Marvel’s Cinematic Universe not just a Franchise but a Meta-Franchise

Recently, Marvel’s Infinity Wars achieved a monster box office global opening of $640.9MM breaking records and breaking writing conventions at the same time. It’s Rotten Tomatoes score was equally impressive with a fan rating of 91% and a critics rating of 83%.

Achieving a rare “first” in the world of entertainment:

Aside from the fact that clearly a whole lot of people of all ages, across the world, really liked this movie, it has also achieved another kind of first. It is the world’s first, blockbuster, global, Meta-Franchise. The Logic issues, a story that’s not a complete story, an insanely huge cast of character that make it impossible to service real emotional arcs in 2hrs & 40 min, and many more rules of good storytelling broken, didn’t stop this Meta-Franchise movie from landing in gargantuan success. (We’ll unbox why this movie got permission to break these very good rules in a moment).

So what is a Meta-Franchise? 

It’s a distinct commercial story/premise whose narrative is fed by other distinct and standalone franchises. In short, Thor, Spiderman, Black Panther, The Avengers, Guardians Of The Galaxy, and many other unique Marvel franchises, all bring characters, Plot elements, meaning and backstory to the larger moves of the Cinematic Universe Franchise. Infinity Wars is the first, bonafide, Meta-Franchise output of the Cinematic Universe.

I think it’s very important to recognize the difference between a Meta-Franchise and the large Global Franchises. Star Wars is a large global franchise but not a Meta-Franchise. All the movies and content done to date in the Star Wars Universe are contributors to a single, vast, story arc. Solo is a prequel, not a separate franchise.

Vision and Courage builds a Meta-Franchise:

Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, (and a few other golden age comic creators) consistency of universe has been the gift that keeps on giving. Marvel/Disney deserve their own heaping of kudos for recognizing and grooming that creative vision into a universe that they have invested in, tested and boldly built into this breakthrough success. This kind of growth takes a long view for investment and commitment (something rare indeed in the world of entertainment where none of the other big companies have yet shown the will to build and execute on and even within Disney itself, the same strategic vision hasn’t been applied to Star Wars. (More on the opportunities for the Star Wars Franchise in a coming blog post).

Prior to Infinity Wars, Marvel’s Cinematic Universe had given us some very interesting crossover stories exploring and demonstrating that the universe could be made seamless.  Well thought through risks were taken and even though not all worked well, the connections got built and we, the audience, watched and connected to these distinct characters and their unique stories and arcs. In essence, Marvel/Disney taught us the rich mythology of the Cinematic Universe not by making us drink from a firehose in a single movie (something that never works) but by building that bigger understanding across many movies, many characters, many different reasons to find the sub-franchises relevant, each in their own right!  It is likely that most people who went to the movie had seen at least some of the many Marvel movies that revealed the characters, their struggles and their personal and world backstories. It was certainly clear that the writers assumed this and made little effort to explain much about the pantheons of heroes in the movie. I have certainly heard a fair amount of criticisms from audience members who didn’t understand some aspect of the movie because they hadn’t seen that particular franchise’s movies. It makes me wonder just how sustainable this new model of motion picture storytelling is when it requires pre-consumption of so many other franchises.

Permission to break the rules:

In the world of motion picture writing, there’s a number of well known creative choices that one wants to avoid simply because many movies and many decades have shown they don’t work. Below are three such choices that generally don’t work (and I know that I’ll get comments about some example where it did but it doesn’t change the word “generally”) yet Marvel’s Cinematic Universe/Meta-Franchise was able to break.

Avoid too much backstory or mythology. 

Generally, this tends to make stories too “thick” and impenetrable to all but the most avid fans (Warcraft) and can even displace critical character development with plot points in service of explaining something that doesn’t move the story forward.

Infinity wars left the job of backstory and mythology mostly to the sub-franchises/previous movies and did little more than a bit of expository reference to those previous stories.

Avoid having too many character stories to service.

Too many characters means not enough time to tell sufficient set up or arc for each character and tends to put the character in service of plot points versus plot in service of character moves that help us to relate to them and inhabit the changes they are going through. 

Oh boy did Infinity Wars squeeze in an unprecedented number of characters. Though they were able to get some story told around a few more central characters (the deepest being Thanos our bad guy) it was very thready and relied heavily on the audience knowing these characters. Clearly, the many previous movies were sufficiently attended that this gamble worked and we now have a new success condition for a specific kind of story structuring. Can they manage a sequel that is equally jammed or is this unique? I don’t know the answers but it sure will be interesting to watch. I hope that other single franchise stories, that aren’t drawing off the Meta-Franchise base Marvel has, don’t try this (though I’m certain some will). 

