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

[flynnibus]

I don’t think anyone is suggesting it’s the entire explanation - just a factor

yet it's the leading point that keeps being brought up and challenge thrown at every poster who simply saids "no thanks" to a film.. like there really must be some ulterior motive behind their decision. If it's a factor, just do the math, it doesn't have the pull to be the lead thing bringing down the results. YET, it's the first retort thrown against nay-sayers and the only 'reason' that is untouchable.

If it's 'just a factor' - what's your swag at how much is it? If it's not the major driver, why is it the only thing that keeps getting brought up by people as why it MUST be why they didn't appreciate the films.

 

[DKampy]

Thanks, Buddy. Been spending a lot of extra time with Kylie lately. I’m afraid she’s on her way out, we think it’s a matter of weeks. (Heart failure.)

Fourteen years old and the star of many trip reports, she’s been the best pup.

So far, she still wants to go for those late night short walks, hence the pic!

Sorry to hear… I know how tough it is…pets become part of the family and don’t live nearly long enough in our lifetimes

 

[flynnibus]

When it didn't, word got out very quickly and by the end of weekend 2, most everyone who wanted to see it had and there were no legs from there.

I think you see that in a lot of franchises.. you have the baked in 'must see' audience that will buy/see anything from the franchise.. the 'die hards' and from there the film needs to connect with a wider audience to have that blockbuster success. If the movie isn't well received, it never moves past the die-hards and you have that quick death. So you get the 'popular in its circle, but failure commercially' scenario too. If you do blockbuster budgets, you need more than the die-hards to float the boat.

I agree with others who say the volume of content and the lack of clear build up has ended the need to see these movies ASAP or at all. People will now pick and chose based on what stories or characters were of interest to them.

That The Eternals, divisive as it was, made over $400 million is even more impressive in retrospect.

I think the Eternals was still in a phase where audiences were like "I don't know what it is per say...but its Marvel and looks kinda like those other things.. so I'll give it a shot"

Where that kind of blind faith doesn't last forever. After enough 'meh' outcomes from choices like that, customers no longer are willing to gve the studio the benefit of the doubt and instead want to actually see the film for good reason. Simply put... they used up all their free passes and now customers are more picky.

In my anecdotal experience I think the death of the theaters is to the point where people don't just casually go anymore and the threshold to see a film is that much higher. This means more of an 'event' - and if the lure isn't up to 'event' status... people don't go. The 'fatigue' or overload postulations fit into this as well... dilution simply causing people not to reach their threshold of committing.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

An interesting take from a writer rather than a critic.

The argument being that early Marvel films were about the characters and their battles against their own flaws rather than battling a villain. Tony Stark battles his selfishnes, Steve Rogers battles his feelings of inadequacy, Thor battles his arrogance.

The old movies followed the “heroes journey”, the new movies don’t.

 

[flynnibus]

An interesting take from a writer rather than a critic.

The argument being that early Marvel films were about the characters and their battles against their own flaws rather than battling a villain. Tony Stark battles his selfishnes, Steve Rogers battles his feelings of inadequacy, Thor battles his arrogance.

I think its an interesting analysis from a writing perspective... but I think its far too deep to be a motivating factor in the popcorn audience.

The comics were known for their willingness to take on those kinds of story drivers in a fashion that far exceeded their stature in literature. But a show didn't always have to revolve around that.. take Batman for instance.. they could detour into a pure villian that needs defeating story... while the Batman's internal demons could be put on hold for awhile. But the good characters had that grit/realism that connected these fantasy stories to a reality that the audience could see as 'real'.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

There’s a lot of truth here, but it’s worth noting that while Ant-Man 3’s was the biggest, MCU films have always tended to have enormous second week plunges.

I think it’s also worth noting that Ant-Man 3’s primary problem was glaringly obvious - it focused on the overarching narrative, “building to something,” rather then playing to the established strengths of the character. It’s strange, then, that so many people seem to think the solution to the MCU’s current woes is to emphasize the overarching narrative MORE. I understand the impulse given the success of the buildup to Endgame, but I have to wonder if it’s exactly wrong and more self contained films are the answer.

My problem with Ant-Man was that it just wasn't interesting seeing a character shrink and grow within the confines of a CGI landscape with no sense of scale. It's fun when they're driving a tiny car on a big road or he's standing next to a giant airplane because we have context to make it visually interesting.

Not to say it wasn't an issue of serving a bigger story, but that's how I saw it.

While I personally wanted a bit more big story development in the movies (Infinity War is the big finale and characters are asking, "who's Thanos?"), they did seem to hit that sweet spot for the majority of viewers. Standalone stories with a few crumbs sprinkled in the movies but mostly the end credit scenes.

It was easy to stay on top of the whole story by watching just the movies or hearing the details. Tying movies into these TV series is way too much.

WandaVision worked because it was mostly its' own thing and the show within a show concept was meant for TV.

 

[Casper Gutman]

An interesting take from a writer rather than a critic.

