Marvel Will Release No More Than Three Movies and Two Shows Per Year, Bob Iger Says (variety.com) 149
Disney CEO Bob Iger says the company is shrinking the MCU with a new mission to drop the number of Marvel TV series to two a year and the film output to no more than three movies per year. The comment follows Iger conceding last year that Marvel had diluted audience's focus by making too many TV shows. From a report: Iger said this is part of Disney's overall strategy to reduce output and focus on quality, a strategy "that's particularly true with Marvel."
"We're slowly going to decrease volume and go to probably about two TV series a year instead of what had become four and reduce our film output from maybe four a year to two, or a maximum of three," the Disney CEO said during the company's quarterly earnings call Tuesday. "And we're working hard on what that path is." Iger says Marvel has "a couple of good films in '25 and then we're heading to more 'Avengers,' which we're extremely excited about," adding: "Overall, I feel great about the slate. It's something that I've committed to spending more and more time on. The team is one that I have tremendous confidence in and the IP that we're mining, including all the sequels that we're doing, is second to none."
"We're slowly going to decrease volume and go to probably about two TV series a year instead of what had become four and reduce our film output from maybe four a year to two, or a maximum of three," the Disney CEO said during the company's quarterly earnings call Tuesday. "And we're working hard on what that path is." Iger says Marvel has "a couple of good films in '25 and then we're heading to more 'Avengers,' which we're extremely excited about," adding: "Overall, I feel great about the slate. It's something that I've committed to spending more and more time on. The team is one that I have tremendous confidence in and the IP that we're mining, including all the sequels that we're doing, is second to none."
Won't matter for MCU (Score:2, Informative)
All the "next phase" movies after they wrapped up the avenger's infinity gauntlet plot line have sucked.
I saw Marvels for free on the plane last week and struggled to stay awake. Aquaman 2 was trash. The vampire thing (Morbius? I can't even remember the name) was terrible. I think there may have been others I didn't even bother with.
Make real movies that the audience wants to see and you can successfully put out a dozen of them every year and you'll be fine. Keep making shitty movies and they'll all fai
Re:Won't matter for MCU (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What spinoff series were failures? I'd say Picard is the worst of them except for the third and final season. You could skip the first two and not lose anything. Discovery had five seasons and while some weren't great I still enjoyed the series. Lower Decks did nothing for me and all the voice actors were either coked up or got paid per word. Strange New Worlds is good because the season isn't just one long story line.
Re:Won't matter for MCU (Score:4)
Re: (Score:3)
Enterprise was pretty bad for the first season and I stopped watching it entirely. Later on I watched the series again and things did vastly improve with darker storylines. The episodes with Shran are the best. It shows how the Vulcans weren't as good as they appeared and how the Andorians came to trust the humans.
Re: (Score:2)
Power Rangers or Marvel - differences is narrowing (Score:2)
The CGI pretend that Marvel movies are anything better than a glossed up Power Rangers TV episode is what's keeping me away.
Divide the movies into segments and you can Ronco (TM) slice and dice them into new movies just by using different segments from different movies.
The only thing keeping Marvel movies alive is that they are dumbed down character enough, have formula like dialog, sanitized enough and able to pass the movie censors in third world countries.
Disney has for decades depended on a business mo
Re: (Score:3)
Enterprise went 'alternate timeline' from episode 1. It was a terrible start. Not only that, but all the sex they added really turned off my wife, and now i won't even watch it with my girls... what a let-down.
Re: (Score:2)
From what I recall Enterprise had fewer viewers from free over-the-air broadcasts than Battlestar Galactica on subscription cable/satellite.
Both shows ran new episodes in the same years but I don't recall what they were up against for their respective time slots. This is especially notable because Galactica had its time slot moved more than once in an attempt to shake off some viewers, but the viewers tended to follow because it was just that good. Enterprise had people running it that wanted to get as ma
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because you own radar transmission highlight you as a target much MUCH more brightly than the reflections you get back.
anyway 'under the radar' is also a common expression, that can be used metaphorically.
Re: (Score:2)
How many times has Hollywood failed to realize that spinoffs aren't always what fans want? Spinoffs are basically a way to say that they've run out of good ideas, so let's milk this husk of a cow some more.
