BadAtGender

Two countries are probably going to be quite a bit weaker than they were in 2013: The UK (it was at $1.6 to the £, now $1.2) and Russia (33 rubles to the $ then, 63 now.)They were the 4th and 8th strongest markets for Frozen.

Oh, yeah. Peter/MJ is really good. I chalk it up to Amy Pascal. (The Peter/Gwen romance in the Amazing films were among the best things there, too.) My friends who are WAY more into the MCU than me, and also more attuned to romance, don't really see much that works in the MCU. My point about Jane is that there's no reason for romance to be part of her story at all. She and Thor dated, they had some fun, they broke up, and they moved on. Going back to it feels like a character regression for her. I could see Thor pining for her because he'd like some connection to his past that is intact, but I also see it as decidedly one sided.

Pretty sure Peele has pretty definitively said he's not interested in directing stories that aren't his own. He might write things, but he has no need to direct any comic book film. (Yeah, I get you're probably joking, but Peele isn't a good fit for the punchline. Given who DC seems to be picking, look for a horror director.)

At the time of the Jane Thor storyline, she's well beyond being Thor's love interest. While I tend to think that the Jane/Thor romance is among the best in the MCU, that's mostly because the MCU is TERRIBLE at romance. When there is chemistry, they dramatically misread the room and bungle it in the end (Steve/Peggy), or they try and push stuff that has no chemistry (Steve/Sharon), or they just outright ignore the chemistry that's there (Steve/Bucky). (Carol/Maria is probably also going to be in this boat. You've got Tony/Pepper, but that's just... there. Starlord/Gamora is among the weakest elements in the GotG films. Strange's romance might as well have not existed. Scott/Hope has good friendship chemistry, but no romance. Oh, there was BW/Hulk, but that was gag inducing. And, uh, Switch/Vision just didn't click. Emoting while not emoting doesn't convey. So basically, there's T'challa/Nakia. Nah, just let it go here. Make Jane be what she's supposed to be: the most brilliant scientist on earth. And the most worthy.

The recent Pixar entries are all interesting to examine. They've all done gonzo business. All gotten pretty good to great reviews. And all have basically generated no conversation. Like, "Hey, here's this thing I liked with a sequel. Yep, still good. Peace out." The last one that really got into the cultural conversation was Inside Out. Even Coco, with all the accolades and people loving it got quiet soon after release.

Well, it was disappointingly large.

It depends on what's disappointing about it. Endgame was a pretty damn disappointing movie.

Her name isn't Lady Thor, it's Thor. (Or Thor, Goddess of Thunder.) (In all likelihood, Hems will be called Odinson. Kinda racist, yeah. The source material is a vast and extremely fungible thing. Steve Rogers has not always been Captain America, and others have taken up the role. Same with Tony Stark. (Sam Wilson and James Rhodes have both taken those roles.) The problem with the "make up new characters" is that there is weight in the names that exist. The idea that superhero identities are mantles that can be passed on is one with a long tradition. And writing stories that highlight characters who aren't straight, white, able-bodied, (American) men is ultimately good. It's a pretty slim track record for new characters to get traction to stick around, especially if they don't have a mantle to take up. The 90s got us Cable, Deadpool, and Harley Quinn. (All notably white.) The Milestone characters were in that era (notably Static), but they have been utilized fairly poorly in recent years. (I suppose Squirrel Girl as well was from the 90s, but she didn't really become a huge thing until much more recently. Even the Dan Slott Great Lakes Avengers feels particularly out of touch for her.) Many of the specifically POC characters that have gotten headway are specifically taking up mantles: Cassandra Cain (Batgirl), Jaime Reyes (Blue Beetle), Damien Wayne (Robin), Miles Morales (Spider-Man), and Kamala Khan (Ms. Marvel). If those same characters had debuted without a familiar name, they probably wouldn't have lasted. There are many reasons for this. Franchising, both of properties and things within properties, has really exploded over the past 20 years or so. And the nature of cultural conversations has changed significantly along with it. Plus, many creators are not especially inclined to create new characters that they don't own. Diversity is good, actually. And there are extremely few superhero characters who have an intrinsic need to be white.

