Marvel Studios Developing Asian Superhero Film ‘Shang-Chi’

Jedijax719

Jedijax719

Well-Known Member
I hear the word "flop" being thrown around with every single movie release this year (except Spiderman which may not even come out this year). If EVERY movie is a flop, then either the standard has to change or movie theaters themselves are completely doomed!

We're getting to a point where movie theaters cannot remain open for Marvel films alone!
 
LovePop

LovePop

Well-Known Member
Jedijax719 said:
I hear the word "flop" being thrown around with every single movie release this year (except Spiderman which may not even come out this year). If EVERY movie is a flop, then either the standard has to change or movie theaters themselves are completely doomed!

We're getting to a point where movie theaters cannot remain open for Marvel films alone!
Click to expand...
Not every single movie is a flop this year, only the expensive ones so far. If you take in $200 million box office, then you are a flop if you cost $200 million but a stunning success if you cost $20 million. With virus and theater limitations, that means the expensive movies are far more likely to become flops than cheap ones.

In Disney's case, at least, the story is slightly different because they have the Disney+ paid option. I remember Black Widow opened with $60 million from paid option alone, that is, 2 million subscribers paid to watch it at home. Let's say each subscriber represents 3 movie tickets on average and each ticket costs $10, that represents $60 million box office, though most of that goes directly to Disney, which should be helpful at reducing the cost ratio. That's still not much compared to, say, Black Panther, which earn $700 million domestically, meaning that people went to to theaters to watch it more than once.

In that sense, neither Black Widow nor Jungle Cruise did well: being that they have Disney Plus access, people who are scared of theaters should have watched it on Disney+ instead, rather than just skip it completely.

There is another possibility: people might simply be waiting for Disney/Marvel movies to go to free Disney Plus access within a few months instead paying anything for it. Before Disney+, when I wanted to see a new movie, I either had to go to the theater or buy the DVD 3 months later. I could also rent it, but that was more cumbersome as I had to return it. Now, all I had to do is wait a few months and it will be free. I'd take the free option for basically every movie, especially now that I own a big screen TV. I don't have to go to the theater, I don't have to rent or buy, I don't have to move a muscle, and I already paid for Disney+. It just seems like the easiest and most reasonable course of action.

I agree with ScarJo that Disney+ is undermining a movie's box office performance because Disney makes new movies become free on Disney+ rather quickly. Now, if say, a movie only becomes available on Disney+ after 3 months, and you have to pay $30 even then, and it will be many years before it becomes free on Disney+, then the box office will be protected like it used to be.
 
Last edited:
Jedijax719

Jedijax719

Well-Known Member
Of course people are waiting until movies come to free (with subscription) streaming. They've waited this long so what's a couple more months?

If the answer to movies' success is lower budgets, then it also means that less movies will go to theaters at all. That's because it costs so much to put them there. Movies costing $50 million to make and end up making $100-$150 million at the box office cannot be the future of movies. In this day and age, it doesn't leave much for theaters if that is the limit. By the time COVID finally subsides, the MCU may see its flame truly start to flicker. Then what? Are people going to race to the theater for original material? I think not. Bottom line is that the MCU's, Avatars, and Star Wars cannot be the be-all, end-all of movie theaters. And, at the same time, smaller budget films, even IF they turn profits, cannot sustain movie theaters. They could in the 1960's. 70's, and 80's, but not now.
 
MisterPenguin

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
The budget of these movies and even the production for many of them began before the pandemic.

The budget isn't the problem, the pandemic is. Get vaccinated.

Anyhoo, all production companies are in a conundrum:
  • Hold the movies until the pandemic is over and have no returns on investments for two years (or more, since the rest of the world will be far behind the U.S. in recovery); OR...
  • Release the movies during the pandemic with an assured reduction of theatrical revenue making the movies either no longer a block buster, or just eking by on breaking even or even a small loss.
 
D

DanielBB8

Well-Known Member
MisterPenguin said:
The budget of these movies and even the production for many of them began before the pandemic.

The budget isn't the problem, the pandemic is. Get vaccinated.

Anyhoo, all production companies are in a conundrum:
  • Hold the movies until the pandemic is over and have no returns on investments for two years (or more, since the rest of the world will be far behind the U.S. in recovery); OR...
  • Release the movies during the pandemic with an assured reduction of theatrical revenue making the movies either no longer a block buster, or just eking by on breaking even or even a small loss.
Click to expand...
Of course the production budget is the problem since they were made with the old model and contracts were signed with the expectation of “a wide theatrical release” without the simultaneous streaming Video On Demand (VOD) model. Eventually, the subscribers base will be figured into the equation and this is the unknown. The number of subscribers and how many more join the service because of Black Widow or Shang-Chi. A $200 million movie is way too rich.

