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

[JustLurking]

13 minutes ago, TwoMisfits said:

 

Then this thread has done its job of resetting expectations to realistic ones...$70M is still in the realistic range.  The $100M+ OW estimates from the day prior to presale open are not...

 

Realistically, this is now ALMOST certain to have a 50%+ drop for the original's OW (or under $76Mish).  So, we've reset what is likely in folks' minds so the weekend thread next weekend can be pleasant.  Now, it's just guessing if it stabilizes or continues on a "how low can it go" path...with screen sets and holiday weekend, you'd think stability and stuff evening out in the last week...but who knows with supers this year, and this one specifically, from Disney's weird release (which is possibly worse than FNAF's last week)...

Is it realistic? It's not impossible but it would require an insanely good finish at this point and we're talking about something that has had really bad pace for weeks now with little sign of turning the boat around

 

maybe when the review embargo happens this film gets massively raved and we see a huge bump or something because I really don't see another scenario where this goes 70

 

I think at this point the most realistic range is for this to do 45-50 with some room to go below or above depending on reviews and just general finish with walkups

[DInky]

4 minutes ago, M37 said:

I was never wishing for Marvels to "flop", but was relying on two pieces of data:

 

1) No film post-pandemic (ok, one, but exceptions happen) had grossed between $225 and $325M - they either have some "it factor" or they don't, and I didn't think Marvels had "it", so was always taking the under $225

 

2) Only one MCU film has grossed between $233M and $312M (Winter solider, by virtue of very strong legs) - there's similarly a gap between the Tier 2 Major characters and Tier 3 lesser characters ... and this film always felt to me to be solidly Tier 3, despite how much the first grossed piggypacking on the Endgame hype

 

Both of these "it factor" and Tier assessments are certainly subjective, but that's part of the art of forecasting, not bias. With all that said, my expectations were something like $70-$80M OW, and finishing between Eternals ($170M) and Shang-Chi ($225M), never whatever $40M-ish OW and lower triple digits domestic total we're likely to see here. Will agree there was no real basis (prior to presales) for that level of pessimism, but when the starting value is low, so unfortunately is the floor

 

We may look back and realize that AMWQ (and Majors's scandal?) was the final straw for the power of the MCU at the box office, and GOTG3 was more a last hurrah, a fond farewell, rather than return to form, with the baseline expectation now much lower moving forward

 

Fine, you get a pass.

[CoolioD1]

36 minutes ago, Maggie said:

Yes, there were reasons why the first one was big, but people saw it and i imagine some of them enjoyed it. If you enjoy something you want more. Take Avatar 2, the first one people gave excuses why it was so big, but most of  the same (i assume) people came back for Avatar 2. I think it's strange that people who saw the first Captain Marvel aren't coming back. That's all. Did they hate watch the first one?

I think people liked the first one but it's like Shazam where they were like "that was fun" but not necessarily something that they were itching to get back to. kind of thing that's a lot more disposable in the sink-or-swim environment of 2023.

[Sckathian]

7 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:

People went to TDK despite it not having ‘Batman’ in the title. 

It’s advertised as a direct sequel. Not a spin off team up movie. The Dark Knight refers to Batman. That’s obvious. Go look at the poster for TDK and compare it to the Marvels poster.

 

’The Marvels’ refers to three characters not one. I don’t have a good similar example to throw back to you because it’s just dumb what Disney have done here. 

[M37]

14 minutes ago, keysersoze123 said:

Looking at MTC1 over index and veterans day holiday limiting saturday increase, I am thinking it will need 15m true friday to hit 50m as sunday drop wont be that good. That means 240K+ finish. Can Marvels do that? Definitely possible.  But the pace has to pick up. 

FYI Flash Friday was -239282/1016320 3873747.18 5639 shows.  It did less than 15m true friday. 

Despite everything that went wrong with AMWQ and right with GOTG3, the former had a 4.59x through Sat vs 4.97x for the latter off identical previews - not that much of a discrepancy.  Eternals was 5.79x in November with a smaller preview and poor reviews (also COVID factors) and Sunday drop should be somewhere in neighborhood of -30-35% (Eternals was -32%, BPWF -27%). In total I won't be shocked if the IM is better than GOTG3 (6.77x), if not around Eternals 7.5x

 

But even $6.5M x 7.5x is below $50M - the chances of the OW value starting with a 4 (however it gets there) are fairly high IMO

[JustLurking]

What mostly interests to me right now is how does Marvel pilot their way forward with these characters?

