Disney (and others) at the Box Office - Current State of Affairs

[Disney Irish]

USAToday, the official newspaper of awful waiting areas, declares Madame Web a "bomb" in its headline, and a "Marvel character" in the first paragraph. So it's not just us that's confused about Marvel's products versus Sony's movies.

'Bob Marley: One Love' overperforms at No. 1, while 'Madame Web' bombs at box office

"Spider-Man" spinoff "Madame Web" had a disastrous box-office debut while the musical biopic "Bob Marley: One Love" beat expectations.

www.usatoday.com

She is a Marvel character, in that she was created by Marvel comics, so they aren’t confused. But you appear to be.

 

[TP2000]

That is not even an official title card for the film. It has Marvel Studios logo which is not involved and has never been involved with Madam Web, and isn’t seen anywhere during the opening of the film. So it’s fake, probably made by someone on Reddit to troll people.

And while the Madam Web character might be an overall Marvel character it doesn’t mean she deserves to be in Avengers Campus.

She is a Marvel character, in that she was created by Marvel comics, so they aren’t confused. But you appear to be.

So I just now went and put into Google "Madame Web" and the first thing that popped up was the official movie website. So I clicked on it and a video started playing for the film, so I took a screen shot of it. And it says "MARVEL" on the official movie website, next to the PG-13 rating. So this movie isn't connected to the Marvel brand?

 

[TP2000]

I just thought of another official source that potential audiences would use; the official movie trailer on YouTube.

Sure enough, at the 34 second mark of the movie trailer, this"MARVEL" title card sits on the screen for a few moments...

If these movies from Sony that use Marvel characters and branding are going to bomb this badly, perhaps it's time to figure out how to get Sony Pictures out of the process entirely.

Goodness knows the box office results for The Marvels already proved that Disney can waste hundreds of millions of dollars on box office bombs for Marvel all on their own. They don't need Sony's help with that.

 

[Disney Irish]

So I just now went and put into Google "Madame Web" and the first thing that popped up was the official movie website. So I clicked on it and a video started playing for the film, so I took a screen shot of it. And it says "MARVEL" on the official movie website, next to the PG-13 rating. So this movie isn't connected to the Marvel brand?

View attachment 769396

There is a reason why it says "IN ASSOCIATION WITH MARVEL" and not "Marvel Studios".

"Marvel Studios" is used when its an MCU film. "IN ASSOCIATION WITH MARVEL" is used when its just Marvel characters used by other studios that are not in the MCU, as is the case with any Sony Marvel movies not starring Tom Holland.

So again its part of the overall Marvel brand in that Madam Web, and the Spider-Women, characters are created by Marvel Comics, but its not in the MCU and therefore will not be part of anything they do for Avengers Campus (since you brought that up previously).

The regular movie going public, you know people who actually go to the movies, have been trained to know that when they see the "Marvel Studios" logo that its an MCU film. Any other use of Marvel they know its not MCU related and probably a lesser quality film. People who don't go to the movies and just google things are the ones who don't really know the difference.

 

[BuddyThomas]

I just thought of another official source that potential audiences would use; the official movie trailer on YouTube.

Sure enough, at the 34 second mark of the movie trailer, this"MARVEL" title card sits on the screen for a few moments...

View attachment 769397

If these movies from Sony that use Marvel characters and branding are going to bomb this badly, perhaps it's time to figure out how to get Sony Pictures out of the process entirely.

Goodness knows the box office results for The Marvels already proved that Disney can waste hundreds of millions of dollars on box office bombs for Marvel all on their own. They don't need Sony's help with that.

Good lord. The misinformation never ends.

 

[Disney Irish]

I just thought of another official source that potential audiences would use; the official movie trailer on YouTube.

Sure enough, at the 34 second mark of the movie trailer, this"MARVEL" title card sits on the screen for a few moments...

View attachment 769397

If these movies from Sony that use Marvel characters and branding are going to bomb this badly, perhaps it's time to figure out how to get Sony Pictures out of the process entirely.

Goodness knows the box office results for The Marvels already proved that Disney can waste hundreds of millions of dollars on box office bombs for Marvel all on their own. They don't need Sony's help with that.

That is not the "Marvel" title card for the MCU, and the movie going public knows the difference.

As for getting Sony out of the process, that would require Disney/Marvel to buy back the rights to Spider-Man and his family of characters from Sony. That is an expensive proposition, likely more than what Disney bought Marvel for in the first place, and one that requires Sony being willing to sell which they are not at this point.

 

[_caleb]

So I just now went and put into Google "Madame Web" and the first thing that popped up was the official movie website. So I clicked on it and a video started playing for the film, so I took a screen shot of it. And it says "MARVEL" on the official movie website, next to the PG-13 rating. So this movie isn't connected to the Marvel brand?

View attachment 769396

As we've tried to explain, Marvel is owned by Disney, but different companies have the rights to use the characters in different media. Variations of the logo is used to differentiate these:

Anytime you see the Marvel name, it always means "this has characters from the Marvel comic books."