They jumped the shark with Enterprise ("we'll be a prequel, and then utterly destroy any continuity with all other series"). I remember seeing the first few episodes, then nothing until season two for some reason, then when I watched again I was utterly baffled and wasn't sure it was even the same show
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And... bluntly from a business perspective... it's suicidal to change a popular straight male character to a lesbian character. Because 3.5% of the population are lesbians. And even some of those lesbians were fans of the straight male version of the character.
If you want an LGBT character then you make one up from scratch like Captain Jack Harkness. Bisexual, dashing, charming, funny, new. He was well liked by both straight and lgbtq audiences.
However, changing an existing character usually irritate
Re: (Score:3)
Stories that were told in comics can be good and work.
Comic book stories - those low quality ones that fans will buy because they are fans - don't work beyond that limited audience. "Hey, let's throw these comic cliches together and forget actual writing" isn't good enough.
Now get a director who doesn't understand what works in the genre and give him a committee-vetted script base on one of those comic book stories, and you're going to get feces.
Re: (Score:2)
Comic books have been published with the same characters for so long that there's a lot of material to work with, it should not be that difficult to find something that works for a relatively large audience and translates well to the movie screen. I've heard this described as "accuracy by volume", just tossing enough stuff in the general direction that something is going to hit the mark.
The people writing the movie scripts should be able to look back at the large volume of work to see which was a hit among
Re: (Score:2)
>There may be some comic book stories that only work in comic books but I have my doubts.
The best stories can easily survive adaptation, but movies are a different medium with different tropes whose audience mostly has different expectations. "Deadpool Kills the Marvel Universe" was a fun read, but I really doubt it would make its budget back as a movie of any watchable quality. Though I still say I would watch a Squirrel Girl rom-com.
Sometimes the required changes take a good story down a notch or two
Re: (Score:2)
But do we really need *yet another* 'Dark Phoenix' or 'Crisis on Infinite Earths' retelling? There's been enough versions of those stories.
Re: (Score:2)
Do we really need yet another adaptation of Little Women or Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde? Probably not but yet every decade or so someone creates a new adaptation for film and they often do well. It's like many stories that make up our culture, people will want to make their own adaptation because it is something that runs deep in society.
Then is the point made earlier that comic books have a large number of stories being told over time because they've been making comic books for decades using the same character
Re:Won't matter for MCU (Score:5, Funny)
Aquaman 2 was trash.
Ah yes, notable Marvel character, Aquaman.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the fun things about the pre-Endgame MCU was that so much was interconnected, often in subtle and obscure ways, so that as someone who was never really a big comic book fan it was fun for me to have brief moments of recognition of the interconnections between the different characters and their different movie
Re: (Score:2)
You know, that mistake actually brought up a good point.
As someone who never cared about the superhero comics enough to learn more, I make no difference between DC and MCU. They're both "some characters with super-powers doing whatever in various shallow stories". I mean, I can name quite a few superheroes, but I wouldn't be able to fit them in either DC or MCU for the life of me.
And I have this strange feeling this applies to a lot of people, generally.
Re: (Score:2)
And I have this strange feeling this applies to a lot of people, generally.
At least one, count me in.
And, correct, probably "a lot of people".
Re: (Score:2)
Grtowing up, DC was the real set of super hero comics. Marvel was mostly Spiderman and Hulk, possibly some Fantastic Four; anything else Marvel was mostly for those who went every week to the comic book store (uncanny x-men, inscrutable x-men, marvelous x-men, etc). Never mind that the later x-men weren't like the originals at all (the pantheon was too huge, and the originals could only make token cameos now and then). Marvel really were the underdogs, and that's why some pepole liked them. But then fast
Re: (Score:2)
It's not too hard. Follow this flowchart: Is it Batman or Superman? It's DC. Ifnot, is it a lame superhero with a lame power and/or a bad story? It's probably DC. All else, it's probably Marvel.
