warner Bros are taking this a step further with the non-DCEU Joker film which, if it works, has the potential to raise immense possibilities for the genre as a whole which it needs to avoid the stagnation that is always being threatened as upcoming.
Less audience investment - I said before that audiences don’t need to see characters on their own before a solo film and I stick by that but it is still a helpful tool in doing so. Not using it can be risky if you don’t know how to pull it off.
Burden of exposition - Having a lot of characters in one film and giving each some kind of backstory can be tough and, if done poorly, can drag the film down. Justice League had mixed success with doing so, not helped by the cut running time.
Less freedom for solo directors - The DCEU approach means that directors in charge of solo films are already losing control of a major element which is casting and initial audience introductions. Sometimes, even most of the time, this can work out for the best as Patty Jenkins admitted she wouldn’t have cast Gal Gadot as Diana but it’s safe to say that the first Thor film might not have worked as well if Kenneth Brannagh hadn’t been the one to choice Chris Hemsworth for the role.
They also don’t set the tone for the audiences’ first impression which can be critical. This can leave follow-up creators having to clean up messes more than make films and shows as was the case with Iron Fist’s appearance on The Defenders.
Less overt leadership - This can be a positive or negative depending on how you see it. On the one hand, not having a leader who sets a strict tone for films and outlines an arc can creates feelings of disjointedness. On the other, it does allow for more independence among directors even if WB have undercut that possibility with BvS and Justice League.
So that’s the benefits and downsides of the two franchises as I can see it. If I’ m missing anything, let me know.
Like I said at the start, I’m not trying to win anyone over. If you still feel like the DCEU would benefit from an approach like the MCU, that’s fine. I just wanted to outline the shades of grey in this discourse that I haven’t seen others mention.
