Captain Marvel 2: "The Marvels" -- Nov 10, 2023 Theatrical Release

[erasure fan1]

I'm not sure Disney has/had the luxury of time for low/slow with regards to building out female, Black, and South Asian connections to the MCU.

But that was how they were doing it all along. Black widow, Falcon, Scarlett witch. They could have just kept that going with captain marvel, Shang chi, ms marvel... The problem is that none of this is just one cause. You can't build up characters when your overall story is all over the place. They didn't have a clear vision of what they wanted after phase 3, and that hurt everything.

And what's the alternative to spending big on the front-end? If they'd started D+ with a few low-budget Marvel series, people would have dismissed it as "Disney Channel, but Online."

My point wasn't to not spend, it was to spend smarter. Maybe it's just me, but they spent a lot of money on stuff like she hulk and ms marvel. And yet what I watched of both felt very Disney channel anyway.

Let's use guardians 1 as an example. It's just as niche as the marvels or she hulk. Probably more if we're being honest. It had a more reasonable budget at $170mil, still not small, but still considerably less than the marvels. even if you calculate inflation. Plus there was a overarching story that everyone was invested in that gave guardians a captive audience. That was extremely smart. The marvels didn't really have that luxury.

As they focus on DtC, I think they're looking at it like this: "As quickly as possible, we need a complete library of content for the audiences we've identified as being key to our success in the streaming space in the near and mid-term. What do we have that would help connect these demographics with the MCU?"

I think everything they've added and all they've spent has been to build the base of their new Direct-to-Consumer model.

Yes they needed/need a complete library of content. At the same time they cancel muppets mayhem that won an Emmy for best family entertainment and had a #1 album. So while it didn't garner huge numbers, it didn't need to. As far as everything I've seen, it didn't have a huge budget. It was overwhelmingly liked, was great positive word of mouth for Disney, something they sorely need. So instead of the headlines being positive, they're "Disney cancels muppets after one season. Feeding the the Disney can't make good content narrative. That's why I think their approach isn't all that smart.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

Perhaps… I don’t follow any comics… so I really have no idea on any characters until they appear in the MCU…I just want good films no matter the genre…I can kind of understand what they are trying to do… as the young people who grew up with the MCU grow into adults… Disney is probably trying to figure out a way to hook the next generation

I’d say the same, prior to the MCU I had no idea who most the characters were in the first phases either but they did such a good job with the movies I felt connected to all of them prior to the Avengers.

I can’t say the same about any of the new characters, I vaguely remember America Chavez from the last Dr Strange movie, vaguely remember the boys from Wandavision but since they were imaginary I’m not sure how that works, I didn’t remember who Kate Bishop was until I read the article (although I like that character), I have no clue who Riri Adam’s is…

The strength of the MCU was their character building in the individual movies, now they quickly introduce a character and never establish them as memorable. Kamala is probably the lone exception.

 

[erasure fan1]

James Gunn and David Zaslav.

I'm not really sure I'd blame Gunn. The only thing I would blame him for, is not just cancelling it. But that's not really his call considering possible contractual obligations, his boss... Gunn really doesn't seem to have anything to do with this final mess of movies for DC. The one thing that could be his fault is announcing the new universe. I'm not sure if that was his call either, but whoever's it was, it was stupid. Lol

 

[_caleb]

But that was how they were doing it all along. Black widow, Falcon, Scarlett witch. They could have just kept that going with captain marvel, Shang chi, ms marvel... The problem is that none of this is just one cause. You can't build up characters when your overall story is all over the place. They didn't have a clear vision of what they wanted after phase 3, and that hurt everything.

My point wasn't to not spend, it was to spend smarter. Maybe it's just me, but they spent a lot of money on stuff like she hulk and ms marvel. And yet what I watched of both felt very Disney channel anyway.

Let's use guardians 1 as an example. It's just as niche as the marvels or she hulk. Probably more if we're being honest. It had a more reasonable budget at $170mil, still not small, but still considerably less than the marvels. even if you calculate inflation. Plus there was a overarching story that everyone was invested in that gave guardians a captive audience. That was extremely smart. The marvels didn't really have that luxury.

