It was all worth it just to hear Harrison Ford say the words “Captain America.”
So anyway, I decided to run my mouth off a bit about the Captain America: Brave New World film over there on the Blueskies. Here’s the thread, but I’ll repost all the entries right here:
As the new Captain America movie slowly crawls toward almost breaking even, I’m guessing that it just plain costs too much to make superhero movies for them to be profitable now, at least in most cases, and at this scale.
These movies are budgeted to have to make within a spitting distance of a billion dollars to be considered profitable, and that only happens if the films become cultural phenomenons.
FANTASTIC FOUR will be the big test this year for Marvel, but if that underperforms that just means no more FF films. The *real* test will be the new Avengers movies, and if they fail that’s what will cause Disney to rethink the whole superhero movie thing.
They might give it another shot with a new X-Men movie, and I think Spider-Man abd Deadool movies will likely continue to be profitable, but the Marvel Cinematic Universe as a whole will either be abandoned or *greatly* de-emphasized.
Or they can just start putting Deadpool into every new Marvel movie. THE AVENGERS STARRING DEADPOOL would do okay, I think.
Now, the DC movies are a whole ‘nother kettle of fish. No telling how that new Superman movie will do.
There had been a lot of stories going back and forth about just how expensive this movie ended up being, once the cost of the extended reshoots were factored in. However, the only seemingly verified budget I could find was $180 million, with reports of wild ballooning costs due to the reshoots being declared as unreliable.
The movie’s momentum is slowing, and the linked report there says it may end up with a total of $450 million in the box office. Said report also claims the break-even point for the film, factoring in the promotions budget, is about $425 million. And all that is assuming the reshoots ‘n’ such are all incliuded in that $180 million budget, and didn’t tack on another $100 mill or so as is rumored.
Now, why do I care? I mean, I’m not absolutely invested in the success or failure of this film, beyond wanting all superhero movies to be good and popular so that I can maybe sell more comics. I just find this…interesting, from a cultural standpoint, as to how the Marvel movie machine went from “unstoppable juggernaut” to “kind of a crapshoot” as far as their movies go. And this isn’t saying anything about the quality of the films…I enjoyed The Marvels, for example, and I’m sure Captain America: Brave New World is fine.
Assuming all the numbers are right, BNW making $25 million over the break-even point doesn’t seem like enough of a return on the investment. Though, as my old pal William pointed out somewhere in the original thread, who knows what that $25 mill will look like after the studio accountants rejigger everything.
Point being, I don’t think I said anything incorrect in my Bluesky thread. According to Box Office Mojo, as I write this the film is just shy of taking in $290 million. It’s not quite broken even yet, but it seems like it’s gonna get there eventually.
But these huge budgets do present a problem. Some of these films have enormous budgets, and as I said in that thread above, they’re budgeted so that close to a billion dollar box office is needed to make it all worthwhile. And that’s not a guarantee anymore, especially in this pandemic and/or streaming era.
I did get a little pushback on my comments here, like this statement someone made:
First off, I did specifically mention Deadpool as being one of the franchises that can, and does, make a lot of money. It’s not a typical “Marvel Cinematic Universe” movie, though, so its not quite the successful example this writer thinks it is.
The statement that BNW is “breaking even in its second week” is, as shown above, incorrect, which presents the general public’s misunderstanding of film budgeting. Not that I’m any kind of expert, but the cost to bring a movie to the marketplace is more than the actual outlay of cash to make the film. There’s also the advertising budget, which can be (but not always) as high as the actual production budget itself. Plus, in this specific case, there are the reshoots, which nobody seems quite sure how much that added to the budget, if anything. Only making back the production budget means the film lost money.