Sony Marvel complicates things (Score:2)
>>And Sony was responsible the Morbin' Time
Which complicates things. Even if Disney tries to up the quality of Marvel movies by only releasing 2 per year, there's no limit on the number of trashy Marvel movies that Sony can release. This year they released the laughable bad Madame Web and there are still 2 more coming before the end of the year (Kraven the Hunter and Venom 3) which are likely to be almost as bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Kraven the Hunter
Who? Just the name sounds like something that should stay in a comic book.
Re: (Score:2)
Marvel is in charge of writing and producing the Spiderman movies that are in the MCU, while Sony finances and distributes them.
Re: (Score:2)
All the "next phase" movies after they wrapped up the avenger's infinity gauntlet plot line have sucked.
Yeah, it's hard to figure out exactly what they were trying to do. The Infinity War finale killed off or removed from play most of the team that they'd spent eleven years setting up, and the movies after that seemed to be mostly just introducing new characters that they didn't develop further and not connecting them to any narrative arc (*other than the Spiderman movies, which do seem to have an arc, but not one connecting to other characters ).
Sounds like the next phase is going to consist of folding in c
Re: (Score:2)
3 movies per year is a limit? I already feel that 3 a year is 2 movies too many. There's real burnout from all this which has been going on for a long time now.
Re: (Score:2)
They should go down to 2, or at this point, 1. Three movies / year is
Re: (Score:2)
Aquaman is from DC, and the "Spider-verse" is from Sony, so not exactly a fault of Marvel/Disney. Spiderman is from the Marvel comics but the movie rights were sold a long time ago, and will not fall back to "mother Marvel" unless or until the rights are abandoned. I wondered once why there were so many Spiderman movies when they were often crap and needed to get a "reboot" to put distance between the next movie and the last box office bomb. It's because if they don't make a new movie in some time frame
Translation (Score:3)
"the IP that we're mining"
"We've saturated the market and are now creating a shortage to keep the price up."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How? How could you care even less about this crap at this point?
Re: (Score:3)
For reference, Captain Marvel had a $1.1 billion worldwide gross against a $160 million production budget according to IMDB. It's sequel, The Marvels, had a wor
Re: (Score:2)
Disney lies through their teeth about real production costs, and those don't include marketing outlays. Cap Marvel probably cost closer to 200-250 million with at least 150-200 million marketing outlay, possibly more given it's release at the height of Infinity War fever. Disney gets 50% of the run for the first couple of weeks before it drops to 30%. So they maybe made 150-300 million on that movie. The Marvels was significantly worse with production costs after all reshoots of 300-350 million. Probably no
Re: (Score:2)
"We've saturated the market and are now creating a shortage to keep the price up."
That is a clever and insightful comment, and funny.
And, it brings up an interesting philosophical question.
Can something be simultaneously both a shortage and an excess (saturated)?
If they make just 2 or 3 movies yearly, that is less activity, but the situation might still be saturated, still too much, not short enough to be a shortage if consumer demand isn't there and attention has dissipated.
One movie every other year might bring supply and demand back into some congruence.
When those biennial movies come
Not Saturation, Quality (Score:2)
We've saturated the market and are now creating a shortage to keep the price up.
That's entirely missing the problem though. The reason these things are all flops is not because the market is saturated it is because they are producing rubbish. While reducing the amount of rubbish can be argued to be an improvement it is still utter rubbish. If they want people to start watching that means focusing on entertaining stories with interesting characters.
A far better sign if they want to fix things would be firing their current writing staff and hiring people who can actually write good q
Re: (Score:2)
The staff they have at the moment write like they are 12 year olds producing fan fiction.
If only, fan fiction would at least try to keep consistent with the story line. This is like 12 year olds writing stories that the think would please their teacher.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how movies of TV shows work. The price is fixed.
I thought this was an Onion article when I read it (Score:4, Interesting)
Also they must be a lot cheaper than I realized if they can pump them out like that.
Re: I thought this was an Onion article when I rea (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
When the MCU movies were good, there were at most 3 movies a year, and very few TV shows. But most of the movies were consistently good and a few were amazing. Now it's all bland crap, except for the movies post-"Endgame" that were shielded or mostly shielded from Disney interference: "No Way Home", "Guardians, volume 3" and the Spider-verse movies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Edna Mode: No Capes!
Re: (Score:2)
3 super hero movies a year seems crazy and on top of 2 shows? I don't follow them (obviously) but what were they like before?