The argument being that early Marvel films were about the characters and their battles against their own flaws rather than battling a villain. Tony Stark battles his selfishnes, Steve Rogers battles his feelings of inadequacy, Thor battles his arrogance.

The old movies followed the “heroes journey”, the new movies don’t.

The Marvels is entirely about Captain Marvels profound failings, her need for control and the utterly disastrous results, much more so than any Captain America film is about his “inadequacy.” Captain America, like Superman, is generally so perfect that his challenges have to center on him wrestling with the failure of others to live up to his ideals.

 

[erasure fan1]

I just don't have anywhere close to the same level of attachment to those characters that I do for certain other Marvel characters. (I will gladly sit through a less-than-stellar X-Men or Spider-Man movie because I am infinitely more emotionally invested in them.) The one character I do give a crap about (Nick Fury, arguably the best character in the MCU)

That's how a lot of us feel. Plus, the overall saga is all over the place now. That makes it a lot harder to get invested in. It really would have been smart to make the mcu 1 release maybe every 18 months or so until you were able to use the fantastic 4 and X-Men. That way you would have the draw of the more popular and known characters. Then adding in some of these 4th tier characters with them would help getting people acclimated with them.

I think people, including Marvel themselves, really underestimated how big of a hurdle that was to overcome.

Yup 100%

You mean I'm not getting what you're pushing?

Ding ding ding! You are correct.

 

[Willmark]

Yes. The Mom makes us or we don't get to take the car out on Saturday night.

Don’t forget to put gas in it.

 

[Casper Gutman]

That's how a lot of us feel. Plus, the overall saga is all over the place now. That makes it a lot harder to get invested in. It really would have been smart to make the mcu 1 release maybe every 18 months or so until you were able to use the fantastic 4 and X-Men. That way you would have the draw of the more popular and known characters. Then adding in some of these 4th tier characters with them would help getting people acclimated with them.

Yup 100%

Ding ding ding! You are correct.

I REALLY question how attached most people (not comic fans in this thread) were to the initial MCU stars before the films began. Even in an industry that doesn’t have huge sales, Thor, Iron Man, and Cap sold minuscule numbers (not to mention Ant-Man or the Guardians). That’s why Marvel still controlled the IPs - they literally couldn’t give them away to film studios. The attachment was a result of the MCU, not a precursor to it.

 

[Jedijax719]

I feel like they are going to abandon the multiverse/time thing. Leave it with Loki and go head on into mutants with Fantastic Four and X-men. Bring in certain heroes that can connect like Shang Chi and Black Panther. Drive us toward Secret Wars and Battle World. Nobody cares enough to see Kang any more. Time for Doom and Galactus to reign in and use vibranium and amulets (such as the 10 rings and the bangel) to do so. MAYBE bring in another Kang and form a legion of evil that includes Doom, Galactus, Zemo, Kang (different actor of course), Namor (or Attuma) and whoever else-maybe Venom. That is what will make the next phase different than the others. In the first 4 we had Thanos looming. In phase 5 we had a mess. Now it's time to bring in a group of villains. Have SOME Avengers ( F4, some mutants like DP and Wolverine, SC, Sam, BP) start to square off with Thunderbolts, only to join hands to defeat the legion of evil I mentioned, leading to an ultimate showdown on Battle World.

That's how you do it.

 

[flynnibus]

I REALLY question how attached most people (not comic fans in this thread) were to the initial MCU stars before the films began. Even in an industry that doesn’t have huge sales, Thor, Iron Man, and Cap sold minuscule numbers (not to mention Ant-Man or the Guardians). That’s why Marvel still controlled the IPs - they literally couldn’t give them away to film studios. The attachment was a result of the MCU, not a precursor to it.

But people knew what they were... and quickly the MCU established a product that people liked, and bought into for nearly a decade.

Their success was a combination of the elements... the original comic, the performances, the writing, and the MCU as a whole.

Most people had no idea who Vision was... but they were able to make it work. Most people knew who Capt America was, even if they never bought a single Capt America thing in their life before the MCU. Why were both these things able to work, even tho they had very different histories? Because greatness in one category can help lift weakness in another. And people become NEW FANS.

People didn't NEED a prior history to get hooked on the MCU... but the brand awareness is still huge. Be it the powers of the character being understandable, or whatever... you shouldn't discount how approachable a character and digestible they are to the audience.

And with that establishment comes a new 'love' from the audiences. People now love the MCU representation of key characters... if you were to suddenly reboot that and retrocon, even if more comic-accurate, you'd still get a huge blowback. And that's going to be the struggle with Capt America too... not because people hate a black actor, but because most only know the Steve Rogers character and will resist the evolution. Change is hard.

Comic fans are used to it... it's a method used for ages to be able to keep the stream going. Just like Star Trek fans are used to time travel to be a over-used gimmick to tell new stories. But a simple "I was a teen when the Avengers came out.." young adult... those stories will not be as readily acceptable. It's simply newer to them.

 

[_caleb]

I wasn't talking about the poster. The character design in general. And then we wonder why it didn't translate well to film. They tried to turn Saved by the Bell into a blockbuster movie.

