The Marvel / MCU Thread || From Blade to Secret Wars, All Things Marvel!

[SpiderByte]

I don't think people are going to be asking For about Indy bombing in a press tour a year after Indys release.

Edited November 5, 2023 by SpiderByte

[Zakiyyah6]

I agree. 500M for Cap 4 wouldn't be good if the budget is 250M but as we've seen this year with the Flash and Indy 5, things can get much worse.

[Arlborn]

2 hours ago, Zakiyyah6 said:

I agree. 500M for Cap 4 wouldn't be good if the budget is 250M but as we've seen this year with the Flash and Indy 5, things can get much worse.

I wonder how hard it would be to keep the budget at 150M, that seems way more reasonable. 
 

I think they’ll be trying to be more reasonable on that front from now on, but Cap 4 has already been mostly filmed right? So it probably still is on an absurd budget.

[CJohn]

[YM!]

7 hours ago, scytheavatar said:

 

The Marvels won't bomb because of "vitriol", it will bomb because people simply don't care about it. Similarly there's no reason for people to care about Captain America 4. Anthony Mackie has the charisma of a tree trunk, acts like a tree trunk, and Disney/Marvel seems to foolishly think sticking Harrison Ford besides him will solve all the problems. Right now they might not even be able to put Ford in the press junkie cause folks will just ask him about Indy V bombing. Like if they made Captain America 4 with a 150M budget then it earning 500M WW wouldn't be that awful, but we all know it's almost certain to have a 250M budget if not more than that with the direction they are going.   

I stand by Mackie being the right choice over Stan though. Between the two, Mackie at least has more charisma. People bring up FaTWS but neither of them really wowed, and at least with Mackie - his storyline had interest and I’ve never found Bucky interesting outside of TWS.
 

As for the Ford thing. That’s like saying Robbie won’t do press tour for Barbie because Babylon flopped. By no means do I expect CA4, to do more than a third of Barbie domestic but I don’t think that’s the main concern. If anything they’d ask more about CBMs dying than Indy flopping.

Do agree on a likely 250m budget, 500m isn’t sustainable.

Edited November 5, 2023 by YM!

[Zakiyyah6]

28 minutes ago, Arlborn said:

I wonder how hard it would be to keep the budget at 150M, that seems way more reasonable. 
 

I think they’ll be trying to be more reasonable on that front from now on, but Cap 4 has already been mostly filmed right? So it probably still is on an absurd budget.

Spider-Man cost 140M 21 years ago. It is not impossible but take inflation into account. It is not easy doing a big blockbuster for less than 200M. Hollywood is going to have to find a way though. 

[Sckathian]

To do a sub-200M blockbuster you are going to need cuts and decisions. Spider-man is a good comparison as the first two films whilst lengthy are literally mostly Toby going about his day and dealing with silly shit but then you have some minor action throughout and two big scenes.

 

Spdiey one it’s the fair, and then the finale. Spidey two it’s the clock tower/train and then the finale. Spidey three might have a similar structure but I honestly can’t remember most of that film, seems more action heavy due to multiple baddies.

 

Helps Raimi can keep a tight budget 

 

Personally I think Guardians is the target. Practical/VFX but that’s still hitting 200M easily. Personally I think if the MCU downsizes it will be the Star Wars path, TV.

[DInky]

Does anyone have the data on overseas (and WW openings) of all MCU films? Would be nice to have as we go into next weekend.

 

 

[Bob Train]

Spider-Man's budget is around $250m in today's dollars. There are lots of big-budget/spectacle movies made on (relatively) low budgets, but Spider-Man is not one of them.

[YM!]

12 minutes ago, Sckathian said:

To do a sub-200M blockbuster you are going to need cuts and decisions. Spider-man is a good comparison as the first two films whilst lengthy are literally mostly Toby going about his day and dealing with silly shit but then you have some minor action throughout and two big scenes.

 

Spdiey one it’s the fair, and then the finale. Spidey two it’s the clock tower/train and then the finale. Spidey three might have a similar structure but I honestly can’t remember most of that film, seems more action heavy due to multiple baddies.

 

Helps Raimi can keep a tight budget 

 

Personally I think Guardians is the target. Practical/VFX but that’s still hitting 200M easily. Personally I think if the MCU downsizes it will be the Star Wars path, TV.

Think a lot of it comes from the fix it in post mentality. Do think having experienced directors would help a lot who know how to use VFX and practical effects, even if that means having to compromise on a story detail or two or a slightly more divisive story.

 

Though troublesome, the DCEU has been good at keeping budgets in check. Aquaman was at 160m, WW was at about 150m, both Shazams in the 100-125m range and Suicide Squad movies in the 175-190m range.

Edited November 5, 2023 by YM!

[Sckathian]

2 minutes ago, YM! said:

Think a lot of it comes from the fix it in post mentality. Do think having experienced directors would help a lot who know how to use VFX and practical effects, even if that means having to compromise on a story detail or two or a slightly more divisive story.

