After 'Superman' Scores $400M Globally, How Will Marvel Respond? (yahoo.com) 25
Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige "isn't interested in your theories of superhero fatigue, which he doesn't buy as real," writes The Hollywood Reporter. Feige points to the $400 million worldwide box office for Superman (which another article notes in only its second weekend "has already passed up the entire lifetime run of Marvel's Thunderbolts*.")
So how is Marvel moving forward? Yes, Feige knows Marvel made too many movies and shows (and the other things they did wrong). From the first Iron Man in 2008 through Avengers: Endgame in 2019, Marvel produced around 50 hours of screen storytelling. In the six years since Endgame, the number jumps to an astounding 102 hours of movies and television. 127 hours if you include animation. "That's too much," Feige said.
He characterized the time period after Endgame as an era of experimentation, evolution and, unfortunately, expansion. And while he's proud of the experimentation — he points to WandaVision and Loki as some of the best stories they've made — he admits "It's the expansion that is certainly what devalued" that output. Being high on success also may have pushed them to readily agree to try to deliver more programming at a time when Disney and the rest of Hollywood were engaged in the streaming wars. "It was a big company push... [T]here was a mandate that we were put in the middle of, but we also thought it'd be fun to bring these to life."
Marvel has already pulled back the amount of movies and shows it will make. Some years may even only have one movie. Certainly there will be years with only one show released. Also, Marvel has started "grinding down" on budgets, with movies costing up to a third cheaper than the films from 2022 or 2023.
Feige also explains why Thunderbolts* struggled at the box office (even though he's called it a "very, very good movie"). The massive expansion into television and focus on Disney+ led to the feeling that watching Marvel was becoming a type of homework. "It's that expansion that I think led people to say, 'Do I have to see all of these? It used to be fun, but now do I have to know everything about all of these?' And I think The Marvels hit it hardest where people are like, 'Okay, I recognize her from a billion dollar movie. But who are those other two? I guess they were in some TV show. I'll skip it.'" Which had an effect on Thunderbolts*, which featured characters that were seen on various platforms, including some only on shows.
The article notes Friday's release of Fantastic Four: First Steps is Marvel Studios' first crack at the characters after "a trio of movies of various quality and box office made by Twentieth Century Fox before its 2019 acquisition by Disney." And the article also acknowledges "the never-released, 1994 feature produced low-budget king Roger Corman. (Fun fact: the four stars of that movie cameo in Fantastic Four: First Steps.)"
So how is Marvel moving forward? Yes, Feige knows Marvel made too many movies and shows (and the other things they did wrong). From the first Iron Man in 2008 through Avengers: Endgame in 2019, Marvel produced around 50 hours of screen storytelling. In the six years since Endgame, the number jumps to an astounding 102 hours of movies and television. 127 hours if you include animation. "That's too much," Feige said.
He characterized the time period after Endgame as an era of experimentation, evolution and, unfortunately, expansion. And while he's proud of the experimentation — he points to WandaVision and Loki as some of the best stories they've made — he admits "It's the expansion that is certainly what devalued" that output. Being high on success also may have pushed them to readily agree to try to deliver more programming at a time when Disney and the rest of Hollywood were engaged in the streaming wars. "It was a big company push... [T]here was a mandate that we were put in the middle of, but we also thought it'd be fun to bring these to life."
Marvel has already pulled back the amount of movies and shows it will make. Some years may even only have one movie. Certainly there will be years with only one show released. Also, Marvel has started "grinding down" on budgets, with movies costing up to a third cheaper than the films from 2022 or 2023.
Feige also explains why Thunderbolts* struggled at the box office (even though he's called it a "very, very good movie"). The massive expansion into television and focus on Disney+ led to the feeling that watching Marvel was becoming a type of homework. "It's that expansion that I think led people to say, 'Do I have to see all of these? It used to be fun, but now do I have to know everything about all of these?' And I think The Marvels hit it hardest where people are like, 'Okay, I recognize her from a billion dollar movie. But who are those other two? I guess they were in some TV show. I'll skip it.'" Which had an effect on Thunderbolts*, which featured characters that were seen on various platforms, including some only on shows.