Interesting reading. James Bond costs $314 million dollars to make and needs to earn $900 million worldwide box office dollars to breakeven.
www.joblo.com

No Time To Die: Latest Bond film needs to make $900 million to break even

No Time to Die's box office total needs to cross $900 million globally in order to break even. Is it possible?
www.joblo.com www.joblo.com
 
D

DanielBB8

Well-Known Member
LovePop said:
The fact that China is effectively banning the Shang Chi movie won't help its numbers no matter how this experiment ends.

The Jungle Cruise opened at 34 million domestic box office. If Shang Chi opens at 35 million or more, as experts predict, I would call it a success, but I am expecting it to do worse, more like under 20 million.

My reasons:

1. Jungle Cruise has big name lead actors, as does Black Widow. Shang Chi has a no-name foreign lead actor.
2. Marvel movies are all superhero movies. Shang Chi appears to be a kungfu movie, which enjoys a much smaller following in the US. In the last 10 years, I know of numerous big superhero movies. I know no big kungfu movie.
3. Based on its trailer, Shang Chi's story revolves around his excessively demanding father, which is a tired Asian stereotype that very likely offended the Chinese censureship bureau and is the main reason the movie got banned there. Such a storyline can't be exciting to US viewers who are culturally removed from such parenting styles.
4. Other Marvel movies are based on well-known characters like Spiderman. Shang-Chi is virtually unknown.

If I turn out to be wrong, and Shang Chi ends up opening at over 35 million or even 60 million, then Disney/Marvel will know that there was no need to hire ScarJo to be Black Widow and pay so much. They could have gotten away with some no name actor and the movie would have done no worse. Then in the future, Disney might want to consider going that route to save money on movies or TV shows.

I agree with Bob Chapek: Shang Chi is an experiment. I am waiting eagerly to see how this movie works out in the box office.
Click to expand...
The movie was problematic because of the former villain that was replaced by The Mandarin. The previous villain was the Fu Manchu character that was very offensive. People remember these things.
www.yahoo.com

Marvel’s ‘Shang-Chi,’ ‘Eternals’ May Face Uphill Battle to Enter China

A recent Chinese state media report has added to rumors that two major Marvel superhero films, “Eternals” and “Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings,” may not be approved for release in China. In a report on the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s Phase Four films, the CCTV6 China Movie Channel...
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com

“Although ‘the Mandarin’ is not the same person as Fu Manchu, it still is under the shadow of ‘Fu Manchu,’” the official Communist Youth League paper China Youth Daily warned back in 2019. “Even just the announcement of the characters has caused huge controversy in China. Marvel wants ‘Shang-Chi to earn money from global audiences… [but] faces a big challenge. The film itself will decide whether it will end in tears or laughter.”
 
MisterPenguin

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
DanielBB8 said:
Of course the production budget is the problem since they were made with the old model and contracts were signed with the expectation of “a wide theatrical release” without the simultaneous streaming Video On Demand (VOD) model. Eventually, the subscribers base will be figured into the equation and this is the unknown. The number of subscribers and how many more join the service because of Black Widow or Shang-Chi. A $200 million movie is way too rich.
Click to expand...
With Disney, that was never the case.

Both Bobs were emphatic when fielding questions from Wall Street on the quarterly reports whether they should just shunt all their movies to streaming so as to bolster their streaming and dominate the market; and both Bobs committed to the usual windows, which included exclusive release to theaters as the first window.




DanielBB8 said:
Interesting reading. James Bond costs $314 million dollars to make and needs to earn $900 million worldwide box office dollars to breakeven.
www.joblo.com

No Time To Die: Latest Bond film needs to make $900 million to break even

No Time to Die's box office total needs to cross $900 million globally in order to break even. Is it possible?
www.joblo.com www.joblo.com
Click to expand...
Yes, that's the rule of thumb the industry follows:
  • Take the announced budget ($314M)
  • Multiply it by 1.5 to include the hidden cost of advertising and administrative overhead ($471M)
  • Multiply it by 2 to indicate the break even point since theaters get half the take on average (the split varies by time and place, but, in the end, winds up being 50% for the production company) ($942M)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jedijax719

Jedijax719

Well-Known Member
I think, while pondering how certain movies will do without China, a bigger question is how Chinese theaters will do without certain movies.
 
D

DanielBB8

Well-Known Member
MisterPenguin said:
With Disney, that was never the case.

Both Bobs were emphatic when fielding questions from Wall Street on the quarterly reports whether they should just shunt all their movies to streaming so as to bolster their streaming and dominate the market; and both Bobs committed to the usual windows, which included exclusive release to theaters as the first window.

The pandemic changed that.

