The Marvels | November 10, 2023 | Abandon All Hope Ye Who Enter

[Mr Terrific]

I can’t link the source, but the neckbeards-who-wish-Brie-Larson-who-just-be-quiet-and-marry-them projections are…

$53 OW

$92 domestic total

$185 worldwide total

 

[SpiderByte]

They need Rachel Zegler in the next one just for maximum YouTube outrage

[ChipDerby]

3 hours ago, toutvabien said:

This is by far imo my biggest gripe with the Multiverse Saga thus far. I loved Shang-Chi! Where the f is he? Why is he not getting a sequel until after Kang Dynasty? Why does that film look like it's gonna be his next appearance? The only characters with multiple appearances throughout those 3 years have been Wanda, Yelena, Wong, Dr. Strange and... Valentina Allegra de Fontaine. And I guess the Guardians had their cameo in Love and Thunder. Sure, with The Marvels, you can add Fury, Kamala and Monica to the list and by next year, Red Guardian, Bucky, Sam, Ross, Taskmaster, Agatha, Echo, maybe Daredevil? And that's largely because next year's Brave New World and Thunderbolts are literally set up to cross-over characters. Wish that was more on Marvel's agenda.

 

Are people under the impression that Marvel had a lot of cameos or gave multiple heroes sequels? Where is this coming from

[toutvabien]

54 minutes ago, ChipDerby said:

 

Are people under the impression that Marvel had a lot of cameos or gave multiple heroes sequels? Where is this coming from

Nah, it's not about that. It's the fact that Tony, Cap and Thor were nearly in one film per year or at worst every two years since their debuts and even Hulk, Widow, Hawkeye and Fury popped off commonly and the sub-franchises that were also had new installements at a closer proximity. There was also an Avengers movie every once in a while, which helped. Spidey and Black Panther were everywhere the moment they debuted. Wanda and Ultron were popping off nearly every year since their debut in Age of Ultron. Sure, that's harder to achieve if you focus on introducing more characters in solo/focused projects, but still. It's a shift.

 

The argument ain't that they should have used the exact same narrative strucute for the Multiverse Saga, but the one they are using ain't helping.

[emoviefan]

2 hours ago, Mr Terrific said:

I can’t link the source, but the neckbeards-who-wish-Brie-Larson-who-just-be-quiet-and-marry-them projections are…

$53 OW

$92 domestic total

$185 worldwide total

 

LOL. That pretty much describes them. 

[TheFlatLannister]

10 hours ago, HummingLemon said:

If you look back at the general trends it really is sad to see how much good-will there was after No Way Home exploded only for it to get ruined by movies with mixed reception. Even Ant-Man was on track to do $300M+ DOM if it was good

 

And now this film is gonna do like $250M DOM rip

$250M would be very good actually. That would pretty much lock $500M+ 

[ChipDerby]

40 minutes ago, toutvabien said:

Nah, it's not about that. It's the fact that Tony, Cap and Thor were nearly in one film per year or at worst every two years since their debuts and even Hulk, Widow, Hawkeye and Fury popped off commonly and the sub-franchises that were also had new installements at a closer proximity. There was also an Avengers movie every once in a while, which helped. Spidey and Black Panther were everywhere the moment they debuted. Wanda and Ultron were popping off nearly every year since their debut in Age of Ultron. Sure, that's harder to achieve if you focus on introducing more characters in solo/focused projects, but still. It's a shift.

 

The argument ain't that they should have used the exact same narrative strucute for the Multiverse Saga, but the one they are using ain't helping.

 

It's been 4 years since the last Avengers movie. And one of those years was a dead COVID year.

[SpiderByte]

5 hours ago, toutvabien said:

This is by far imo my biggest gripe with the Multiverse Saga thus far. I loved Shang-Chi! Where the f is he? Why is he not getting a sequel until after Kang Dynasty? Why does that film look like it's gonna be his next appearance?

A: the sequel was already greenlit

B: the director of Shang-Chi is already working on two other projects for Marvel right now

And C : he already has a new thing already scheduled for next year

 

Whenever I see things like "I can't believe Marvel forgot about Moon Knight" despite it being released last year. In terms of actual full on sequels, Doctor Strange has 6 years between them. Getting upset when sequels don't immediately happen in three years. The Flash was greenlit nine years ago. The truth is sometimes things take a while.

Edited September 17, 2023 by SpiderByte

[toutvabien]

20 minutes ago, ChipDerby said:

 

It's been 4 years since the last Avengers movie. And one of those years was a dead COVID year.

 

24 minutes ago, SpiderByte said:

Whenever I see things like "I can't believe Marvel forgot about Moon Knight" despite it being released last year. In terms of actual full on sequels, Doctor Strange has 6 years between them. Getting upset when sequels don't immediately happen in three years. The Flash was greenlit nine years ago. The truth is sometimes things take a while.

The plan is, thus far, to have two Avengers movies in this saga and the first one is gonna come out in Year 6 (out of 7). In the meantime, several characters that have debuted in the last two years we don't know when we're gonna see them until those Avengers movies. That was never something you could think about in the Infinity Saga because of the proximity in which the characters appeared back then, even outside of the big Avengers cross-overs. Again, this is probably intentional. They wanna explore more corners of the universe and have more of a variety and less Avengers-type films, because they don't wanna risk them feeling less of an event post Endgame, or maybe even because that's the structure they figured worked the best with the story they wanted to tell this time around. I get that whole part. But this approach does make it a little harder to invest and it's not like Marvel ever for me nailed all those different individual corners even back during the Infinity Saga, so, now that it's most of what I get, I'm having some issues.