The article notes Friday's release of Fantastic Four: First Steps is Marvel Studios' first crack at the characters after "a trio of movies of various quality and box office made by Twentieth Century Fox before its 2019 acquisition by Disney." And the article also acknowledges "the never-released, 1994 feature produced low-budget king Roger Corman. (Fun fact: the four stars of that movie cameo in Fantastic Four: First Steps.)"
Thunderbolts? (Score:2)
Thunderbolts was stupid, not a "very, very good movie".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I like most of Marvel's superhero movies. This one, not so much. To each his/her own I guess. I see I've already been down voted so perhaps I'm in the minority.
Re:Thunderbolts? (Score:4, Informative)
I like most of Marvel's superhero movies. This one, not so much. To each his/her own I guess. I see I've already been down voted so perhaps I'm in the minority.
Aside from Deadpool & Wolverine, this one was my favorite in the last two phases. Black Widow was also very good, but... hey... there's Florence Pugh as her character from this one, so... that scans.
What I liked about this one - which was deliberately silly and light-hearted - was that it was personal. The stakes and the challenges were about what mattered to these characters and their doubts and weaknesses and traumas. Yes, the big bad was hurting other people, but it was mostly about the main cast coming to terms with their foibles. Want to be a hero? Stop being a not hero. The movie had a pretty strong message about responsibility and about getting up off the floor when you're knocked down and not giving up. Hell, in many ways it was about things like alcoholism. You chose when to stop being your own victim.
I get it... you didn't like it, but it really was a very, very good movie regardless. There are lots of very, very good movies I loathe.
Re: Thunderbolts? (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought it was better than most of the previous Avengers movies. It didn't degenerate into cartoons punching each other for 20 minutes as a so-called "climax" like every other Marvel movie.
Re: (Score:2)
It had humor, it had a plot, it didn't end with a big CGI 'vs nega' crapfest fight.
It was good enough for me to say that it was an improvement over simply more of the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Thunderbolts? Literally never heard of it.
Re: Thunderbolts? (Score:2)
I think I'm this case you are probably better if trying to compare it to what its trying to be (with movies in the same genre) rather than the other movies the marvel universe.
The peer would be The Suicide Squad. I actually quite liked that, but I didn't need all of the R rated material
I'm hoping David Harbor eventually gets some successful movies. He just hasn't had the luck outside of Stranger Things.
Re:DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY -- no spoliers (Score:5, Informative)
Ah, the fine words of someone that wanted a movie that spent half its runtime retelling Superman's origin story, and the other half rehashing a specific comic book word for word.
Interesting you have so much to say about a movie you watched one quarter of.
"making his home an environmental complaint" - What?
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe not, but they didn't need to basically copy Goku's origin story from Dragonball Z.
Or the Invincible comic. The fact that Invincible is an active series on Amazon makes it worse.
Re: (Score:2)
... and making his home an environmental complaint.
That was in the Supergirl TV series too and I didn't like it. In the Supergirl universe (later incorporated into the larger "Arrowverse") the planet of Krypton exploded because the people on the planet where using the planet's core as an energy source, and somehow this induced an instability that destroyed the planet. Or at least that's what I recall. Did the new Superman film use the same premise?
I'm generally not a fan of the DC universe because so much of the story behind the characters depend on fic
Re: (Score:2)
Remember that a majority of US voters voted for Donald Trump.
I guess MAGA folks have a problem with math. Somehow 49.8% is a majority in MAGA math. ... talking about alternative virtual universes ...
Re: (Score:2)
Remember that a majority of US voters voted for Donald Trump.
I guess MAGA folks have a problem with math. Somehow 49.8% is a majority in MAGA math. ... talking about alternative virtual universes ...
And 48.3% for Harris, so Trump won the popular vote by 1.5%. Hardly the mandate / landslide they claim.
Re: (Score:3)
His rice is pretty tasty.
How Will Marvel Respond? (Score:3)
It hasn't made a "profit" yet (Score:3, Informative)
They already have a response (Score:2)
Since they bought Fox now after 30 years the XMen license is back in their hands. That's already in motion so there is an entire hype cycle there to churn before they have to think about responding.
As far as my opinion what Marvel is missing right now are any actual "auteur" directors. It's pretty well known Marvel is a machine and directors only get so much input. Here at least Gunn is a director with his own vision and it seems like he was able to execute on it.
No offense to Matt Shakman who is directin