Yeah, what were they thinking trying to make a comic book movie about an awkward teenager trying to navigate high school life while also gaining super powers and fighting bad guys?

BTW, the design was done as an iteration of Captain Marvel's (which evolved from old-school barely-there to bod suit with a sash), but more appropriate for a Muslim teenager girl.

I know, you don't like it and taste is subjective and everyone it entitled to their opinions. But I'm interested in why fans like you might not like the character design (and why these opinions can't seem to be expressed without snarky disrespect).

 

[DKampy]

My problem with Ant-Man was that it just wasn't interesting seeing a character shrink and grow within the confines of a CGI landscape with no sense of scale. It's fun when they're driving a tiny car on a big road or he's standing next to a giant airplane because we have context to make it visually interesting.

Not to say it wasn't an issue of serving a bigger story, but that's how I saw it.

While I personally wanted a bit more big story development in the movies (Infinity War is the big finale and characters are asking, "who's Thanos?"), they did seem to hit that sweet spot for the majority of viewers. Standalone stories with a few crumbs sprinkled in the movies but mostly the end credit scenes.

It was easy to stay on top of the whole story by watching just the movies or hearing the details. Tying movies into these TV series is way too much.

WandaVision worked because it was mostly its' own thing and the show within a show concept was meant for TV.

IMO… one of the greatest sequences in any Marvel movie was in the first Antman…. The end fight in Cassie’s bedroom… playing with size like when the toy train was enlarged

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

No, that's fine.

Maybe it's time for all of us to try to raise the level of discourse around here a notch or two. It could certainly stand it.

Sounds great…

So let’s raise it.


Truth is a good means to that end

 

[erasure fan1]

much of our modern politics and culture was birthed in an idiotic on-line argument over video games.

What video game argument are you talking about?

It’s not a coincidence that The Marvels, a convergence point for many different elements of cultural outrage, was the first MCU mega-flop and not much worse films like Eternals or Ant-Man 3.

It might seem that way but I think there is more at play. Of all the films in phase 4, eternals was the one I was most looking forward to. A cool team up film that I thought in the right hands could be like guardians. Not many knew the characters so they'd have a bit of freedom with the story and characters. The trailers came out and weren't great but I was still willing to give it a shot. Unfortunately, I thought it was terrible as a whole. Antman is a character people liked. He had a solid track record, he was in two of his own films and 2 team up films, all well received. I love Paul Rudd and his portrayal of Antman. So yea, I was going to see it. I have no real attachment to the marvels, just like I had no real attachment to the eternals. But it's like they say, fool me once.

The marvels might end up lower than eternals and antman 3, that's true. It's gotten mixed reviews at best so obviously people aren't willing to take a flyer on it. That's the problem with stringing together multiple mediocre to poor films. At some point, people stop caring.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I think we really need to stop arguing the social stuff, as much as it always pulls me in.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

We’ve had folks say they didn’t like Ms Marvel because it’s too teen-oriented. I strongly disagree, but no one challenged or saw a hidden agenda.

Ms. Marvel was great because it was diverse, and the diversity was real. It didn't feel like a token exercise in corporate box-checking. It actually mattered that Kamala Khan came from a Pakistani-American family. It mattered to the character and it mattered to the story. And oh by the way, the story was small-c conservative. It's a story about family and tradition and history. The story portrayed parents as competent and loving, which fiction directed at kids and teens almost never does.

I think Ms. Marvel was doomed when it was released so close to She-Hulk, which everyone hated. Everything got bundled up in the "M-She-U" reactionary backlash from the sweaties.

It’s also fine to welcome greater inclusivity in film. If you’re not focused on ethnicity or gender, it’s not going to bother you! And without a conscious effort to increase inclusivity, it doesn’t happen.

Do you agree, at least, that there's a difference between the following?

1. New, original characters.
2. Characters rooted in some kind of source material.
3. Characters rooted in actual human history.

Someone who objects to a new black character is probably just a racist. That's a different category from someone who objects to an already-established character being recast.

I didn’t enjoy the Marvels because of the gender or ethnicity of the stars, I enjoyed it because I thought it was good. I certainly don’t MIND that it had a diverse cast, however.

Gender and ethnicity are very different. Gender is a bona fide difference between people. Our lizard brains are hardwired to regard some traits as masculine and some as feminine. The superhero genre is rooted in violence, combat, and aggression. That's not inherently black or white but it's inherently masculine. Female superhero stories can work, but they work because they subvert expectations, not because men and women are interchangeable.

I think we really need to stop arguing the social stuff, as much as it always pulls me in.

Wait, no, don't leave now, you and I might actually agree on something for once.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I think we really need to stop arguing the social stuff, as much as it always pulls me in.

Probably…

So then we’re back to this:

Their entire movie slate tanked this year…hard…and they need to fix it.

Not “optional”

So how do you fix it?

 

[CaptainAmerica]

So how do you fix it?

Grovel at the feet of John Lasseter, publicly apologize for the way he was treated by the company, and pay him whatever he wants to come back.

But we know that's not going to happen.