The concluding statement that implies that I’m saying “no one goes to these movies” is a non sequitur, since that’s not an argument I’m making. A box office take of hundreds of millions of dollars means people are seeing these films, there is still a lot of interest in superhero movies. My point is that the films themselves are too expensive, that even those millions of dollars in ticket sales are either barely enough or not enough to cover costs. As stated, to get that coveted billion dollar box office, a movie has to be more than a blockbuster, it has to be a cultural phenomenon, something special. And entry #40 or whatever in the Ongoing Marvel Cinematic Universe isn’t enough anymore, in and of itself, to give it that extra push.
In my thread above, I didn’t mention Thunderbolts, simply because I feel like that movie may be a non-starter. Again, I’m sure it’s perfectly fine, but we’re probably going to see the same slow crawl to almost breaking even, even with its smaller (relatively speaking) budget.
Fantastic Four could go either way…people might be excited to see a proper version of this superhero team on the big screen, or the general public may say “fool us three or four times, shame on us” and not bother. Frankly, I’m leaning more toward the former, but a quick Googling of the budget (perhaps as high as $250 million) means were looking at probably a half-billion break-even point.
Again, as I said above, even if all these movies underperform, that’s not the end of Marvel movies. It might be the end of these particular franchises, but Marvel still has their Avengers movies coming with the Hail Mary stunt casting of Robert Downey Jr. as Doctor Doom. If those films don’t do well, then it may just be Deadpool and Spider-Man movies from here on out. Honestly, I do think these new Avengers flicks will do fine. And we have the eventual X-Men movies to look forward to.
What’s the answer? I had a few responses noting the amount of excess and bloat on the productions ballooned their costs, and that other studios have achieved plenty in their effects-laden action films on much smaller budgets. I mean, yeah, sure, but I don’t know how possible that would be with Marvel at this point. If costs are cut, it’ll be on the production teams and not the actors, I suspect, and God knows the production teams don’t need their resources cut.
I’m not an expert on any of this (“yeah, no kidding,” says the person who actually works in Hollywood reading my post), but I just find it all…well, almost unworldly. Talking about hundreds of millions of dollars like this is almost like talking about magical fairies or UFOs for all the ability I have to relate to this stuff. But, as someone who owns a comic book store, I have a vested interest in what’s going on with these films, how the public is reacting to them, how excited folks who actually come into my store are about them, that sort of thing.
In the last entry in the Bluesky thread, I mention the coming Superman movie, and…well, that may be a topic for another time. A lot of pressure on that one to succeed, since that may indicate whether or not we get more DC movies in this cinematic universe. Here’s hoping we’re not going to see more Warner Bros. tax write-offs.
I’m no expert either, but I have read The Hollywood Economist (2.0) and the one thing I came away from it with was the notion that most movies have already broken even before they reach the theater. They are designed to not ‘make money’ for tax purposes, but in most cases they have signed extensive partnership, distribution and marketing deals so that a film really has to do badly to not earn out. A film like The Marvels or BNW won’t be as profitable AS THEY WOULD LIKE, but that’s not the same thing as losing money. Nia Dacosta, director of the Marvels, turned right around into making another movie…something that might be less likely if The Marvels was a massive flop. Things like rentals, Disney+ viewings and home video sales all are part of the films profit, but those are rarely factored in ‘the film sold this many ticket’ style examinations.
Ultimately, Hollywood doesn’t play at dice. They make sure movies won’t bankrupt the studio, even if they don’t make huge profits. McDonalds having BNW Happy Meal toys is an example of ways the company makes sure the film earns money that’s not related to the theatrical run. It’s complicated math…by design.
I may be wrong, but other than the first Iron Man film, the early MCUs were moderate but unspectacular successes as the studio steadily built the brand, until the first Avengers finally made it a phenomenon that lasted through Endgame, more or less. But that film, plus the end of the story for some of the actors and characters, and Chadwick Boseman’s death, plus the pandemic & Disney plus, gave audiences a fine jumping-off point. Other than Black Widow, the next non-Spidey movies & TV shows are trying to start it all over while repeating all the previous tropes. I personally lost interest, I feel like I’m a half-dozen films & shows behind, and I don’t really want to put the time into catching up. In that way, it’s kind of like when I paused my Marvel Comics habit in the late 80s when I went to college and had to live on an actual budget. When I could afford to buy them again just a few months later, I discovered that I didn’t really want to spend the money, but I also didn’t want to spend the time it would take to read them.