Yes they needed/need a complete library of content. At the same time they cancel muppets mayhem that won an Emmy for best family entertainment and had a #1 album. So while it didn't garner huge numbers, it didn't need to. As far as everything I've seen, it didn't have a huge budget. It was overwhelmingly liked, was great positive word of mouth for Disney, something they sorely need. So instead of the headlines being positive, they're "Disney cancels muppets after one season. Feeding the the Disney can't make good content narrative. That's why I think their approach isn't all that smart.

Totally valid. I'm sure Disney's rethinking all spending now that the pressure is on to get to profitability. But I also think the subscriber numbers might be seen as validating their strategy to a degree.

We'll see if they can get to profitability. Honestly, I think the writer's strike is going to help them there because there's very little in the pipeline for them to spend on. I expect a lot of repackaging, retelling, and supplemental stuff (like those ambient videos for Haunted Mansion, Hawkeye, Arendelle Castle Yule Log, etc.).

 

[Disney Irish]

I'm not really sure I'd blame Gunn. The only thing I would blame him for, is not just cancelling it. But that's not really his call considering possible contractual obligations, his boss... Gunn really doesn't seem to have anything to do with this final mess of movies for DC. The one thing that could be his fault is announcing the new universe. I'm not sure if that was his call either, but whoever's it was, it was stupid. Lol

Gunn's blame is that he's rebooting the DCU for something like the 3rd time, instead of continuing on with what was already there. That is all his and Peter Safran's decision with a bit of Zaslav thrown in.

This decision made these last films in the DCEU meaningless, and the audience has reacted as such. I honestly believe had Gunn said the DCEU would be continuing but going in a different direction that Black Adam, Flash, Shazam2, Blue Beetle, and now Aquaman2 would have done a whole lot better.

And this is why in my opinion no matter what is happening with the MCU, at least its not DC and all its issues.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

Gunn's blame is that he's rebooting the DCU for something like the 3rd time, instead of continuing on with what was already there. That is all his and Peter Safran's decision with a bit of Zaslav thrown in.

This decision made these last films in the DCEU meaningless, and the audience has reacted as such. I honestly believe had Gunn said the DCEU would be continuing but going in a different direction that Black Adam, Flash, Shazam2, Blue Beetle, and now Aquaman2 would have done a whole lot better.

And this is why in my opinion no matter what is happening with the MCU, at least its not DC and all its issues.

It was an odd decision to publicly state the recent movies were irrelevant before they hit the theaters.

I agree with the reboot, just find the publicity and timing odd.

I think the DCU needed a reboot though, it is far more damaged than the MCU, my theory is the current MCU films are suffering because the films released before them were mediocre, and I think the same is true of the DCU, but instead of the previous films being mediocre they were outright bad.

Because many recent MCU have been mediocre I’m content waiting for them on D+, because many of the DCU films have been bad I’m content never seeing the new ones at all.

 

[Disney Irish]

It was an odd decision to publicly state the recent movies were irrelevant before they hit the theaters.

I agree with the reboot, just find the publicity and timing odd.

I think the DCU needed a reboot though, it is far more damaged than the MCU, my theory is the current MCU films are suffering because the films released before them were mediocre, and I think the same is true of the DCU, but instead of the previous films being mediocre they were outright bad.

Because many recent MCU have been mediocre I’m content waiting for them on D+, because many of the DCU films have been bad I’m content never seeing the new ones at all.

I could go either way on the reboot of the DCU, I just think that many liked the current lineup of actors and characters. Again making everything in the last year or so meaningless. This is not unlike how some, even here, have stated they didn't want RDJ and Evans to being phased out of the MCU, but just on a smaller scale.

Anyways Aquaman2 is potentially the lowest DCEU film ever.

 

[erasure fan1]

Gunn's blame is that he's rebooting the DCU for something like the 3rd time, instead of continuing on with what was already there. That is all his and Peter Safran's decision with a bit of Zaslav thrown in.

Like I said, if that was the case, I blame him too. I'm just not sure it was him. The flash film was already set to "soft reboot" the universe, and that was well before Gunn. And we already were told it was coming, so while I can see the movies doing a bit better, I still think they all significantly underperform anyway.

 

[Tha Realest]

Gunn's blame is that he's rebooting the DCU for something like the 3rd time, instead of continuing on with what was already there. That is all his and Peter Safran's decision with a bit of Zaslav thrown in.