Also they must be a lot cheaper than I realized if they can pump them out like that.
No that's not how it works. Throughout the entire Phase 3 of the MCU they were doing 3 movies a year along side multiple TV shows. There was nothing cheap about them. They all have budgets >$250million. For the movies anyway, not sure about the TV shows. As long as they were making silly money they could afford to crank movies out. They literally saturated the CGI industry in their peak though.
But in any case you raise a point. Marvel has only once released more than 3 MCU movies in a given year, and tha
Re: (Score:2)
Marvel usually did 3 movies a year. Sometimes they only do 2.
Sony makes movies with Spiderman characters pretty often. When they do a live action Spiderman movie, it's part of the MCU, resulting in a potential 4th Marvel movie that year.
The TV shows never got a clear schedule. They started doing them in 2020 and COVID seriously messed with the schedules. And then as it started to settle in, the strikes last year messed with it more. At times there were several released closed together, and at times there we
Net effect for me: (Score:5, Insightful)
The number of new Marvel TV shows and movies I will not watch will fall to 2 and 3 respectively. The active side of this calculation - the ones I do watch - will hold steady at zero.
Now, while it's not "new" I did just cave and watch a single comic book movie two weeks ago. It was my nephew's choice. To be fair, I enjoyed it. "Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse". I knew I was going to like it right from the "dad cop dropping his kid off at school" moment.
If the creators of most of the comic universes aspired to that level of artistic achievement, I would be more embracing of new content. But not only don't they achieve it, they aren't even aiming that high. The machine just churns out the dreck, and I can't be bothered.
I'm not engaged enough to be antagonistic... I just don't care. Like with "Star Wars", I've just had the engagement ground out of me.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who's been a fan of Peter Parker for 50+ years, I loved what they did with Miles Morales as Spider-Man in the Spider-verse movies. He's a great character, and had a great supporting cast... especially his parents.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.. especially his parents. I couldn't get enough of them - always disappointed when they cut away from them.
Re: (Score:2)
This is comic books style. Even without alternate universes they characters were regularly (and confusingly) rebooted. Maybe because origin stories are the most interesting part of the story arcs, with mid-life superhero being utterly uninteresting. "I've got strange new powers!" = interesting. "Everyone knows me now" = boring. The race to make each story at least as interesting as the previous one is difficult. Except for the hardcore fans, most comic book series were like soap operas where nothing rea
Re: (Score:2)
The spider-verse movies are amazing. If you "enjoyed" the first one, the second one may blow your mind a bit. It's just so *good.*
Seriously, just burning karma to throw out that they are the most original, innovative movies since the first Matrix, Everyone should see them twice.
While it was successful, I think irritation with Marvel probably kept the second one from being even bigger, and it's a shame. It's so good.
Re: (Score:3)
While the Spider-verse movies were more cartoony, they were very well-written and incredibly well produced. I'll take more of that over the live action nonsense any day.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with the TV shows is that they were just setting up movies. No real pay off or satisfying ending. Some of them had other issues like bad writing, but even the ones that were mildly entertaining ended up feeling like a waste of time.
Limiting product is a start, but... (Score:3)
... they still have to stop making dreck with secondary characters no one cares about.
Re:Limiting product is a start, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
The entire MCU is build on the back of secondary characters. Marvel didn't have the rights to anything most people would consider their primary characters (primary Spiderman and the X-Men). Iron Man was only barely known outside of comics fan and largely considered a Batman Ripoff. I'm semi-comics aware but had never heard of The Guardians of the Galaxy or Black Panther, both of which were really well done. I think you could complain that they are trying to push new characters a bit quicker and with not enough build up, but I don't think complaining about secondary characters is quite accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
... they still have to stop making dreck with secondary characters no one cares about.
Ironically for your comment one of their best performers turned out to be one of the lesser known series of characters: Guardians of the Galaxy. They were a huge hit. If you're only watching a movie for the fame of the character then you are the worst kind of cinema viewer.
I've a better idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Drop the adolescent juvenile comic book trash altogether and come up with some original sci-fi for a change, or at least adapt a best selling series as per The Expanse instead of 2 hour by the numbers cgi fests with cardboard cut-out caricatures wearing pseudo S&M costumes.