Anyway, I hope that interest in the MCU does pick up again for the benefit of a new generation of fans, but it sounds like the studi really needs to figure out how to do that well without over-spending, if they can.
I saw BNW and… it was ok. Nice to see [REDACTED] on the big screen, the Red Hulk scene was fun. It was definitely stitched together, and some of the seams were obvious (especially Giancarlo Esposito’s added-in-reshoots scenes). The script and plot weren’t great, the acting was mostly fine, Harrison Ford’s always good, the action had its moments…
Mike, any increased interest/ sales in Sam Wilson: Captain America or Red Hulk comics? I don’t think the movie was good enough to drive people to the comic shops, unfortunately, but I’d love to be wrong.
MCU movies were a bit generic for awhile. Superhero origin, battle vs dark version of same hero. Repeat.
Then they started letting directors create genre movies that happened to have superheroes: CA:WS as a spy thriller, Ant Man as a heist movie
Now we have swung back to more generics again. But they are still fun popcorn escapism.
I like Sam as Cap. I like him de-powered. I like he uses his background as a counselor as much as his fists.
My gut feeling is that the new Fantastic Four movie will also not be a phenomenon, but that the new Superman movie might be.
The FF trailer was not great (in my opinion), and I’m not convinced that the general populace want to see more of these characters. I’m not sure I do, and I’m the target audience.
I’m also not convinced that the FF are easy to portray on screen. There’s something about them that works better in print, I think — their simple and repetitive relationships are a perfect backdrop for a parade of outrageous heroes and villains (Mole Man, Black Panther, Frightful Four, Inhumans, Silver Surfer, Galactus). You can portray all that in 100 issues of a comic book, but can you translate it to a single movie?
Everything I’ve seen of the new Superman movie so far, though, makes it look like a lot of fun. And Gunn is definitely adding a lot of bells and whistles — Krypto, Mr. Terrific, Metamorpho, Guy Gardner. I think there will be a lot for people to talk about, and that will drive ticket sales.
Huh. Now that I think about it, maybe Marvel should have given Gunn the FF movie.
1. Iron Man came out in 2007. We are approaching the 20th Anniversary of the MCU. How good were James Bond movies in the early 1980’s? Octopussy? The momentum can’t last forever, people have seen the gimmick over and over again.
2. Marvel decided to retire the big name characters and actors many people liked (Steve Cap, Downey Iron Man) and replace them with characters with much smaller fanbases (Sam Cap, Shang-Chi, Moon Knight).
3. Disney is super duper risk averse, especially with Marvel. Where is the “Last Jedi” or “Andor” of the MCU?
4. It’s going to be 25 years into the franchise before we get X-Men, Marvel’s bigest draw. We are talking SEVERAL moviegoing generations passing and serious superhero fatigue.
5. Marvel involves homework. Who’s this new Captain America? Why is the Hulk red? I thought Vibranium was the best metal, etc. etc.
Everyone knows who Superman and Batman are and what their deal is.
I have kind of a feeling like the Marvel era was largely an Obama era positive vibe thing?
Trump, Jan 6, and Covid might have taken the air out of that. Certainly it’s hard to stomach “good guys win” when the bad guys are getting away with when they aren’t winning outright.
I mean, the movies just generally aren’t as good as they used to be. Rotten Tomatoes isn’t perfect by any means, but the lowest scores the 2008-2019 movies were getting were in the 60s. Now they routinely are into the 40s/50s with scores in the 90s much rarer. For example, Thor 4 should have been a surefire hit covering great comics material with the creative team of Ragnarok, but it learned the wrong lessons from success and the movie stunk.