An interesting note: Game of Thrones has been able to service this many significant characters by doing it over a much, much larger multi-episodic arc. Let’s raise a glass for yet another new story format proven but that’s for another post.

Avoid indeterminate endings or cliffhangers

Aaaaargh! (comic book expression of painful discomfort). This not only runs counter to the definition of a complete story, it’s one of my personal bugaboos. It’s done all the time and yet audiences generally don’t like this at all.

It’s not even a debate whether or not Infinity Wars brazenly stopped the story at a place engineered for maximum shock. It wasn’t story closure, since the audience knows with complete certainty that there’s much more to this story. With such high marks from fans and critics alike I have to wonder if the sub-franchises and depth of understanding of the characters and how the universe works built over two decades meant that a profoundly truncated and incomplete story was experienced as far less incomplete. We’re into undiscovered country here.

Who else could be doing this?

In order to build and activate on a true Meta-Franchise you need 3 things. 

1.) A deep world/universe that is alive and expanding at the edges full of many, many, places and ideas to explore but stitched together with logic and rules that work. This happens intentionally not accidentally and takes people who know how to do quality world building guided by narrative. 

2.) Distinct characters who each represent a distinct idea and useful meaning, each in their own right, capable of becoming their own sustainable and relevant franchise.

3.) A central creative vision supported by a company/management group willing to take the long view.

The roster is small but every day could be the beginning of someone developing the ideas that can make a Meta-Franchise. This list includes: 

1. DC/Warner and (some) their comic book hero franchises. Lots of very big work needed to make it align, as these were acquisitions versus conceived from a more aligned vision. It’s possible but lots of tough decisions and disruptive creative work needed.
2. Star Wars – Yes, right now this is a single Mega-Franchise but other IP creations could be developed to play in the vast universe without being part of the existing story. (See my previous post on dubious handling of Canon and lack of real newness)
3. Harry Potter – A rapidly expanding world/universe with so much yet to be revealed. Development of distinct stories that are separate franchises will be needed and Fantastic Beasts is a good start.

Commercial implications?

It’s very likely that as the Meta-Franchise establishes itself that it will, on some level, stitch together audience affinity across the feeder franchises and broaden play, social expression and lifestyle commitment on an individual audience/fan level. Whether that equals higher consumer lifetime value or more fans I can’t say at this point but cross collateralizing fandom would most certainly have an effect on retention. 

What’s next?

Hard to say…but guaranteed, we’re going to see lots more playing across the franchises in the marvel universe and lots of attempts to reproduce this kind of success from other big players (a small wince at Universal’s attempt at a dark universe). 

Marvel will clearly learn as they continue inventing how to do this and so will the industry. My advice for anyone considering making a Meta-franchise is to understand why this worked and take the time to build out the feeder franchises, carefully aligned in a well built universe, before jumping into these biggest of big stories.  What is guaranteed is that this sure is fun seeing new forms and structures emerge in this time of hyper-mythologizing!

Cheers, Kevin

Why Toy Companies Struggle With Story

I must confess to having a relationship with the performance of the toy industry that is like a sports fan to football. When they do things right I leap from my chair and cheer them on. When they are running the wrong way on the field, I have passionate things to say about that as well!

When it comes to the toy industry and its hit-or-miss relationship with story development, I see lots of running about wildly on the field and once in a while, someone making a brilliant touch-down.

 As someone who makes a living as a story doctor for franchise narratives I have some overall observations to share on why toy companies have on and off struggle with story.

I am sharing these notes not as a harsh criticism but as a love-letter to the industry that I see so much potential for growth if the companies can recognize the massive shifts that have occurred and evolve rapidly to get in front of them.

Every toy company is different and as such, not all of these points apply to all toy companies because some have started along this growth curve or have individuals within their organizations with some of these competencies.

So here’s my top 5 reasons why toy companies struggle with Story:

1.     The Heroic model has evolved

a.     When a toy company conceives of a story, the model they tend to use for their “heroic” or aspirational characters tends to be overly simplistic, far too perfect (unflawed) and lacking in relevance. In short, it tends to be an idealized list culled from mom/kid-research mixed with industry beliefs about what has worked in the past.

b.     Relevance is achieved by casting and creating characters who are the heroes that face off against the challenges and fears kids (and the kid in us all) are all facing today. Those heroes must behave in ways relevant to the future that parents want and kids are living into. This is true for conflict based properties. Preschool learning properties have a different kind of relevance that is no less critical to achieve.