In the current TV climate I can't see ground breaking sci fi series such as Battlestar Galactica being commisioned any more.
Re: (Score:2)
If all we're going to get is fantasy passing as science fiction, I wish somebody would get off the pot with "Nine Princes in Amber", which apparently has been under development since before COVID.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Any time! I always had a weakness for Zelazny's writing.
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the early 80s, my account name at UCSC was "corwin"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Some people just never grow up reading matter wise and now they probably feel justified with comic books being laughingly called "graphic novels". Condense the text in your average comic book down and you'd probably have at best 5 pages worth. Barely even a short story.
Re: (Score:2)
You preempted me. It is beyond me that anybody at least 17 could tolerate watching more than one of those movies. I was very much into those comics myself as a young teenager, but they started becoming boring roughly when I turned 17.
When I was younger I used to feel the same way. "I'm a mature adult who reads Plato and Dostoevsky, I'm too artistically mature to enjoy those big pop culture franchises!!" As I grew older I learned that just because something is popular and popularly accessible doesn't make it bad or myself unrefined for enjoying them.
Just because something is accessible doesn't make it boring.
Now, I think there's a few thing that are true.
1) The genre has evolved. Discovering a Universe is fun but you can't keep rediscove
Re: (Score:3)
Drop the adolescent juvenile comic book trash altogether and come up with some original sci-fi for a change, or at least adapt a best selling series as per The Expanse instead of 2 hour by the numbers cgi fests with cardboard cut-out caricatures wearing pseudo S&M costumes.
In the current TV climate I can't see ground breaking sci fi series such as Battlestar Galactica being commisioned any more.
I think there's room for both.
I remember study years ago talking about the most complex genre of music when it came to themes and emotional content... it was country music. Basically, the claim was that because country music was relatively culturally homogeneous there was a lot of shared language and it was easier for a song writer to go into more advanced themes.
I think the Marvel stuff is similarly underrated in that regard. Because the audience knows the universe so well they can skip a lot of the world
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like there isn't a wide breadth of material they could be pulling from, either.
Logan proved that - and it was one of the few good Marvel franchise films. Ditto for Deadpool - you can do backstory and character development with all the bells and whistles.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like there isn't a wide breadth of material they could be pulling from, either. Logan proved that - and it was one of the few good Marvel franchise films.
Except Logan wasn't a Marvel franchise film (specifically, not the Marvel Cinematic Universe).
Ditto for Deadpool -
Which wasn't MCU either.
Marvel/Disney has now bought the studios that made both of those, so the characters are now in the MCU, but they weren't at the time the films were made.
Re: (Score:3)
wearing pseudo S&M costumes
These movies are torture for me to watch, so "pseudo" wasn't necessary - it's the real deal sadism.
Re: (Score:2)
yep, I quit watching them a couple decades ago cause I can sum up every movie and be mostly right, let me give it a shot
Some evil is about to destroy the universe or whatever, and a team of "trying way to hard to be badass and cool" outcasts are our only hope ...as they prance around in stupid costumes half naked. About an hour of auditory and visual noise ensues with street fighter like cut scenes once in a while during a battle, all along the cast of hero's endlessly make smartass quips about the situati
Re: (Score:2)
yep, I quit watching them a couple decades ago cause I can sum up every movie
Anyone with basic literacy skills can do that. Now if you could predict the plots, you might be a mutant . . .
Re: (Score:3)
Drop the adolescent juvenile comic book trash altogether and come up with some original sci-fi for a change
Why? Marvel clearly sells and were up until recently good at pleasing the audience. If you don't like it then simply go watch something else. It may shock you to know there's more than one piece of IP and more than one company making movies.
What other great ideas have you got, telling Cocacola company to stop selling Coke? Telling Microsoft to stop selling Office? Maybe you think Tesla should get out of the car industry and do something else as well?
Re: (Score:2)
"Come up with original sci-fi for a change!"
And then
"... I can't see ground breaking sci fi series such as Battlestar Galactica commissioned any more"
Lol
You know BSG was a remake, and that from a thrown-together show meant only to cash in on Star Wars mania, yeah?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly my feeling, I grew up with the original and loved it because I was like 10.