[SpiderByte]

Yeah, sequels happened faster because there were literally less characters than there are now. Which means some of them may have to wait a bit.

 

But it's ridiculous that people are like "why did Marvel forget that Sam's Captain America, why hasn't he shown up?" When the reason is "because they are currently in production on a Captain America film"

[toutvabien]

8 minutes ago, SpiderByte said:

Yeah, sequels happened faster because there were literally less characters than there are now. Which means some of them may have to wait a bit.

 

But it's ridiculous that people are like "why did Marvel forget that Sam's Captain America, why hasn't he shown up?" When the reason is "because they are currently in production on a Captain America film"

I don't disagree that sometimes people get overreactionary about these things. But you also trained your audience to expect to be interracting faster with these characters. And even then, Sam and Bucky's 3 years between Falcon and the Winter Soldier and Brave New World and Thunderbolts ain't the worst example. You trained the audience to the characters themselves interracting faster with one another and the events. This is because they chose this structure for the Saga. I don't blame people for not feeling it.

[HummingLemon]

$250M domestic is very meh. $300M would be decent.

[SpiderByte]

1 hour ago, toutvabien said:

And even then, Sam and Bucky's 3 years between Falcon and the Winter Soldier and Brave New World and Thunderbolts ain't the worst example.

3 years is a completely normal amount of time! The distance between the latest Mission Impossible and the last one was 7 years!

Edited September 17, 2023 by SpiderByte

[Bob Train]

The first Captain Marvel being an appetizer for a movie that opened to $347m DOM and being teased in the post-credit scene of a movie that made $2b WW massively benefitted the first movie's gross.

 

Also, no one knew that Captain Marvel's role in Endgame would end up being a 5-minute screentime nothing burger. Many thought the movie would be "essential viewing" for Endgame and that Captain Marvel would be very important in that movie.

[Avatree]

3 hours ago, SpiderByte said:

3 years is a completely normal amount of time! The distance between the latest Mission Impossible and the last one was 7 years!

MI6 to MI7 was 5 years not 7 years

[WittyUsername]

The months leading up to the release of EG were insane, and CM definitely benefitted from all that hype. The buzz for the MCU is nowhere near as strong now as it was in 2019, so I don’t think this movie will be able to bank on a big OW. Still, if word of mouth is good, then it could maybe leg it out like GotG 3 did. 

[ChipDerby]

I'd just, again, like to remind everyone that the MCU has had a higher percentage of success after Endgame than they did prior. 

[Liiviig 1998]

1 hour ago, ChipDerby said:

I'd just, again, like to remind everyone that the MCU has had a higher percentage of success after Endgame than they did prior. 

No.

 

Infinity saga . Only incredible hulk lost money. The rest all profitable.

 

Current phases

 

Black widow . Yeah it has the asterisk of releasing day and date but it still broke even or lost money.

 

Shang chi either broken even made profit depending on whether budget was 150 or 200m . Projected 150-200m budget.

 

Eternals. Lost  money

 

Quantumania. Lose money or just breakeven.

 

Yeah covid ,no china  blah blah blah.

 

Don't know what parameters your using to determine success percentage   but financially ...

Infinity saga slaps current phase .

 

 

 

 

Edited September 18, 2023 by Liiviig 1998

[toutvabien]

16 hours ago, SpiderByte said:

3 years is a completely normal amount of time! The distance between the latest Mission Impossible and the last one was 7 years!

For a second there I legit thought 2018 was 7 years ago and that felt scary!

 

But yea, I don't think 3 years is that long either, that's why I said it's not the worst example. But it is noteworthy that in the Infinity Saga, that would be the longest you could go without revisiting a character. Now, because there's more solo franchises and less Avengers-type films, that's no longer possible. I do think all that has an active effect in the momentum of the Saga and the MCU and I do think that's relevant when discussing the landscape during which Captain Marvel opened and the one The Marvels finds itself at.

 

In addition to the fact that the landscape was also drastically different because well, Phase 3, 2019, right in the middle of the culmination of a whole 11 year old saga worth of films. The need to go into a different, Avengers-less direction (which makes some business and a lot of storytelling sense) but also make so many more hours worth of content has made things feel less special.

Edited September 18, 2023 by toutvabien

[ChipDerby]

6 hours ago, Liiviig 1998 said:

No.

 

Infinity saga . Only incredible hulk lost money. The rest all profitable.

 

Current phases

 

Black widow . Yeah it has the asterisk of releasing day and date but it still broke even or lost money.

 

Shang chi either broken even made profit depending on whether budget was 150 or 200m . Projected 150-200m budget.

 

Eternals. Lost  money

 

Quantumania. Lose money or just breakeven.

 

Yeah covid ,no china  blah blah blah.

 

Don't know what parameters your using to determine success percentage   but financially ...

Infinity saga slaps current phase .

 

 

 

 

Among legacy characters, the MCU has 6 $750 mil WW films since Endgame. Prior to Endgame (minus Avengers films), the MCU had 7 $750 mil WW films.