 

Before phase 4 they really didn't have any reason to mess with "the plan" because they were basically flop-proof and there was simply no reason to adjust. Now however they have a bunch of characters in films people didn't like or care for (eternals and clearly this film will follow suit, plus I guess you can add the complex situation of shang-chi in asian markets, plus Kang which as we know from deadline they are considering pivoting from), so what do they do? Do they stick with whatever they have in store for them and hope for the best? Or do they sideline them?

 

Pretty new situation for the studio, so I am interested to see how things change now

Edited November 4, 2023 by JustLurking

[emoviefan]

This should have been CM: Secret Invasion and they blew it on that shitty TV show. I watched the first movie last week and I think it is still a good movie. Is it in my top 10 or even top 15 nope but it sure is a hell of a lot better than at least half the THOR movies one of the Iron Man movies the Eternals and Quantmania that's for damm sure. This movie is not failing because  people hate the character or the first movie. It's because of how badly they utilized her since then. 

[DInky]

5 minutes ago, emoviefan said:

This should have been CM: Secret Invasion and they blew it on that shitty TV show. I watched the first movie last week and I think it is still a good movie. Is it in my top 10 or even top 15 nope but it sure is a hell of a lot better than at least half the THOR movies one of the Iron Man movies the Eternals and Quantmania that's for damm sure. This movie is not failing because  people hate the character or the first movie. It's because of how badly they utilized her since then. 

 

Carol fighting superskrulls would have been a better hook, yeah. And they could have easily incorporated Kamala and Monica into that version of the movie as well. Of course, in my head canon they would have introduced Jessica Drew Spider-Woman and made her and Carol gay for each other.

[ListenHunnyUrOver]

 

[Hypercortical]

39 minutes ago, Sckathian said:

 

Edit: I mean I just looked and even the writer is a tv writer with very minimal credits!

There are 4 writers. 3 credited.
The first two credited are minimally experienced TV writers who worked on Loki and WandaVision (well recieved products)

The third credited is the director Nia DaCosta, who wrote her debut Feature Little Woods, and also has a writing credit alongside Jordan Peele on her film Candyman.

The fourth, uncredited, is Zeb Wells, an experienced emmy award winning TV writer and Comic book writer. 

[ZeroHour]

7 minutes ago, JustLurking said:

What mostly interests to me right now is how does Marvel pilot their way forward with these characters?

 

Before phase 4 they really didn't have any reason to mess with "the plan" because they were basically flop-proof and there was simply no reason to adjust. Now however they have a bunch of characters in films people didn't like or care for (eternals and clearly this film will follow suit, plus I guess you can add the complex situation of shang-chi in asian markets, plus Kang which as we know from deadline they are considering pivoting from), so what do they do? Do they stick with whatever they have in store for them and hope for the best? Or do they sideline them?

 

Pretty new situation for the studio, so I am interested to see how things change now

The thing is “the plan” is always closer to a general direction than an actual concrete plan. Beyond Thanos and the infinity stones, they didn’t really crack Infinity War and what roles the major heroes would play until the writers and directors were working on it. It’ll be really easy for the next Avengers film to focus on their more popular characters and less popular ones to take secondary or cameo roles (or not to show up at all). Don’t be surprised if Kang Dynasty prominently features Peters Parker and Quill. 
 

As for Secret Wars, they’re probably already planning to fill that to the brim with popular nostalgia bait. Hugh, Tobey, Deadpool, and some collection of OG avengers (maybe the whole set depending on how far Disney is willing to open its wallet).

[DInky]

1 minute ago, Hypercortical said:

There are 4 writers. 3 credited.
The first two credited are minimally experienced TV writers who worked on Loki and WandaVision (well recieved products)

The third credited is the director Nia DaCosta, who wrote her debut Feature Little Woods, and also has a writing credit alongside Jordan Peele on her film Candyman.