If the Marvel logo includes the words "In association with Marvel" (circled in your screenshot), it means "We're not Disney, but we bought the rights to make this movie and followed the rules of that agreement."

Then there's "Marvel Studios," which are films/series that feature Marvel characters and was also made by Disney:

 

[erasure fan1]

The regular movie going public, you know people who actually go to the movies, have been trained to know that when they see the "Marvel Studios" logo that its an MCU film. Any other use of Marvel they know its not MCU related and probably a lesser quality film.

I'm not sure that's really accurate. At least that I've seen. I've been asked countless times now if Madame web is part of the mcu. The joe average moviegoer doesn't really know the difference. The average marvel comics fan, yea they know. The joe average moviegoer accounts for a huge portion of tickets. So I can see how these terrible Sony films could tarnish the mcu a bit.

 

[_caleb]

The Flash was, by far, the worst film in the MCU.

 

[Disney Irish]

I'm not sure that's really accurate. At least that I've seen. I've been asked countless times now if Madame web is part of the mcu. The joe average moviegoer doesn't really know the difference. The average marvel comics fan, yea they know. The joe average moviegoer accounts for a huge portion of tickets. So I can see how these terrible Sony films could tarnish the mcu a bit.

Oh sure, I think it varies from person-to-person, but I literally just went with someone this weekend to see it who doesn't follow this stuff and they said "I'm glad I didn't see the Marvel Studios intro in front of that".

Most of the general movie going public under 50 I'm confident to say likely understands the difference.

 

[TP2000]

Good lord. The misinformation never ends.

Well, no. That's the official trailer for Madame Web on YouTube.

Unless you are accusing Sony Pictures and Marvel for the "misinformation" regarding Madame Web? But if that's the case, then a lot of people at both Sony and Marvel are misinformed about how they branded their Madame Web movie.

But the point remains, it's easy to imagine people not understanding that Madame Web is not technically a Marvel movie even though she's a "Marvel character" appearing in a movie branded with the MARVEL logo.

 

[TP2000]

As we've tried to explain, Marvel is owned by Disney, but different companies have the rights to use the characters in different media. Variations of the logo is used to differentiate these:

Anytime you see the Marvel name, it always means "this has characters from the Marvel comic books."

If the Marvel logo includes the words "In association with Marvel" (circled in your screenshot), it means "We're not Disney, but we bought the rights to make this movie and followed the rules of that agreement."

Then there's "Marvel Studios," which are films/series that feature Marvel characters and was also made by Disney:

Yes, I understand that. But it's also easy to see why the average moviegover who has not been briefed in legalese and complex marketing/branding agreements would think Madame Web is a Marvel thing. It says Marvel on it, after all.

 

[LittleBuford]

Yes, I understand that. But it's also easy to see why the average moviegover who has not been briefed in legalese and complex marketing/branding agreements would think Madame Web is a Marvel thing. It says Marvel on it, after all.

It is a Marvel thing, but not Disney’s area of Marvel.

What does it matter anyway if average moviegoers confuse things?

 

[BuddyThomas]

Yes, I understand that. But it's also easy to see why the average moviegover who has not been briefed in legalese and complex marketing/branding agreements would think Madame Web is a Marvel thing. It says Marvel on it, after all.

WHO CARES?

 

[BuddyThomas]

It is a Marvel thing, but not Disney’s area of Marvel.

What does it matter anyway if average moviegoers confuse things?

As usual, you said it more eloquently than I did.

 

[LittleBuford]

As usual, you said it more eloquently than I did.

And you more succinctly.

 

[TP2000]

It is a Marvel thing, but not Disney’s area of Marvel.

Got it.

What does it matter anyway if average moviegoers confuse things?

Because the Marvel brand is struggling at the box office currently. In the past year they've had one modest profit maker (Guardians 3), one disappointing flop (Ant Man), and one disastrous bomb (The Marvels).

Now there's another box officer bomb in theaters that has been branded with the Marvel logo, Madame Web, and that's not a good sign for the mid term to long term health of the Marvel branded products from Disney. Marvel needs to get back to making big box office hits. The bombing of Madame Web at the box office, even if the title card clearly says "In Association With...", doesn't help that recovery to begin for Marvel as a brand.

 

[BuddyThomas]

Got it.



Because the Marvel brand is struggling at the box office currently. In the past year they've had one modest profit maker (Guardians 3), one disappointing flop (Ant Man), and one disastrous bomb (The Marvels).

Now there's another box officer bomb in theaters that has been branded with the Marvel logo, Madame Web, and that's not a good sign for the mid term to long term health of the Marvel branded products from Disney. Marvel needs to get back to making big box office hits. The bombing of Madame Web at the box office, even if the title card clearly says "In Association With...", doesn't help that recovery to begin for Marvel as a brand.

If you have no plans to see any of these films, what is the point in going on and on and on and on about them? Seriously. What is the point?

 

[LittleBuford]

Had Madame Web succeeded at the box office, we all know what the spin would have been: “Why can other companies do Marvel well but not Disney?”

 

[Casper Gutman]

If you have no plans to see any of these films, what is the point in going on and on and on and on about them? Seriously. What is the point?

We all know the point.