Part of it I think is they distrust directors. Which is super unhealthy. But then they do stuff like Strange 2 or Guardians and it works. Why they then have this massive group of films which get very inexperienced directors is beyond me, I think the model must be to use the ‘premier’ films to bump up the ‘basic’ films but that’s obviously collapsing.

 

Hopefully the decision to tie TV with show runners filters to film to tie to creative directors. They really really need all their franchises ran by hopefully the same director for 2/3 films.

[PlatnumRoyce]

30 minutes ago, Zakiyyah6 said:

Spider-Man cost 140M 21 years ago. It is not impossible but take inflation into account. It is not easy doing a big blockbuster for less than 200M. Hollywood is going to have to find a way though. 

and Raimi's Spider-Man 2 had a 254M production budget. 

[TwoMisfits]

33 minutes ago, Bob Train said:

Spider-Man's budget is around $250m in today's dollars. There are lots of big-budget/spectacle movies made on (relatively) low budgets, but Spider-Man is not one of them.

 

Street-level heroes/villains are where you can make low budget greatness.  Joker was a $55M budget.  But its entire vibe was the degradation of a city, making Gotham an actual character.  Which does lend itself to cheap...especially with a villain who literally has no more powers in his origin story than say, a cop...

Edited November 5, 2023 by TwoMisfits

[SpiderByte]

10 hours ago, Nicson said:

I'd rather Sony take back Spider-man, get on with the sinister six projects and potentially bring back Garfield for a TASM3 than to watch some whack movie about a team called Thunderbolts or a Armor Wars starring an Iron Man character hardly anyone cares for, and I do not care what any of you have to say about it.

I don't see why Sony would want to do that when working with Marvel is literally the biggest success they've ever had.

[Arlborn]

37 minutes ago, YM! said:

Think a lot of it comes from the fix it in post mentality. Do think having experienced directors would help a lot who know how to use VFX and practical effects, even if that means having to compromise on a story detail or two or a slightly more divisive story.

 

Though troublesome, the DCEU has been good at keeping budgets in check. Aquaman was at 160m, WW was at about 150m, both Shazams in the 100-125m range and Suicide Squad movies in the 175-190m range.

They really ought to get Gareth Edwards for a couple of films. What he did for The Creator with an 80M budget is amazing. Plus, it’s not like he’s a worse director than most of the directors they use anyway.

 

Edited November 5, 2023 by Arlborn

[DInky]

18 minutes ago, Arlborn said:

They really ought to get Gareth Edwards for a couple of films. What he did for The Creator with an 80M budget is amazing. Plus, it’s not like he’s a worse director than most of the directors they use anyway.

 

 

The only reason it cost so little is that they filmed in Thailand.

[Zakiyyah6]

I don't care how good his 80 million dollar movie looks. Gareth Edwards is Zack Snyder minus the frat bro edgelord nonsense. As Lady Gaga sang, he's sha-ha, sha-ha-llow. I don't want him directing any film that I'm looking forward to. Thank goodness The Creator flopped, if only to keep him away from good projects. 

[John Marston]

42 minutes ago, Zakiyyah6 said:

I don't care how good his 80 million dollar movie looks. Gareth Edwards is Zack Snyder minus the frat bro edgelord nonsense. As Lady Gaga sang, he's sha-ha, sha-ha-llow. I don't want him directing any film that I'm looking forward to. Thank goodness The Creator flopped, if only to keep him away from good projects. 

 

 

yeah because Peyton Reed, Nia Dacosta, and the guy who made Paper Towns are all much more prestigious and high brow picks for directors

[BadOlCatSylvester]

2 hours ago, Arlborn said:

They really ought to get Gareth Edwards for a couple of films. What he did for The Creator with an 80M budget is amazing. Plus, it’s not like he’s a worse director than most of the directors they use anyway.

 

If he's given a great script and great actors to work with, then he can truly create a classic. The problem with most of his movies is usually the scripts not being all that. Look at his latest, The Creator. The direction is stellar and the production values are stunning, but unfortunately his script wasn't all that great and John David Washington made for a pretty poor lead, thus preventing the movie from reaching the high it could've. His only truly great movie to me is Rogue One, and I'd argue that's because of the involvement of a great writer in Tony Gilroy.

[Zakiyyah6]

49 minutes ago, John Marston said:

 

 

yeah because Peyton Reed, Nia Dacosta, and the guy who made Paper Towns are all much more prestigious and high brow picks for directors

The fact that you think that I'd defend Peyton Reed is hilarious and I don't even know who the hell directed Paper Towns. I said nothing about high brow directors. High brow directors make crap like Eternals. They mostly suck at making action adventure movies, which Superhero movies are. I don't want a prestige director. I just think that Edwards sucks as a filmmaker. There are better low brow directors than him.