The fourth, uncredited, is Zeb Wells, an experienced emmy award winning TV writer and Comic book writer. 

 

Should be noted that he's currently in the middle of writing one of the worst Spider-Man runs ever.

[Hypercortical]

I actually agree, the naming of the film as 'The Marvels' was such an L. A few months ago, my mom saw the title, and thought 'The Marvels' referred, not to these 3 characters, but just marvel characters in general. she said "I thought they're all marvels". It just does not work, as much as I personally feel like it's obvious. 

[Kon]

22 minutes ago, Sckathian said:

It’s advertised as a direct sequel. Not a spin off team up movie. The Dark Knight refers to Batman. That’s obvious. Go look at the poster for TDK and compare it to the Marvels poster.

 

’The Marvels’ refers to three characters not one. I don’t have a good similar example to throw back to you because it’s just dumb what Disney have done here. 

 

I know the promotion is on the team, but I really doubt people didn't know this movie was a sequel for Captain Marvel. There isn't even plans for a Captain Marvel 2, so people couldn't expect other movie to be the sequel.

 

People know this is the sequel for Captain Marvel. This would be the only place where they could continue Carol story.

 

Honestly, I suspect Disney changed the name to The Marvels because they don't have a good amount of expectatives on Captain Marvel/Carol at that time. They likely expected Kamala would be popular and help the box office, but that isn't happening.

[DInky]

Just now, Hypercortical said:

I actually agree, the naming of the film as 'The Marvels' was such an L. A few months ago, my mom saw the title, and thought 'The Marvels' referred, not to these 3 characters, but just marvel characters in general. she said "I thought they're all marvels". It just does not work, as much as I personally feel like it's obvious. 

 

But you still have Brie Larson in the middle of every ad and poster. A lot of people saw that first movie and Endgame so the character should be recognizable enough. If the first movie made around 500M then I could see the title change being a problem.

[Hypercortical]

4 minutes ago, DInky said:

 

Should be noted that he's currently in the middle of writing one of the worst Spider-Man runs ever.

I've heard about this, but I can't be assed to read spider-man comics. And ime a ton of comic-book readers have incredibly unsophisticated taste (i'm looking at reception to things like Civil War 2, by our lord and savior Brian Michael Bendis), so I'm inclined to trust the Emmy. 

[Kon]

5 minutes ago, Hypercortical said:

I actually agree, the naming of the film as 'The Marvels' was such an L. A few months ago, my mom saw the title, and thought 'The Marvels' referred, not to these 3 characters, but just marvel characters in general. she said "I thought they're all marvels". It just does not work, as much as I personally feel like it's obvious. 

 

Honestly, I don't think The Marvels name is a big issue, because I really doubt Captain Marvel 2 would be a lot better on box office.

 

Currently, it doesn't seem to be a lot of interest on Captain Marvel between audience.

Edited November 4, 2023 by Kon

[Sckathian]

1 minute ago, Kon said:

 

I know the promotion is on the team, but I really doubt people didn't know this movie was a sequel for Captain Marvel. There isn't even plans for a Captain Marvel 2, so people couldn't expect other movie to be the sequel

Most audiences only hear about sequels when the trailer comes out and they go “oh shit their making another one of those, oh it looks good, let’s see that!”

 

The idea the same audience who made CM2 a billion dollar film are the same audience participating in the MCU big fan meet-ups is just daft. Less than 10% of the audience knows what a phase is.

 

Am not blaming this all on the name. The name makes sense for a team up movie but they should have made a Captain Marvel 2 where she is the actual lead.

[DInky]

Just now, Hypercortical said:

I've heard about this, but I can't be assed to read spider-man comics. And ime a ton of comic-book readers have incredibly unsophisticated taste (i'm looking at reception to things like Civil War 2, by our lord and savior Brian Michael Bendis), so I'm inclined to trust the Emmy. 

 

I guess I'm one of those unsophisticated comic book readers then because I thought Civil War II was bad (a total character assassination of Carol).

[Hypercortical]

1 minute ago, DInky said:

 

I guess I'm one of those unsophisticated comic book readers then because I thought Civil War II was bad (a total character assassination of Carol).

I won't get into here, but that is precisely the kind of thing I was thinking about