This new one had some great moments, mostly nostalgia, but it was as you say way too many shows for the amount of plot delivered.
Three movies + two shows is still oversaturation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know, most of their shows are 6 episode per season jobs like Loki and Hawkeye - it seems a bit stingy to say 1 show per year when you could binge-watch that entire show in an afternoon. I don't think you can call that "saturation".
Re: (Score:2)
In my opinion even ONE movie / year is "oversaturation."
Granted, there are a lot of properties attached to the MCU. If these were truly standalone, and not the "mashups" that MCU movies became (which is when I started to lose interest ... around the time that Age of Ultron came out, which was 9 years ago now) then it might not feel like saturation since each would bear no notable connection to the others.
But consider Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy:
- Batman Begins: 2005
- The Dark Knight: 2008
- The Dark Knight R
Re: (Score:2)
It wouldn't be oversaturation if any of the stuff they were putting out was any good.
They could try decent writing (Score:3)
They could try decent plots and character development. Not that the first 4 phases were all hits, but they definitely nailed it more often than not.
Here's an idea; focus the next "saga" on the villains. Fully fleshed out antagonists, complete with understandable motivations and competency. Put the heroes on their back feet for the entirety of the saga, make them really work to succeed ( or not! ).
Bad writing has killed virtually everything disney has touched recently.
How about this instead... (Score:2)
Hire writers with original ideas and stop the endless sequels, prequels, reboots, remakes and other assorted retelling of old stories
I have no doubt the creative writers with new ideas exist
MCU phase 4 made no sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
3 movies 2 shows (Score:2)
Two many.
These shows are not accessible or relatable anymor (Score:2)
You need a PhD in Marvel character development to watch these shows. They take themselves way too seriously too.
Too much, too late (Score:2)
That's still too many, and it's about 5+ years too late.
They've effectively ruined the franchise for me with the excessive, poorly written drivel.
I watched the original X Men movie again recently and I was struck by how much better it was than the new stuff, in every way - despite its many shortcomings.
You Know Bob (Score:2)
You'd have a lot more credibility if you hadn't destroyed your company pursuing the opposite strategy.
You fired the guy who saved Marvel from being broken up 25 years ago, you asshole.
You are not qualified to manage the Walt Disney Company. Resign.
Less Garbage TV (Score:2)
The only time they released more than 3 movies was in 2021 and that was after releasing 0 movies in 2024 and it included a movie from Sony (Spiderman). The real announcement here is that they're dialing back the TV series.
It's hard to nail down exactly what went wrong at Marvel, but the simple version is that the movies aren't good anymore and the TV shows were mostly never good. It's kind of bizarre actually because they bring in talented directors and writers to work with a more-or-less same cast, but t
Too fucking many. (Score:2)
C'mon, give us cinema back.
But "Suck" Is Qualitative! (Score:2)
Stop linking movies to TV series! (Score:2)
Notice the word "mining" (Score:3)
From TFS:
and the IP that we're mining
[emphasis mine]
This tells us anything we need to know about how they care for our favourite franchises, be it Marvel, Star Wars, Alien, etc.
And even if the respective teams care deeply for said franchises, in the end, that attitude slowly permeates from top to bottom.
Not captivating. (Score:2)
Re: Not captivating. (Score:2)
I was really sad to see the (obvs not Marvel) Picard series used all green-screen spaceship sets.
I created a 3D green-screen set of the original Enterprise one time, but that was for a sales guy industrial video. I'd like to think network television has higher production values.
People I know are getting tired as hell of CGI as a key driver of story.
Sure, nobody should need to fire a blank gun anymore, no one should have to do a real fire walk, or jump out of a skyscraper, but when, as in MCU, you're out of
That's three and two too many. (Score:2)
Great stories? (Score:2)
It isn't superhero fatigue (Score:2)
And I will only subscribe to Disney Plus for one month out of the year because that's how long it'll take for me to watch all of that content. No need to be a persistent annual subscriber at all. Hopefully one of them figures out before much longer that this isn't a problem with superhero fatigue this is a problem with bad superhero movie fatigue.