Yes, that's the rule of thumb the industry follows:
  • Take the announced budget ($314M)
  • Multiply it by 1.5 to include the hidden cost of advertising and administrative overhead ($471M)
  • Multiply it by 2 to indicate the break even point since theaters get half the take on average (the split varies by time and place, but, in the end, winds up being 50% for the production company) ($942M)
Click to expand...
Both Bob’s can do whatever is their right with theatrical release or streaming. I didn’t say they will or will not do an EXCLUSIVE streaming. Failure of reading comprehension. And they already did the simultaneous release with Black Widow and Jungle Cruise so that’s what they can do in the future. The issue is how will they monetize it. I already said increase in subscriber base and VOD via Disney+ Premium. Streaming will have to make up for the decrease in theatrical box office due to the pandemic. That’s why the budgets can’t be supported from box office alone unless budgets are decreased to under $100 million, which just makes since. Quiet Place 2 ($61M) isn’t a flop, but Cruella ($200M) is. Guess why?
 
Last edited:
Kirby86

Kirby86

Well-Known Member
Yeah budgets need to start getting under control not saying there isn't a place for 200 million dollar movies but with the current way of producing movies it is a feast or famine situation.
 
D

DanielBB8

Well-Known Member
Disney trying to release Shang Chi in China is like expecting today’s audience to not worry about Song of the South. The debate is over. Guess who won. They didn’t heed the red flags. They allowed their creatives too much power.
 
Jedijax719

Jedijax719

Well-Known Member
Kirby86 said:
Yeah budgets need to start getting under control not saying there isn't a place for 200 million dollar movies but with the current way of producing movies it is a feast or famine situation.
Click to expand...
From a numbers standpoint, that makes sense. However, how much quality do you sacrifice if you drop budgets that much? It costs SO much to get a movie into theaters that will hopefully make a profit. Should we really propose that theatrical releases have budgets of Netflix or D+ originals? Would people flock to theaters to see those? Sure, their stories may be decent in some cases, but would they warrant filling cinema seats to see? And when they are stretched to cinematic screen sizes, how will those movies even look?

Like others said, this is the COVID-19 era. Movies like Black Widow and Shang-Chi would easily have turned profits outside of this worldwide disaster.
 
Robbiem

Robbiem

Well-Known Member
LovePop said:
Not every single movie is a flop this year, only the expensive ones so far. If you take in $200 million box office, then you are a flop if you cost $200 million but a stunning success if you cost $20 million. With virus and theater limitations, that means the expensive movies are far more likely to become flops than cheap ones.

In Disney's case, at least, the story is slightly different because they have the Disney+ paid option. I remember Black Widow opened with $60 million from paid option alone, that is, 2 million subscribers paid to watch it at home. Let's say each subscriber represents 3 movie tickets on average and each ticket costs $10, that represents $60 million box office, though most of that goes directly to Disney, which should be helpful at reducing the cost ratio. That's still not much compared to, say, Black Panther, which earn $700 million domestically, meaning that people went to to theaters to watch it more than once.

In that sense, neither Black Widow nor Jungle Cruise did well: being that they have Disney Plus access, people who are scared of theaters should have watched it on Disney+ instead, rather than just skip it completely.

There is another possibility: people might simply be waiting for Disney/Marvel movies to go to free Disney Plus access within a few months instead paying anything for it. Before Disney+, when I wanted to see a new movie, I either had to go to the theater or buy the DVD 3 months later. I could also rent it, but that was more cumbersome as I had to return it. Now, all I had to do is wait a few months and it will be free. I'd take the free option for basically every movie, especially now that I own a big screen TV. I don't have to go to the theater, I don't have to rent or buy, I don't have to move a muscle, and I already paid for Disney+. It just seems like the easiest and most reasonable course of action.

I agree with ScarJo that Disney+ is undermining a movie's box office performance because Disney makes new movies become free on Disney+ rather quickly. Now, if say, a movie only becomes available on Disney+ after 3 months, and you have to pay $30 even then, and it will be many years before it becomes free on Disney+, then the box office will be protected like it used to be.
Click to expand...

I wonder how much of the lost box office is made up of people not paying for premium access but keeping their Disney plus subscription to watch these movies when they become ’free’? It would be very hard to separate out the numbers but if lower box office leads to more subscribers on Disney plus it might not be the doom bomb scenario some people think it could be
 
Kirby86

Kirby86

Well-Known Member
Jedijax719 said:
From a numbers standpoint, that makes sense. However, how much quality do you sacrifice if you drop budgets that much? It costs SO much to get a movie into theaters that will hopefully make a profit. Should we really propose that theatrical releases have budgets of Netflix or D+ originals? Would people flock to theaters to see those? Sure, their stories may be decent in some cases, but would they warrant filling cinema seats to see? And when they are stretched to cinematic screen sizes, how will those movies even look?

Like others said, this is the COVID-19 era. Movies like Black Widow and Shang-Chi would easily have turned profits outside of this worldwide disaster.
Click to expand...
Oh for sure they would have heck some big movies already did turn a profit despite the pandemic. Godzilla vs Kong is an example. I'm not saying they should try to make an Avengers movie for 20 million dollars. However budgets are inflating at an unsustainable rate. The higher the budget the harder it is to hit the break even point. Higher budgets means the studios take more cuts from the theater and ticket prices go up.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom