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

[TwoMisfits]

9 minutes ago, ListenHunnyUrOver said:

Female audiences are leading the charge in divesting from superhero films. 

 

I mean, you joke, but looking at the last few supers movie OW audience demos...ummm...

[Arlborn]

2 hours ago, ZattMurdock said:

 

Ignore for a second that this is coming from an obvious Captain Marvel fan (they are part of a Captain Marvel fan site or something), and also ignore the fact that we in fact do have reasons to believe that The Marvels will open fairly below Barbie: I think they do have an actual point here: the whole framing narrative behind box office prospects for The Marvels seem heavily biased against superhero films in general.

 

Barbie isn’t an indie, neither is The Marvels. Both are films made and backed by multi billion corporations. The fact that both films were officially tracking around the same long box office range forecast 22 days before it’s release is of note. Phenomenons like Barbie and Captain Marvel before can’t be predicted that far along. What we can see here is that there is a lot of biases going around. It’s hard to explain how one could be ‘excited’ for Barbie to open around $70-80m 22 days before it’s release and being doom and gloom about The Marvels tracking around the exact same forecasts.

Besides all the wonderful points people have already made in this thread about it regarding the context of both movies, there's something I haven't seen people say yet:

 

Narratives sell. The media loves to create narratives for clicks and views because, well, it really works. I've mentioned this in another thread a few days ago, but one of the things that sells the most is building something up only to tear it down later on, and then finding a "savior" to build up again, only to once again tear it down. It's a cycle, it's just how it goes.

[Bob Train]

My prediction is that within a few years, the 70/30 M/F split The Flash had will be commonplace for CBMs.

[ZattMurdock]

2 minutes ago, TwoMisfits said:

 

I mean, you joke, but looking at the last few supers movie OW audience demos...ummm...

The last female lead superhero film came out in 2019 and it made $69m OW out of the domestic audiences. That’s more than what Wonder Woman did, since it barely grossed around $100m OW. Yes, the MCU skews to a male demo, but underplaying their female audience is certainly a take. They are there, people underplaying them or not.

[Arlborn]

4 minutes ago, TwoMisfits said:

 

I mean, you joke, but looking at the last few supers movie OW audience demos...ummm...

I actually don't think he's joking, he's got a great point. Generally speaking (and please correct me if I'm wrong) a movie needs more than just cool action to bring in a large female audience, doesn't it?

 

That's the thing, superhero movies in general, with few exceptions, are failing lately to deliver on much more than just cool action.

 

Edited October 21, 2023 by Arlborn

[ZattMurdock]

3 minutes ago, Arlborn said:

Besides all the wonderful points people have already made in this thread about it regarding the context of both movies, there's something I haven't seen people say yet:

 

Narratives sell. The media loves to create narratives for clicks and views because, well, it really works. I've mentioned this in another thread a few days ago, but one of the things that sells the most is building something up only to tear it down later on, and then finding a "savior" to build up again, only to once again tear it down. It's a cycle, it's just how it goes.

That’s a point I can definitely can agree on. With that said, I do think that Marvels might end up becoming a MCU film that breaks the narrative that the ‘MCU is dead’, because people are just going too hard with that narrative. All it takes is the film to be good, and I’d also argue that Quantumania ‘being good’ wouldn’t change that film’s box office much. If not even Marvel Studios fans like myself care that much about Ant-Man, I think it stands to reason most people don’t either. 
 

Kinda off-topic but not really: I bought Iman Vellani’s Ms. Marvel first issue comic book, and next to it it’s Scott Lang’s book lmao. I have yet to read the latter, but the idea itself is the best thing out of Quantumania as far as I’m concerned:

 

[Arlborn]

10 minutes ago, ZattMurdock said:

That’s a point I can definitely can agree on. With that said, I do think that Marvels might end up becoming a MCU film that breaks the narrative that the ‘MCU is dead’, because people are just going too hard with that narrative. All it takes is the film to be good, and I’d also argue that Quantumania ‘being good’ wouldn’t change that film’s box office much. If not even Marvel Studios fans like myself care that much about Ant-Man, I think it stands to reason most people don’t either. 
 

Kinda off-topic but not really: I bought Iman Vellani’s Ms. Marvel first issue comic book, and next to it it’s Scott Lang’s book lmao. I have yet to read the latter, but the idea itself is the best thing out of Quantumania as far as I’m concerned:

 

 

I think what’s left people cold about Quantumania was how “the next big MCU villain “ was pretty shitty in it. Otherwise I agree that ant-man has always been a lower potential movie for the MCU. (Which only makes it more baffling that they’d choose it as the one to introduce Kang to the GA, but I’ve already made that point before)

 

 

 

Cool merchandise by the way, hope you enjoy it, let me know what the hell his book is even like

[ZattMurdock]

16 minutes ago, Arlborn said:

I think what’s left people cold about Quantumania was how “the next big MCU villain “ was pretty shitty in it. Otherwise I agree that ant-man has always been a lower potential movie for the MCU. (Which only makes it more baffling that they’d choose it as the one to introduce Kang to the GA, but I’ve already made that point before)

 

 

 

Cool merchandise by the way, hope you enjoy it, let me know what the hell his book is even like

I understand what they were trying to achieve here with Quantumania, but they did it wrong. Quantumania only works if Scott Lang is killed by Kang. You can argue that this would be two dour and depressive Marvel films back to back (Wakanda Forever is one of my favorite MCU films, but it’s a hard watch that does not welcome close repeated viewings), but in order to Quantumania to work, Scott Lang needed to die. There are some theories about him not really been back at his actual reality and still being ‘lost’ with Wasp, but we needed to see that played out in the film. The film itself isn’t even that bad by Ant-Man standards, I think what is disappointing there isn’t really that it’s a bad Ant-Man film, it’s certainly a bad show off of Kang. Victor Timely from one episode alone of Loki is already far more interesting. 
 

Whatever test screenings said to them about Quantumania, for that film to work, even when you look at how Ant-Man became kind of a douche after Endgame, he needed to sacrifice himself. It still can be explained elsewhere, but it made that film far less effective imho.

 

I’m busy with Marvel’s Spider-Man 2 to do anything else with my free time, but eventually I will get around Lang’s book, but here are some pictures of it lol:

 

 

Edited October 21, 2023 by ZattMurdock

[Zakiyyah6]

Ahh, now we get the revisionist history that Quantumania was always going to do that poorly. Always an excuse for Marvel movies. It can never be that audiences just didn't like the movie.

[ZattMurdock]

4 minutes ago, Zakiyyah6 said:

Ahh, now we get the revisionist history that Quantumania was always going to do that poorly. Always an excuse for Marvel movies. It can never be that audiences just didn't like the movie.

I think people - myself included - genuinely care about Captain Marvel, that was an important MCU film, and despite Endgame playing a part on its box office, I think people in general like Captain Marvel far more than Ant-Man or Wasp. I’ve been on the record saying that not even Marvel fans care that much about Ant-Man literally since the first film. And his films are the most matinee underdogs amongst them all. Sure, I do remember some hype for the first film but that was before the Scott Pilgrim director left the project. It’s a liked MCU character, but he is far from beloved. The fact that he got a trilogy is insane to me. And yeah, Quantumania wouldn’t make much more than it did even if it was the best Marvel film ever, in my opinion. Rudd is likable, but not really commanding the masses. It didn’t happen with the first two films, neither with the last one.

[Zakiyyah6]

Even if audiences loved Quantumania that wouldn't have helped word of mouth at all. It still would have had a 2.0 multiplier. That's absurd. Word of mouth matters.

[ZattMurdock]

2 minutes ago, Zakiyyah6 said:

Even if audiences loved Quantumania that wouldn't have helped word of mouth at all. It still would have had a 2.0 multiplier. That's absurd. Word of mouth matters.

Would it make a bit more? Yeah. But it wouldn’t be by much imho. You just don’t see the kind of trajectory that Iron Man, Captain America, Doctor Strange, Spider-Man and I’d argue even Black Panther (with Shuri taking over and the film being basically an wake to both T’Challa and Chadwick) with Ant-Man. I’m not saying that the film wouldn’t have a better result if it was better, I’m saying that that film even if it was better it could not gross that much more than it did.

 

It’s an interesting conundrum, Quantumania. That film heavily sets up Scott Lang dying and sacrificing himself all throughout that film first two acts. He wasn’t supposed to live if you take in consideration the trailers, the film itself until the third act and now the reshoot reports that just resurfaced. How would audiences react to a ‘better Marvel Studios’ film that sets up Kang well but has the titular hero making the ultimate sacrifice? Taking into consideration how Wakanda Forever is one of the strongest MCU films and at same time one of the saddest ones, I’m honestly not sure how audiences would react. 
 

I’d be much more passionate about Quantumania went for what it actually sets up rather well, but they didn’t. But it is what it is. Not sure how Quantumania could be a better film for audiences either.  

[Arlborn]

30 minutes ago, Zakiyyah6 said:

Ahh, now we get the revisionist history that Quantumania was always going to do that poorly. Always an excuse for Marvel movies. It can never be that audiences just didn't like the movie.

Nah, it would've made like 700-800M if people had liked the movie itself and by proxy how Kang was introduced.

[ZattMurdock]

24 minutes ago, Arlborn said:

Nah, it would've made like 700-800M if people had liked the movie itself and by proxy how Kang was introduced.

Which still isn’t that big, imho. I’m far more conservative on what a ‘beloved’ Quantumania that reviewed well would make. I think it would either get close to Ant-Man and the Wasp or not top it by much, so around  $622m or so, what the 2018 film did.

 

Another interesting fact: people claim that Captain Marvel’s $1B (2019) was completely influenced by Avengers: Endgame. But very little is said about Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018), which came just after Infinity War and was also part of the lead up to Endgame. So which one is it? Did Ant-Man and the Wasp overperformed thanks to Infinity War just like Captain Marvel overperformed thanks to preceding Endgame, or that film was clearly beloved?

 

I honestly think people overestimate the previous Ant-Man films successes massively. It was always the low tier of the MCU when it comes to box office grosses - or interest.

 

Edit: Hell, even when we look to 2018’s Ant-Man and the Wasp domestic grosses ($216m DOM) to 2023’s Quantumania ($214m DOM) I’d argue it’s a much more fair comparison between the two films. Yeah. It did underperform. But by how much? I have my doubts that even a beloved Quantumania would gross more than $300m DOM. If we are parting by the premise that Infinity War and Endgame inflated Captain Marvel’s box office, why we don’t apply the same logic to 2018’s Ant-Man and the Wasp? We know that exchange rates and wars throw an wrench when comparing a film’s box office numbers between 2018 and 2023, but I’m failing to see Quantumania’s box office that much of an underperformance. Sure, by a bit, but I fail to see how it would gross $700m if it was good, let alone $800m.

Edited October 21, 2023 by ZattMurdock

[emoviefan]

Just the other day I was thinking where is Zatt Murdock this thread is so quiet LOL. And the universe delivers. Now the page  count is really going to explode. 

[Zakiyyah6]

If Endgame didn't help Captain Marvel at all then how come its sequel ticket sales are so horrible? Are you saying that people hated Captain Marvel?

[Arlborn]

38 minutes ago, ZattMurdock said:

Which still isn’t that big, imho. I’m far more conservative on what a ‘beloved’ Quantumania that reviewed well would make. I think it would either get close to Ant-Man and the Wasp or not top it by much, so around  $622m or so, what the 2018 film did.

 

Another interesting fact: people claim that Captain Marvel’s $1B (2019) was completely influenced by Avengers: Endgame. But very little is said about Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018), which came just after Infinity War and was also part of the lead up to Endgame. So which one is it? Did Ant-Man and the Wasp overperformed thanks to Infinity War just like Captain Marvel overperformed thanks to preceding Endgame, or that film was clearly beloved?