This decision made these last films in the DCEU meaningless, and the audience has reacted as such. I honestly believe had Gunn said the DCEU would be continuing but going in a different direction that Black Adam, Flash, Shazam2, Blue Beetle, and now Aquaman2 would have done a whole lot better.

And this is why in my opinion no matter what is happening with the MCU, at least its not DC and all its issues.

DC has terrible issues. But DC was a chaotic and tonal mess, albeit with some bright spots. Robbie’s Quinn was terrific in two bad films and one good one. Affleck’s Batman could have been better if they gave him more to do with it. Gadot’s WW was good in the first, abysmal in the sequel. Man of Steel was pretty good in hindsight but not as compared to the McU. Momoa’s Aquaman was kind of a joke but Snyder - for all of his faults, and there are many - knows how to cast. The best way to offset the lame aspects of the character was with the machismo charisma of Momoa.

The franchise was on life support when Gunn came along. I like his work. I am not sure how good he will be at building out a broader universe given his quirky sensibilities. I like what he does with a group of misfits (GOTG, TSS). Not sure how he will do with the core characters. Plus he’s doing like five jobs now (studio head, creative director, screenwriter on multiple projects, and director/producer).

DC had no good options, and while ripping off the Band-aid was a painful decision for this year’s slate of films, it may have been the best option long term.

 

[Prince-1]

I’m not familiar with the young avengers so I googled it and this is what came back for characters…

Kate Bishop, Kamala Khan, Cassie Lang, America Chavez, Billy and Tommy Maximoff, and Riri Williams.

I can’t help but wonder how many people have any clue who these characters are. If you don’t have D+ you’ve probably never heard of 75% of them, and if you do have D+ you still probably don’t know (or don’t remember) half of them.

D+ has ruined the MCU, the first phases used individual movies to establish the characters and then when they finally assembled it was a major event, now they’ve all been reduced to characters from TV series, or side characters from movies, that very few people know or care about them.

This has disaster written all over it.

MSN

No one had a clue who The Guardians of the Galaxy were before it came out and that worked out pretty well. Now the YA can still bomb but it's not a guarantee just because the team is made up of fairly unknowns characters.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Of course its changed, but you're trying to extrapolate a very simple equation into some multivariable socio-political motivation to avoid a 90 minute superhero film.

I really don't think it's that complicated. What has changed in the MCU formula is that they (Disney/Marvel) cannot rest on the laurels that a dedicated fanbase will continue to go see the films just because its an MCU film.

Disney can still be successful with the "tried and true formula" (see Guardians 3), and I anticipate Deadpool 3 will be one of them next year for Disney.

It’s not that complicated. Go look at any Disney post on Facebook or Instagram and read the comments.

 

[doctornick]

No one had a clue who The Guardians of the Galaxy were before it came out and that worked out pretty well. Now the YA can still bomb but it's not a guarantee just because the team is made up of fairly unknowns characters.

This. People often oversell the cultural cache of "popular" comic book characters. Only a handful of true A-list super heroes are truly recognizable to the mainstream public. So outside of doing a Batman, Superman, Spiderman, etc movie, you are going to have to rely on the actual quality of the film to sell it to audiences.

The vast majority of Americans had no idea who Tony Stark was prior to 2008.

 

[Prince-1]

This. People often oversell the cultural cache of "popular" comic book characters. Only a handful of true A-list super heroes are truly recognizable to the mainstream public. So outside of doing a Batman, Superman, Spiderman, etc movie, you are going to have to rely on the actual quality of the film to sell it to audiences.

The vast majority of Americans had no idea who Tony Stark was prior to 2008.

MCU movies that were successful but starred a character that almost no one knew existed before they saw the movie:

Ant-Man
Guardians
Dr. Strange
Black Panther
Captain Marvel
Shang-Chi

Very few people know any comic book characters besides the big ones that you mentioned and maybe a few more. Other than that they are unknown characters that were in good movies.

 

[erasure fan1]

The franchise was on life support when Gunn came along. I like his work. I am not sure how good he will be at building out a broader universe given his quirky sensibilities. I like what he does with a group of misfits (GOTG, TSS). Not sure how he will do with the core characters.