I also think the Disney+ shows have actively hurt the franchise. The “homework” factor mentioned above, plus they generally are a slog to get through. All of them would have been better trimmed down to conventional movies.
Really, Endgame should have been used as a chance to make properties that stand alone a bit rather than to try to keep the iron hot. The first half of Shang Chi is really good, but then it truly becomes an MCU film when Trevor shows up and it falls off. Wandavision eps 1-8 were fun, then it had to spend the finale setting up a status quo that didn’t really get used anyway.
I think Gunn has so much goodwill that Superman will probably do fine. He made the best recent MCU movie, he made Peacemaker, etc.
It was okay, but the transformations to / from Red Hulk were a bit disappointing. I was hoping for more practical effects . Story-wise I was hoping they’d lean into conspiracy stuff more , but guess that’s too political.
@Jon H
I think, based on what you are saying, the Marvel movies could pivot to other Earths in the Multiverse and/or other points in time.
We could have a great anti-fascist film (that could also serve as an allegory concerning authoritarian regimes in the present day) if the MCU would gives us an Invaders film set during WW II, starring Steve Rogers/Captain America, Jim Hammond/original android Human Torch/ and Namor. This would give Chris Evans th chance to play Cap again (if he still wants to), and the same for Sebastian Stan as Bucky. There was a quick blink-and-you- miss-it cameo of the android Human Torch in the first Captain America film (at the World’s Fair, in a glass chamber), so they could cast for that character, and always just call him “The Torch” –if they wanted to avoid confusion with the Johnny Storm Human Torch in the upcoming FF film. They could also reuse the Namor actor from Wakanda Forever, but personally I would prefer a recasting as that portrayal of Namor was not really comics-accurate, a la Namor MacKenzie. But, if this were to be another Earth in the Multiverse, then obviously everyone could be recast anyway.
There could be many supporting and cameo roles for actors as members of The Liberty Legion and/or The Twelve, and, if they wanted to go more realistic with it, some old Timely Comics characters could actually be shown perishing in battle.
There could be scenes of the Invaders and various Timely Comics superhero characters fighting in various locations in Europe and the Pacific, and North Africa. Some of them could also be shown fighting Nazi saboteurs and Fifth Columnists in the United States. We could also have the Black Panther of the ‘1940s leading an ambush on Rommel. We could have scenes in the film that actually try to portray classic 1940s Alex Schomberg covers.
This film could try to pay homage to key scenes from “Casablanca;” “The Story of G.I. Joe;” “The Big Red One;” “The Sands of Iwo Jima;” “Army of Shadows;” “Where Eagles Dare” and other classic films about WW II.
Or, the MCU could give us a Squadron Supreme film, so we could see how Marvel would handle the “Justice League.” Or a Deathlok or Killraven film for a dystopian near-future Earth. Or a Legion of Monsters creature feature film. Or a Micronauts movie that adapts the first 12 issues of the classic Mantlo/Golden Micronauts comics run–if they secured the rights to Baron Karza and other Micronauts toy characters. Again, Karza and his Dog Soldiers could be portrayed as allegorical to authoritarianism happening in 2025.
Marvel’s biggest problem coming off “Endgame” was a delirious belief in Disney+ to somehow mint money despite the fact it was a flat-fee service, and their own need to respond to shareholders, pushing widgets instead of acting like a story-telling factory.
The entire industry is in freefall post-strike/ post-streaming era, and superhero films aren’t alone in adjusting (see MI: Dead Reckoning’s lackluster performance).
People do show up for some things, but nobody seems to know what it will be, and there are no guarantees. Frankly, CA: BNW is doing way, waaaaay better than what I’d guessed it would, but I think Marvel finally gave everyone time to breathe. And, tbh, if you saw Sony’s movies, CA: BNW feels like someone is at least *trying*.