2.     Toy companies want maximum Screen time for plastic

a.     There is a true-ism for toys that goes something like: “The toys that are on screen more sell more so I want my toyline maximized on screen.”

b.     Like all trueisms, it’s true…ish. The problem is that nothing should be put on screen unless it is advancing the story. Even more important is that it must be meaningful and support the central themes of the story. When in doubt leave it out!!

c.     There are quality ways to make this work but they must happen as part of the story’s development in story-friendly ways that inspire creators and developers.

d.     I have personally watched direct toy input and notes into stories cause the failure of the narrative (and a lack of success) of major live action and animated movies and TV shows. This is not a trivial statement: If notes are not well thought through and rigorously conceived to speak in story terms, the story development team may find themselves in a box they can’t get out of. Story is exquisitely hard to crack and relevant/evolutionary stories especially so. It’s easy to break this process and generally well-meaning toy folks are telling story people what would drive their toys when they should be telling them why the toys are helping to advance the creators stories.

3.     A Focus on Context not Meaning

a.     In every franchise story there is context and meaning. Context is all the cool stuff we see and where it all takes place. Meaning is how the idea of the story impacts our lives.

b.     Great context sells toys: Lightsabers, space ships, Batmobiles, and deep worlds that invite you to play.

c.     They also need compelling characters whom you want to be, or spend time with. “Collectibility!” that brass ring of the toy world.

d.     What really makes a story compelling and context work is the meaning. Characters are only aspirational when they are meaningful! There are more than a few toy shows and movies that have very weak or non-existent meaning and as a result, demonstrate limits on success or even failure.

e.     There is a big difference between a powerful, newly relevant, narrative meaning and a brand’s benefit positioning. I often see the latter substituted for the former.

f.      Additionally, elements in a story become powerful, gotta-have, toys only when they are structured into the story metaphorically and heroically correct. I won’t unbox this here as it is a larger conversation but it’s important to note that there is a clear process and skill needed to do this without diluting the story.

4.     Story is now King

a.     Stories are the new currency of power in the world of consumer brands. You only need to look at what drives the growth of licensing these days to find the proof. Millennial Families “adopt” stories into their lives and USE them in great variety. “Collecting” or “Playing” are only a fraction of what use means. They wear them to express the themes that are meaningful to them. They use the language as verbs and nouns in their social postings. They gather with others who like them and they decorate their homes with them. They want to share in them as a family and play…toys…serve multiple roles in the use of the story for adults, teens, tweens and preschoolers. 

b.     All that being said, the story itself is paramount and nothing short of excellence can break through in our world of exploding entertainment choices and become one of the few stories that get adopted by these families. This is a challenge for toy companies because it means elevating the health, newness and excellence of the story, to the highest position in their decision-making behavior (something that is very hard for a product-driven company to do). There is virtually no risk that toy companies will not give enough attention to making the toys a success. The risk lies in making the story a second-class decision.

c.     I believe very strongly in the simple human truth that “you always get the behavior you incentivize for.” Toy company’s executive incentives are built around creating, manufacturing, marketing and selling toys. This means there is not strong incentive to make hard decisions to make the story better when it seems to conflict with maximizing the toys. This can be done but it requires learning the rich and complicated craft of creating, managing and giving input on the development of franchise stories. That brings me to my next point.

5.     There is no training in place to teach story to toys or franchise to writers/creators

a.     I am not aware of any toy company that has a program of any depth to teach their executives, marketing staff, designers and research, the basics of story structuring let alone one that covers the unique story challenges of world properties and how to develop quality narrative that intersects with play patterns. I have found that there are individuals with varying degrees of these skills. They are rare and you find them using those skills at those toy companies that do these things better.

b.     It is also very fair to say that the world of entertainment (and the colleges that feed them) don’t have ANY programs to teach these highly creative/commercial skills either. There are many great storytellers who don’t fall into the much smaller subset of great world builders. And of the great world builders, there are even fewer who instinctually create in ways that enable big franchises and play.

c.     I believe the big opportunity is for both toys and entertainment to intentionally and constantly invest in learning these very specific skills so that the entertainment can be excellent and drive commercial opportunity as well. Both sides of this equation must be speaking the same language in order to achieve this.

Net/net, there’s big opportunity for companies that make stories and make things based on stories to supercharge their business by evolving their story competencies and incentivizing their management to do so.

Hope you enjoyed the post. Definitely a personal passion for me. Cheers to all.

Kevin

PS: come join us for our seminar “Creating A Franchise Story” in Santa Monica on November 13^th.

For more information; http://www.mowrermetastory.com/workshops.html