It will be very interesting to see how it turns out with Gunn. I'm also curious to see what he does with a superman. He was great at making people love groot, king shark, rocket, eagly... But it's a bit harder to put a spin on a core character that so many know and love. I've been a fan of Gunns superhero work, and hopefully he can turn around DC. I am sceptical based on how fragmented it will be. Personally it doesn't bother me, I just wonder how the average moviegoer will embrace it.

 

[_caleb]

It will be very interesting to see how it turns out with Gunn. I'm also curious to see what he does with a superman. He was great at making people love groot, king shark, rocket, eagly... But it's a bit harder to put a spin on a core character that so many know and love. I've been a fan of Gunns superhero work, and hopefully he can turn around DC. I am sceptical based on how fragmented it will be. Personally it doesn't bother me, I just wonder how the average moviegoer will embrace it.

I agree. I think maybe they mistook Gunn, who is really good at offbeat, ragtag, unlikely hero teamups, for a Feige, who is really good at making nerdy comic book stuff accessible and interesting to people who may otherwise not be into comic book stuff.

 

[DKampy]

As far as Aquaman goes…It seems as if WB does not care about him… the promotion seems lacking… it seems they are put all their promotional money Towards Wonka… I would not be surprised if your general audience did not know if Aquaman was being released this weekend

 

[Disney Irish]

Like I said, if that was the case, I blame him too. I'm just not sure it was him. The flash film was already set to "soft reboot" the universe, and that was well before Gunn. And we already were told it was coming, so while I can see the movies doing a bit better, I still think they all significantly underperform anyway.

The Flash while a soft reboot of sorts was to at least continue on with a majority of the same core actors, ie the DCEU was suppose to continue on after the soft reboot.

Gunn and Safron decided to just dump the whole thing, partially because of the results of Black Adam, but also because of wanting to separate from the toxic aspects of the Synderverse. Its understandable why they did, but it left the remaining films to be slaughtered.

 

[Disney Irish]

DC has terrible issues. But DC was a chaotic and tonal mess, albeit with some bright spots. Robbie’s Quinn was terrific in two bad films and one good one. Affleck’s Batman could have been better if they gave him more to do with it. Gadot’s WW was good in the first, abysmal in the sequel. Man of Steel was pretty good in hindsight but not as compared to the McU. Momoa’s Aquaman was kind of a joke but Snyder - for all of his faults, and there are many - knows how to cast. The best way to offset the lame aspects of the character was with the machismo charisma of Momoa.

The franchise was on life support when Gunn came along. I like his work. I am not sure how good he will be at building out a broader universe given his quirky sensibilities. I like what he does with a group of misfits (GOTG, TSS). Not sure how he will do with the core characters. Plus he’s doing like five jobs now (studio head, creative director, screenwriter on multiple projects, and director/producer).

DC had no good options, and while ripping off the Band-aid was a painful decision for this year’s slate of films, it may have been the best option long term.

I don't disagree overall, however I don't think that Gunn is the person for the job. He is good when his focus is on a single property. Like you I don't know how good he will be as an architect of a whole universe, I guess we'll find out. I think he sold Zaslav on the rumors that he was the core reason why the MCU has been successful, as the real architect behind it and not Feige, which I find laughable and know to be untrue. As the MCU was already well underway and successful before he was even hired for Guardians.

So basically I don't see the DCU being better than the DCEU, but I guess we'll see.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

I don't disagree overall, however I don't think that Gunn is the person for the job. He is good when his focus is on a single property. Like you I don't know how good he will be as an architect of a whole universe, I guess we'll find out. I think he sold Zaslav on the rumors that he was the core reason why the MCU has been successful, as the real architect behind it and not Feige, which I find laughable and know to be untrue. As the MCU was already well underway and successful before he was even hired for Guardians.

So basically I don't see the DCU being better than the DCEU, but I guess we'll see.

I’m excited for him to (hopefully) bring more fun to the DC universe, the MCU has always had a nice mix of action and humor and the DCU has always felt so dark in comparison, both in look and tone.

That will probably upset some but I’m looking forward to laughing during a DC movie.

 

[Phroobar]

I’m excited for him to (hopefully) bring more fun to the DC universe, the MCU has always had a nice mix of action and humor and the DCU has always felt so dark in comparison, both in look and tone.

That will probably upset some but I’m looking forward to laughing during a DC movie.

Which was always the exact opposite when it came to comic books. DC was always more colorful (outside of Batman) and fantasy based while Marvel was more realistic and brooding.