Who knows how Disney will pivot. They’ve dedicated theme parks to these characters and will want to keep selling shirts, mugs and action figures at Target. And that’s absolutely possible with smaller movies. Audiences don’t really care what you spent, they care about how they felt about the characters for 90-120 minutes.
Disney could easily find out the things they’ve decided need to be in a Marvel movie (team-ups, entirely CGI sequences) aren’t necessary at all.
“THE AVENGERS STARRING DEADPOOL”
Fantastic Four starring Deadpool, Spider-Man/Deadpool Team-Up, The X-Men w/Deadpool…
“Fantastic Four”
i liked the Jessica Alba one. I didn’t like they way they changed the origins around, but the guy playing Dr. Doom was a highlight. As was Micheal Chickliss.
“Guy Gardner”
Ugh. That’s like the LAST character I want to see on screen.
“Why is the Hulk red?”
Because we ran out of Green.
“We could have scenes in the film that actually try to portray classic 1940s Alex Schomberg covers.”
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
“and other classic films about WW II.”
The Great Escape!
@Snark Shark
Yes, I did think of “The Great Escape!”
It would be awesome to see Steve Rogers (a la Steve McQueen on a motorcycle), Bucky Barnes, Nick Fury, Dum Dum Dugan, and maybe Brian Farnsworth (was that Union Jack’s civilian name?) breaking out of the Stalag!
You could have a scene in the film as well, a la “Casablanca,” where the French national anthem, “La Marsailles,” is being sung loudly to drown out the fascists. Does Marvel/Timely have any French characters from the ’40s? If not, they could create some French Partisans characters or a French superhero–porquoi pas?
I agree with you regarding Guy Gardner–they should have given us a Hal Jordan reboot, or John Stewart, or Katma Tui…or Ch’ip!
For the new Fantastic Four film, assuming it is set on an alternate Earth and set in the quasi-’60s it would be cool to see that Earth’s Spider-Man, Avengers, X-Men, etc., eventually. Especially if they tried to capture the flavor of the first decade or so of the Marvel Comics.
My idea for a (relatively) low-budget MCU entry: Rocket Raccoon’s spaceship crashes in Arkansas and he has to survive without any alien tech at all, aided by a strong and sympathetic truck driver (Alan Ritchson playing Buford Hollis). Rocket is CGI but all the vehicular stunts and smashes are practical. Think of it as ‘The Cat from Outer Space’ meets ‘The Cannonball Run’.
Thought my perspective would be fairly common though it’s not represented here: there isn’t really any huge Marvel slump. Ant-Man 3 underperformed but come on, it’s a miracle that Ant-Man got a third film, but The Marvels was the only real dip. No Way Home and DP&W broke records and arguments they were the exception don’t seem based on much.
CA:BNW was okay, a middling entry, the next two will hopefully improve on it. The real mistake was the MCU doing what Marvel ever does and pile on to any success by launching countless new vehicles, in this case the tied-in TV shows. Launching character for them in movies or bringing in characters to the movies from the shows didn’t appear to please anyone, and looks like it’s being phased out a bit.
Fewer linked shows, fewer movies, more sense of event and Marvel will continue at least through this phase. Until interest wanes as it always has to…
THE GREAT ESCAPE makes me think of JLA: YEAR ONE by Waid, with the cover where the heroes are in an outdoor prison.
I do think that keeping the films present day hurt the franchises. Sean has good ideas on having a WWII-type film, throw in Sgt. Fury but not with too much screen time.
I’ve never understood that why DC has never taken advantage of all of the Quality heroes, the same for Timely, past THE TWELVE and AGENTS OF ATLAS.
If we really wanted to talk Earth-2025, people should be reading James Tynion’s DEPARTMENT OF TRUTH.
P
And if James Gunn can make Peacemaker cool, Marvel can go backwards. Look at ANT-MAN and WASP.Could there be a way to have all characters like Hulk:Grey or clunky yellow Iron Man from 20XX and then 20XX, all visited by “threat from a future version of those characters”? ULTIMATES would be too much like Guardians, but Al Ewing would be a great consultant for the films.
