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

[Hades]

58 minutes ago, Valonqar said:

Both Steven and Ayo are Emmy winners. When 1 Emmy winner (then nominee but favored to win) dropped out you could say well there's nothing sus about it, scheduling conflicts happen. When another Emmy winner dropped out right after winning than dropouts start to look deliberate on both parts. MCU hasn't been a career booster for years due to overproduction - everyone and their mother had it on their resume - and after The Marvels superbomb for the ages, if actors with prosperous careers are having second thoughts who could blame them?

 

Tom Holland was the last Mcu career booster, with Hemsworth and Hiddlestone before him.

 

Right now the MCU needs Zendaya, Haille Steinfeld and Florence Pugh a lot more than these actors  need the MCU

[Kon]

 

[Speedorito]

2 minutes ago, Kon said:

 

It was confirmed in the Deadline article that he accepted the offer.

[MysteryMovieMogul]

Honestly, I feel bad for Geraldine Viswanathan because I keep seeing people praising Ayo for dropping out.

 

A top comment in a subreddit I frequently browse was "Ayo stays winning."

 

Am I looking forward to this film? No. But what's the implication supposed to be toward Viswanathan, who's taking over the role? That she's... not winning?

[Speedorito]

35 minutes ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

Honestly, I feel bad for Geraldine Viswanathan because I keep seeing people praising Ayo for dropping out.

 

A top comment in a subreddit I frequently browse was "Ayo stays winning."

 

Am I looking forward to this film? No. But what's the implication supposed to be toward Viswanathan, who's taking over the role? That she's... not winning?

At the end of the day she’s getting a paycheck and exposure. That probably means more to her than what randos on the internet think.

 

People are also weird and “claim” ownership of their favorite actors, especially top-tier/award-winning actors. When they get a franchise role they’re “getting the bag” and when they leave a franchise role or don’t join they’re too good for it and “stay winning.” People were mad that Pedro Pascal (the internet’s boyfriend) was in talks for Fantastic Four a few months ago.

[SpiderByte]

Hmmmmm

[SpiderByte]

 

[Masketta Man]

About 40m too much.

[ChipDerby]

1 hour ago, SpiderByte said:

 

 

It was probably the least effects heavy show they've had, easily. Mostly small scale fights, etc. I enjoyed it.

[YM!]

1 hour ago, SpiderByte said:

 

So they finally learned how to budget TV shows.

[SpiderByte]

48 minutes ago, YM! said:

So they finally learned how to budget TV shows.

Well I mean I don't think you can do She-Hulk and have She-Hulk, Hulk, and Abomination in it as much as they are for 40 mil. But this is definitely more in line with what the budget for the Netflix shows were.

[YM!]

38 minutes ago, SpiderByte said:

Well I mean I don't think you can do She-Hulk and have She-Hulk, Hulk, and Abomination in it as much as they are for 40 mil. But this is definitely more in line with what the budget for the Netflix shows were.

No but this implies the range for everything was more or less Tentpole budgeting. Hawkeye, Ms. Marvel and even Moon Knight could’ve fit within 75m range, given the right director and planning it out. I agree She-Hulk would’ve likely been over 150m anyways due to the amount of CGI characters as would’ve WandaVision, Falcon, Loki.
 

However, think it’s not sustainable to do 6-7 $200m budgeted projects a year. Feel like this is a step in the right direction if Marvel wants to do every hero. Though I do think they could play around with mediums more. She-Hulk imho could’ve benefited as an animated TV comedy akin to Harley Quinn and when the actors come back in later installments in live action. 

[SpiderByte]

48 minutes ago, YM! said:

No but this implies the range for everything was more or less Tentpole budgeting. Hawkeye, Ms. Marvel and even Moon Knight could’ve fit within 75m range, given the right director and planning it out. I agree She-Hulk would’ve likely been over 150m anyways due to the amount of CGI characters as would’ve WandaVision, Falcon, Loki.

I don't think Marvels stopping doing big budget shows outright, but part of their TV change was they want more multi-season shows, which is much easier if those shows are cheaper. When say Falcon and Winter Soldier costs the same as 3 seasons of Echo, it's much easier to say "let's go with Echo again" for a second season 

[Daxtreme]

There is room for costly TV shows but it has to justify itself. It has to be an event, it has to be worth it, and they can't rewrite half of it in the middle. For instance, had Eternals been a TV show, a massive $220M budget would 100% have made sense.

 

Falcon and the Winter Soldier though? Where did the hell did the budget go? CGI on shades of grey?

 

They have to plan these things better, and this is a step in the right direction

[YM!]

3 hours ago, SpiderByte said:

I don't think Marvels stopping doing big budget shows outright, but part of their TV change was they want more multi-season shows, which is much easier if those shows are cheaper. When say Falcon and Winter Soldier costs the same as 3 seasons of Echo, it's much easier to say "let's go with Echo again" for a second season 

True but the medium of animation also stuff like She-Hulk and other projects rumored for shows like Nova have multiple seasons.

[MysteryMovieMogul]

I'm glad they're getting their budgets under control, but Echo looked pretty cheap compared to their higher budgeted fare. At the end of the first episode when they're on top of the water tower? Some of the worst green screen I've seen in quite some time.

[Mojoguy]

30 minutes ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

I'm glad they're getting their budgets under control, but Echo looked pretty cheap compared to their higher budgeted fare. At the end of the first episode when they're on top of the water tower? Some of the worst green screen I've seen in quite some time.

TV has always been cheaper than movies as they should be, until recently when studios give massive budgets to bad stuff like Secret Invasion and She Hulk. Both shows had 200m+ budgets! Studios don't understand that throwing lots of money at these streaming shows doesn't mean they will be any good.

Edited January 30 by Mojoguy

[Daxtreme]

I'll take a good story with bad green screen over a garbage story with great CGI any day of the week

[Last Man Standing]

Majors really left them in the lurch.

[PlatnumRoyce]

On 1/30/2024 at 2:00 PM, Daxtreme said:

There is room for costly TV shows but it has to justify itself. It has to be an event, it has to be worth it, and they can't rewrite half of it in the middle. For instance, had Eternals been a TV show, a massive $220M budget would 100% have made sense.

 

Falcon and the Winter Soldier though? Where did the hell did the budget go? CGI on shades of grey?

 

They have to plan these things better, and this is a step in the right direction

I never saw FatWS but it was supposed to be the big launch of MCU characters and it literally stars Avengers who Marvel (incorrectly) believes are big enough to launch their own film. Having an unlimited pocket book there makes more sense than betting 200M on an Eternals TV show even if you don't see the full cost of it on screen. 

 

I think "Avengers adjacent" is sort of the problem. Something like Moon Knight had a high budget but "just" a high budget for the type of show it wants to be not the sort of insane budgets you saw in other works. When it came to projects either using existing characters or building off of them, Marvel clearly felt no compunction to scope budgets from the start or manage costs at the potential expense of scale. I think the "Hulk" half of "She-Hulk" explains why it got to break the bank in a way I doubt an Eternals show would have.