 

I honestly think people overestimate the previous Ant-Man films successes massively. It was always the low tier of the MCU when it comes to box office grosses - or interest.

 

Edit: Hell, even when we look to 2018’s Ant-Man and the Wasp domestic grosses ($216m DOM) to 2023’s Quantumania ($214m DOM) I’d argue it’s a much more fair comparison between the two films. Yeah. It did underperform. But by how much? I have my doubts that even a beloved Quantumania would gross more than $300m DOM. If we are parting by the premise that Infinity War and Endgame inflated Captain Marvel’s box office, why we don’t apply the same logic to 2018’s Ant-Man and the Wasp? We know that exchange rates and wars throw an wrench when comparing a film’s box office numbers between 2018 and 2023, but I’m failing to see Quantumania’s box office that much of an underperformance. Sure, by a bit, but I fail to see how it would gross $700m if it was good, let alone $800m.

Again, I don't disagree with most of what you said (if Kang was well received it would totally have made 700M+ though), but that only reinforces my main point:

 

What the hell was the MCU doing formally introducing its next big villain in a fucking Ant-Man movie?!?!?!

[ZattMurdock]

4 minutes ago, Arlborn said:

Again, I don't disagree with most of what you said (if Kang was well received it would totally have made 700M+ though), but that only reinforces my main point:

 

What the hell was the MCU doing formally introducing its next big villain in a fucking Ant-Man movie?!?!?!

The idea was good, actually. Make Ant-Man a martyr, this new iteration’s Coulson, if you will. You get the reasoning for both a new Avengers and an Young Avengers team out of this particular move. That they got too scared with the reported test screenings is… unfortunate, to say the least. Sometimes you need to get your audiences mad, even if your test screenings are saying otherwise.

[PlatnumRoyce]

58 minutes ago, ZattMurdock said:

Another interesting fact: people claim that Captain Marvel’s $1B (2019) was completely influenced by Avengers: Endgame. But very little is said about Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018), which came just after Infinity War and was also part of the lead up to Endgame. So which one is it? Did Ant-Man and the Wasp overperformed thanks to Infinity War just like Captain Marvel overperformed thanks to preceding Endgame, or that film was clearly beloved?

 

I think I've made this point before and I've yet to see a real counterpoint - if you look at what Marvel actually said, they explicitly sold AM2 as a disposable "pallete cleaner" after IW while they hyped up CM as introducing the big new cornerstone of the MCU who was now the most powerful Avenger and thus implicitly what would tip scales in Endgame.  They pretty openly laid out a public facing reason for this marketing strategy that you can agree with or disagree with but you sort of have to address. 

 

This is still marketing not an automatic rule of the universe. Disney did a GREAT job marketing CM. They tied the films together and created anticipation. 

 

Alternatively, arguments are correlated. If you disagree and think Captain Marvel was a true talent $1B WW film, the fact that the sequel is imploding pre-release should send you running around with your hair on fire about the current state of the MCU. The first "real/extended" appearance of a movie star in a star making role should pack a punch. 

Edited October 21, 2023 by PlatnumRoyce

[Kon]

1 hour ago, ZattMurdock said:

Another interesting fact: people claim that Captain Marvel’s $1B (2019) was completely influenced by Avengers: Endgame. But very little is said about Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018), which came just after Infinity War and was also part of the lead up to Endgame. So which one is it? Did Ant-Man and the Wasp overperformed thanks to Infinity War just like Captain Marvel overperformed thanks to preceding Endgame, or that film was clearly beloved?

 

 

The promotion connected Captain Marvel with Endgame a lot more than Ant-Man and the Wasp. I mean, Captain Marvel has a post-credit scene in Infinity War. Not to mention that Captain Marvel was the MCU movie released before Endgame.

 

Captain Marvel was also promoted as the first female lead movie in the MCU, which also attracted a lot of attention.

 

So, I think the promotion influenced a lot the Captain Marvel box office.

Edited October 21, 2023 by Kon