@Wayne Allen Sallee
I mean, if they wanted to, the MCU could go full epic franchise and make three “Invaders” films–film them all back-to-back and then release them over the course of 5 or 6 years. Again, a ton of Timely Comics characters could be used; some might be shown making the ultimate sacrifice.
Roy Thomas and Ed Brubaker could be consultants. There could be scenes as in the 2019 “Midway” film–but with Namor and the Human Torch flying around and destroying the Imperial Japanese Navy and kamakazee pilots during the dogfights. U-Man or other Agent Axis villains could be in the scene as well.
There could be scenes in London during the Blitz to introduce Spitfire and Union Jack. There could be scenes depicting the invasion of the beaches of Sicily and the hills of southern Italy, as in William Wellman’s “The Story of G.I. Joe” (a great film starring Robert Mitchum and Burgess Meredith), but we could see Cap and Bucky, or the Whizzer and The Destroyer, as being a part of the event. There could be scenes a la “Saving Private Ryan” depicting the invasion of Normandy with Nick Fury and the Howling Commandos being part of the event. Jack Frost, the Blue Diamond, and the Golden Age Black Widow at the Battle of Stalingrad? Arkus, the Vision teleporting from London to France to help the French Partisans and deliver messages from General DeGaulle? Miss America vs Warrior Woman in a battle in Berlin? And more!
@ Wayne Allen Sallee
And, yes, elements from “The Twelve” could definitely be utilized. In fact, done if the characters from “The Twelve” could be seen perishing while fighting the good fight. And we could bring back Howard Stark and Peggy Carter as well. Maybe even get Gary Oldman to play Winston Churchill again, and Bill Murray to play FDR again.
Also, yeah, why not start an “Agents of Atlas” film franchise set in the Cold War ’50s as well? Bring in a cool, badass Jimmy Woo (who could be the uncle or grandfather of the dorky Jimmy Woo that was in Ant-Man); bring in 3-D Man; Marvel Boy; Gorilla-Man; Venus; Namora; Sun Girl; Golden Girl; Dominic Fortune; Blonde Phantom –and a bunch of Atlas Comics monsters/aliens. Have fun with it as an homage to ’50s genre films.
@Wayne Allen Sallee
They could even get a cameo from a digitally da-aged Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones in an “Agents of Atlas” ’50s film.
“3. Disney is super duper risk averse, especially with Marvel. Where is the “Last Jedi” or “Andor” of the MCU?”
It was the Eternals.
Mike, I can’t believe you wrote that you you think Thunderbolts* (ugh, that asterik) is going to be a non-starter. I’m seeing so much more excitement for that than I am for Cap 4.
“I agree with you regarding Guy Gardner–they should have given us a Hal Jordan reboot, or John Stewart, or Katma Tui…or Ch’ip!”
Anyone except Guy Gardner! Maybe Mogo!
” The real mistake was the MCU doing what Marvel ever does and pile on to any success by launching countless new vehicles, in this case the tied-in TV shows. ”
Marvel: There’s no doing it like over-doing it!
“If we really wanted to talk Earth-2025, people should be reading James Tynion’s DEPARTMENT OF TRUTH.”
I prefer Alice Cooper’s Department of Youth.
As far as tied-in TV shows go, I thought “Falcon and Winter Soldier,” and “Hawkeye” were both pretty solid. I wouldn’t mind seeing more “Moon Knight,” or “Werewolf by Night”–and why not just give us the “Legion of Monsters?” What really deserves a complete reboot is “The Inhumans.” Maybe we will get a do over on them in a Fantastic Four sequel film? And the fact that Daredevil is coming back is great!
“The Inhumans.”
Those were the WORST costumes I’ve seen since the 1990 Cap TV movie.