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

[YM!]

4 minutes ago, ChipDerby said:

 

This is such a crock. The previous bad MCU movies didn't effect the MCU, but Quantumania definitely did!!! 

Tbh the worst MCU had to deal with reception wise in the Infinity Saga was probably The Dark World. You could also argue The Incredible Hulk but there was an Avengers around the corner or a new pitch that worked to revive interest. It also helped that again there were only realized two movies that you could debate had mediocre WOM. IM2, IM3 and AOU performed like typically sequels and had a degree of fan rush due to a large opening. WOM and CS despite a few bummed fans were mostly positive in the A range

[babz06]

21 minutes ago, SpiderByte said:

Does anyone have evidence for any of these things beyond just random guesses? Your assumption that Captain Marvel has been written out of a movie she was never reported to be the lead of, replacing someone who also was never reported to be the lead, because of a movie that has not even been released?

 

Everyone's just assuming the reviews are bad for this too. If the reviews are good are these BOT exclusive secret rewrites putting her back in?

Ive heard rumors that Tom Holland’s Spider-Man isn’t gonna be leading the team even though he’s gonna be apart of it. But he’s probably gonna be first billed anyways. 

[PlatnumRoyce]

1 minute ago, M37 said:

It had, IMO, an Avengers bump even though there were no other Avengers in it, in

Yeah, that's my takeaway as well. Avengers: Endgame literally broke capacity requirements and you can explicitly see it boosting the late legs of Captain Marvel. I suspect the film's "true talent" result is +/- that initial doctor strange's run. 

 

Still, people watched and liked Captain Marvel in great numbers. I guess it's now been 4 years (so outside of quick sequel turnaround) but I really expect there to be more stickiness than downside bets are thinking.
 

I guess the counterargument is Spider-Man: Homecoming. It got a lot of "MCU franchise" boosts (Civil War + marketing showcasing Iron Man in a mentor role) and still didn't really do ultra-amazingly even accounting for coming off of a premature reboot. However, I agree that 2023 has given a couple of great illustrations of how maximizing potential really can blow a hole through the box office roof

 

 

4 minutes ago, M37 said:

(mainly because I can remember on what random spreadsheet this tab exists!),

😂 I know that feeling

[Bob Train]

Spider-Man and Doctor Strange delivered the 2 highest OW for Marvel post-pandemic, so it makes sense for either of them to be the leads. 

[Valonqar]

13 minutes ago, Bob Train said:

Exactly right. Quantumania was teasing Thanos 2.0 and it sucked. Audiences didn't care that Eternals, Black Widow sucked as the latter was a prequel, and the former was introducing a bunch of no1curr characters. But for the introduction of Kang? It mattered.

 

OK I see the point. Standalone suckage = no effect. Overarching suckage = effect.

[Valencia]

8 minutes ago, babz06 said:

Ive heard rumors that Tom Holland’s Spider-Man isn’t gonna be leading the team even though he’s gonna be apart of it. But he’s probably gonna be first billed anyways. 

That seems like a bad choice unless it’s Sony interference.

 

They need a heavy hitter in the limelight.

[M37]

I've been under the assumption that Dr Strange was the new defacto leader of Avengers, replacing Tony Stark

 

Don't think it makes sense storywise for Captain Marvel, supremely powerful but often away from Earth (like Thor), nor Spider-Man, who fits more into the all-American boy who was gifted powers role of Rodgers. That's my expectation for the top 3 billed anyway

[PlatnumRoyce]

13 minutes ago, Valencia said:

That seems like a bad choice unless it’s Sony interference [or Marvel's interference with Sony -ed]. They need a heavy hitter in the limelight.

Which is why, outside of contractual requirements, Chris Pratt would likely be top billed. I know someone did a fun deep dive into billing order for Endgame/IW and what it implied but I was unable to find it. Anyways, that takeaway implied that it's less "MCU marketing narrative" that determines it than individual actor contracts peacocking for prestige. 

 

Pratt is a genuine movie star whose expressed no interest in leaving the MCU and whose last film was universally seen as a success. OTOH, I agree that Strange seems to be implicitly treated as the new head of the Avengers (with Wong having quietly replaced Nick Fury as the cameo glue guy)

 

Anyways, I'd argue Civil War shows that "literal top billing" really doesn't matter nearly as much as being able to showcase a character as a leading role. Holland's going to be prominently displayed in all of the marketing. 

Edited October 10, 2023 by PlatnumRoyce

[JustLurking]

41 minutes ago, Willowra said:

Thousands of Kangs that we've seen in Quantumania post credit scene are even more powerful.

Not really, they can do whatever with kang, the one that supposedly got exhiled out of fear by the others got beaten in a fucking antman film for fucks sake

 

but it's kind of hard to make it work when a hero this powerful, which is why she has to either be nerfed (seems to be the marvels approach - she can't use her power freely due to position exchange shenanigans) or see her role reduced (which is what they did in endgame, where she was only there briefly) to work

 

the rest of the cast is just not as strong, so I really struggle to see her be there all the time

Edited October 10, 2023 by JustLurking

[ChipDerby]

32 minutes ago, Bob Train said:

Exactly right. Quantumania was teasing Thanos 2.0 and it sucked. Audiences didn't care that Eternals, Black Widow sucked as the latter was a prequel, and the former was introducing a bunch of no1curr characters. But for the introduction of Kang? It mattered.

