Kon

Under 25 years old being so small percentage from the audience for Fall Guy seems to hint a limited appeal.

What are the demographics for Fall Guy? I read it's mostly men, but I didn't know the source.

I think many people in the forum (myself included) expected more than 28M OW, because it has a lot of promotion and good reviews. That said, we seem to ignore the obvious. The concept of the movie wasn't so interesting for many people.

The joke doesn't include Radcliffe/Watson being forced to do anything.

It was joke about the idea of No Way Home using Three Spiderman with the previous actors being a risky choice.

People on forums could have different ideas, which could be pretty biased (and our knolwedge limited). The studios likely knows that the hype to see Three Spiderman will attract a lot of people. So, the decision of three different Spiderman iterations working together wasn't likely a big risk for them.

True. However, the movie was pretty safe for a Christmas movie. I recognize Wonka as IP isn't so big, but I don't think the idea was especially risky. The idea of NWH is risky because it used three different Spidermen seems ridiculous. Fans were asking for that the moment the multiverse were confirmed to be a thing. Hiring the actors of previous Spiderman iterations is the safe thing to do.

NWH wasn't especially risky. The idea of three Spidermem (Tobey, Andrew and Tobey) working together was the fantasy of many fans. In fact, three Tom Holland would be more risky. Wonka was a pretty safe movie for Christmas. I know some fans of Wonka complaint about Wonka losing his "edge", but that's exactly the safe decision for a Christmas movie. Also, I think Barbie would be pretty succesful even if the story wasn't so out of the box. I mean, Mario makes 1B even if it didn't take big risks. PS: I feel Into the Spiderverse was more risky that Across the Spiderverse. ITDV is the movie introducing Miles as protagonist (instead of Peter), while ATSV has the good reception of ITDV as a support.

What is the difference?

This is totally true. I feel Gen Z craves for exciting things, while most original movies don't excite them. That's why movies depend on IP, since it's easier to be excited about a known IP.

I'm not sure Gen Z and Tiktokers really crave originality. There are many original movies that go unnoticed for them They crave for exciting things. That's why movies have become dependent on IP, because it's easier to be excited about a known IP.

The thing is Anyone wasn't a success with critics or even CS. The movie get big legs because it started to be promoted as "the return of romantic comedies" by the audience in TikTok. This was the "something more than fun" for Anyone But You. I'm not sure if the Fall Guy could have a similar situation.

What is the movie you have expectatoves?

The thread wouldn't be banned by the behavior of only one person. In any case, the user with the bad behavior would be the one banned. It's just weird that CJhon wants to be banned.

I suspect the marketing was unsure about the direction because there wasn't a big reaction from the audience at any point. If they had felt that the audience responded to any of these directions, they would have been consistent with it.

There is also no reason to believe this movie will suffer review bombing. There doesn't seem to be any kind of "hate" for this movie.

That's a complicated situation since this portrayal of Ken is so popular because Ken is a pretty known character. This is the situation with many aspects of Barbie movie. Also, Deadpool wasn't a really popular character between general audience before his movie. It's likely the concept of the movie what really attracted people.

I'm not sure if "people being tired about the same" is the reason why Star Wars and Marvel are having problems. Deadpool 3 seems to have a big potential for sucess, but that movie seems to appeal the nostalgia in many levels.

I've already said why the bad examples show the lack of power brand, while current hits seem to depend on characters popularity. I'm sorry this argument doesn't work for you. However, it's clear you would never accept the idea of the MCU brand being on weak state. I guess we will need to wait and see Captain America 4 box office.

I'm not sure how FNAF being cheap is related to this argument at all. FNAF didn't have cast promotion, but it could have 79M OW, while The Marvels OW wasn't close to that.

Misses show the weakness of the brand. After all, if the MCU brand was strong, a movie could make a decent box office even with not so popular characters. Instead, current hits for the MCU seem to depend on characters popularity. That doesn't necessarily will help the brand (Guardiand of the Galaxy 3 success doesn't help The Marvels).

The strikes means there couldn't be cast promotion. In other words, The Marvels depended on MCU brand strenght and characters popularity to attract people. The fact The Marvels has so poor box office shows how weak The MCU brand is. Five Nights at Freddy could make 79M OW without cast promotion. PS: Well, if Captain America 4 is a bomb, I guess people would stop using the strikes as an excuse.

X-Men 97 or Deadpool 3 won't really tell you anything abour MCU brand popularity. It just tells you that popular characters would attract audience interested on that characters. If I was sure Sam as Captain America was a pretty popular character between fans, I would also say Captain America 4 will be a success. PS: Now, I know X-Men 97 seems to be popular for an animated show, but the numbers of views doesn't seem so big.

I mean, The Marvels set a precedent that MCU movies could make less than 250M. It has also shown a current weakness on the MCU brand to attract people. As the MCU as a brand seems pretty weak, Captain America 4 will depend on the characters popularity, but I doubt Sam has so much popularity

Well, people really thought The Marvels couldn't make under 400M. Now, we're on the point where 400M for Captain America 4 won't be so bad.