Because it's better to take the time to get it right. MMFR is the greatest live action movie of all time. And it took a long time to get there.

Release date, probably. Also, Jolie is a much more recognizable star.

It threads the needle between being slavishly dedicated to the original and completely reworking it. It's true to the spirit of the original, but builds on it, rather than trying to subvert it. (I like the subversion in Maleficent, but it stumbles in the execution.)

Yeah. 50m to go after a 15m weekend. It's fun to follow.

Cinderella, too. (Arguably the best of the Disney remakes?)

Yes, it's likely that at least one of them is bigger. (I'm betting on Thor, but... I'm really biased there, so YMMV.) This isn't a critique of the film choices. Clearly Marvel will have some others (sequels to BP and CM, GotG3, another Ant-Man, etc.) And all of those are likely to do strong business. But Marvel wanted their SDCC panel to showcase the smaller films. What smaller means is up in the air. It could mean a lot of stuff in the sub 350 range, or it could mean hovering around 400m is the new normal.

Potentially, all five of the dated MCU films could earn less DOM than Endgame had OW.

Huh, if I'm reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_box_office_records_set_by_Avatar right, then Avatar is still the highest grossing film of all time in 18 territories. Bahrain, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, "East and West Africa", Hungary, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, New Zealand, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, Ukraine. Some of those might be suspect (no notes on what previously held the record, for instance), but there's a few surprisingly large markets like Italy, Russia, and Spain in there.

Yes. This is good. Just need Dennings and it'll all be sunshine and roses.

Huh, they got Portman back. Way to go.

Kids despise it?

It's entirely possible that Snyder didn't intend to start a CU. IIRC, his hiring for MoS was largely because he was likely to hit deadlines. (And budgets?) Since WB wanted it released by a specific time, that was a point in his favor. There's nothing in MoS that indicates a forthcoming CU. It doesn't have a teaser for any other superheroes or future plotlines. And arguably, there's a pretty dang good Superman film in BvS, but WB panicked and thumbtacked Batman into it. And though it's even more removed, you could even see something about Justice League that would have been a Superman only film. Basically, if not for the WB desire to get a cinematic universe going, Snyder probably would have done a trilogy of standalone Superman films that covered the Death and Rebirth story. Some of the details in BvS would have changed, but the broad strokes (Lex working to undermine public trust in Superman, the creation of Doomsday, and Superman's ultimate sacrifice) would have played into a Rise of the Supermen story for the third film. Maybe not the exact versions from the comics, but the germ of it. It probably would have been better for those films. Even though the general dourness of them probably wouldn't have gotten either audiences or critics to wholeheartedly love them, but they likely wouldn't have gotten the critical lambasting that BvS and JL did get. On the other hand, if there hadn't been such a huge stumble in using Batman and Superman together to get a CU running, we probably wouldn't have gotten the more creative and desperate ideas. So no Wonder Woman or Aquaman as they are. No Shazam. No Harley Quinn. We probably would have gotten some form of those characters eventually, but they would have been safer and less risky. (Arguably, we wouldn't have gotten Captain Marvel, either, since Wonder Woman probably pushed Marvel to get on that sooner rather than never.) (If Green Lantern had been a bigger success, say something north of $200m, it's entirely possible that it would have been used to jumpstart the CU rather than MoS.)

I realized earlier that the critical reception for TLK is worse than Man of Steel.

IIRC, Mathew Broderick thought he was playing Kimba at first. The presence or lack of specific elements doesn't mean there wasn't something hinky going on. TLK was a single movie, while Kimba had three manga volumes and 52 TV eps. Plus another 52 that aired in 89-90 in Japan. While it was deffo a different time for anime exposure and knowledge, people in the industry would be more likely to be familiar. And anime was already getting hugely popular. 95 was the same year as the Ghost in the Shell movie.

It's funny that people are comparing him to Holland's Spider-Man, because one huge change from the comics is that he doesn't drop the quips that are Spidey's bread and butter. Holland plays the part very well, but it's a drastic change from the comics.

I don't think either Justice League or Grindlewald can be blamed on Miller. There some other far more prevalent issues.