Why would it have mattered to GOTG3, which had no connection.

[Willowra]

Just now, M37 said:

I've been under the assumption that Dr Strange was the new defacto leader of Avengers, replacing Tony Stark

 

Don't think it makes sense storywise for Captain Marvel, supremely powerful but often away from Earth (like Thor), nor Spider-Man, who fits more into the all-American boy who was gifted powers role of Rodgers. That's my expectation for the top 3 billed anyway

Doctor Strange 3 is rumored to release just before Kang Dynasty, do you think he would lead 2 back to back MCU movies in the same year? Very unlikely. Also it's very unlikely for Doctor Strange to lead Avengers movies when he is not even an Avenger.

[ZeroHour]

2 minutes ago, PlatnumRoyce said:

Which is why, outside of contractual requirements, Chris Pratt would likely be top billed. I know someone did a fun deep dive into billing order for Endgame/IW and what it implied but I was unable to find it. Pratt is a genuine movie star whose expressed no interest in leaving the MCU and whose last film was universally seen as a success.

 

Anyways, I'd argue Civil War shows that "literal top billing" really doesn't matter nearly as much as being able to showcase a character as a leading role. Holland's going to be prominently displayed in all of the marketing. 

https://www.vulture.com/2018/03/analyzing-the-crazy-credits-of-avengers-infinity-war.html

[SpiderByte]

Guardians got a boost when its reviews came out at a very similar "sky is falling" type reaction tracking people have had over the hour ish tickets have been on sale now.

[ChipDerby]

33 minutes ago, Willowra said:

Narratives and perception makes or break a movie nowadays. The perception that Captain Marvel was a bad or average movie hurting The Marvels, the perception & narrative that a flop and a rejected character is leading The Avengers would hurt Kang Dynasty. Also as per @charlie Jatinder this is selling worse than The Flash so it doesn't seem like $80m opener, more likely that $40m prediction of @TheFlatLannister will come true.

 

Based on 0 hours of sales?

[Liiviig 1998]

Leader should have been strange . He was great in IW , NWH and DS2 kind of made him a moron at points.

 

Having nothing against Sam but he just lacks charisma . They should have retired captain America and left him as falcon IMO.

 

Carol Danvers just feels like a Thor type character to me . She didn't have much of a story in the first film tbh and the way her story was structured didn't do her any favors tbh. 

 

She felt out of place in EG . Having her disappear for 30 yrs and we are told of the things she does in the galaxy but never get to see that in action. 

 

Overall just don't think they set up her character well up enough .  Secret invasion just fucked up the whole skrull plotline and just means her and fury sort of failed them I guess.

 

She is just this all time powerful entity roaming in the Galaxy for 30 years or so and you don't feel her Impact . First movie don't get enough development on her as kree and and we don't enough on her earth plotline.

 

She just lacks purpose or urgency. 

 

 

 

[Willowra]

Just now, JustLurking said:

Not really, they can do whatever with kang, the one that supposedly got exhiled out of fear by the others got beaten in a fucking antman film for fucks sake

 

but it's kind of hard to make it work when a hero this powerful, which is why she has to either be nerfed (seems to be the marvels approach - she can't use her power freely due to position exchange shenanigans) or see her role reduced (which is what they did in endgame, where she was only there briefly) to work

Army of Ants defeated 1 kang, in KD there would be thousands of Kangs. Do you think powerless Captain America stand any chance against Thousands of Kangs? The Marvels is about Captain Marvel becoming a team player, I don't think they would sideline her after making her team player in The Marvels lol. Also it's very likely that she would stay on earth at the end of the marvels & won't go to space again.

[AN9815]

Yeah, Quantumania was pretty bad and that was supposed to start Phase 5 and get the MCU back on track after a Phase 4 with no clear direction. I think that had a big effect on the future of the MCU and, unfortunately, Guardians Vol 3 and The Marvels will pay for it. 

 

I also think the Disney+ series are having an effect. On top of some of them being very mediocre/bad (Secret Invasion), it is also diluting the Marvel brand a lot and it no longer seems like a novelty or that you have to watch the next chapter in theatres. 

 

However, I am still hoping for the best for The Marvels. I think it looks pretty fun and don't get all of the hate it is getting, but looking at how toxic people can be with certain movies (The Little Mermaid, Snow White...) can't say I am surprised. 

Edited October 10, 2023 by AN9815

[SpiderByte]

Either way it's not like Marvel cancels Secret Wars or anything. Theyve already said they're spacing out releases, and with strike delays they're going to have to anyways. I'm much more optimistic long term than other people here, especially with Deadpool 3 up next after Marvels and Spidey 4 proooobably in 2025

[ChipDerby]

Sometimes this website makes me feel like I'm taking crazy pills

[reddevil19]

I have been saying I'll be getting the popcorn out for this as it's gonna be entertaining. One side will be declaring the death of the MCU, the other will come up with excuses, then sales pick-up, roles get reversed and so on. This is gonna be entertaining, and then the movie's gonna end up opening with like 115 million and no one will be happy.