The Marvels (2023)

[blewis17]

Applesauce!!

And to be clear, using those numbers, it loses money in the theatrical run. It will still make money in licensing for products, licensing for network and pay tv airing, digital sales, DVD/BR sales, etc. So, financially, it's not a closed book after the theatrical run. It'll like still lose money, but not as much. And i intentionally left off streaming revenue since the jury is still out on if that actually adds to the bottom line or not.

Exactly. But since we can't know (or really predict) those revenues $$$, we can't add them in to our equation.

But what we can say is...

It doesn't seem to be picking up much in the way of ephemera/ ancillary product/ licensing sales. But that is not the "thing" it once was, either.

 

[Cephus]

The MCU used to be mostly about entitled characters who acquire humility.
Today it seems the MCU is about humble characters acquiring entitlement.

Except most of them aren't humble. They start out perfect, they just have to learn that they were perfect all along and that all white men are just keeping them down.

 

[Solo4114]

There are a plethora of reasons why the film is under-performing. They have been reiterated here ad nauseum. But to me, some of the biggest problems involve the production costs. The market has changed; the Covid-19 pandemic was partly responsible, people's nice home theater setups are partly responsible, the cost of movie tickets and concessions are partly responsible, streaming is partly responsible, a plethora of OTHER entertainment sources is partly responsible, etc.

Going forward: How does ANY studio make the next blockbuster, on a diet? There's got to be a way, because this type of shoveling cash into the fire can't go on.

This is where I come out. I think, fundamentally, the market has simply changed. There are glimmers of the "before times," like with Barbie, but at the core, studios cannot expect to crank out $1B hits anymore, or even +$500M hits. And yet, across the board (not just Marvel) they mostly keep spending like that on them.

Exceptions: John Wick 4, and the recent Hunger Games films which both had estimated budgets of around $100M (not including marketing -- the figures never include marketing). You'll note that the cinematic world isn't collectively losing its **** over the Hunger Games' performance, but it's performing...about as well as Captain Marvel did in terms of raw box office.

As I see it, the biggest problem is that studios keep burning cash to make these films, and the end result is that a $44M opening is seen as "disappointing," just like an overall performance of around $470M is "disappointing." And this has been true across the board, across studios, across franchises. Until and unless Hollywood can figure out how to make blockbusters for "only" $100M, they're gonna keep losing money like this.

 

[Cephus]

Exactly. But since we can't know (or really predict) those revenues $$$, we can't add them in to our equation.

But what we can say is...

It doesn't seem to be picking up much in the way of ephemera/ ancillary product/ licensing sales. But that is not the "thing" it once was, either.

Especially since, once Disney got ahold of some of these properties, especially Star Wars, we know that merchandising has fallen through the floor. Now we don't know the actual numbers for Marvel, or at the very least, I have no idea where to go to get those numbers if they are out there (and anyone who wants to point to a credible source, please do so), but we can look at the box office numbers and the streaming numbers (with Disney+, where most of this goes, hemorrhaging money and subscribers) and make some pretty decent inferences.

All the other side can do is say "but I liked it!" like that means anything. I guess some of us live in the real world.

 

[blewis17]

There is far too much “bloat” in movie budgets, today.

Consider that the most profitable Star Trek movie was also the cheapest to make: Star Trek II (at a cost of $11 million in 1981 / 1982 dollars, which is the equivalent of $37.2 million in today’s dollars).

It can be done but it will take far better management than the studios seem to have, right now.

The $200 - $300 million budgets that these franchise films are currently running on certainly are not seen on the screen.

Well... yes.

STII was lightning in a bottle. It was a solid script, great casting, great music, great directing, and a (sort-of) emotional send-off to a basically emotionless character. It was so well done on all fronts, even including some of the earliest CG work in a feature film (TRON not withstanding).

And they have TRIED to replicate TWOK's success over and over. I think the closest they ever came on the big screen with ST6. But hey, Nicholas Meyer was back in the director's chair, so that helped tremendously.

1) Films try to one-up themselves effects-wise nowadays. Doesn't necessarily need it.
2) It's TOO TEMPTING to "fix it in post production" and push work ahead
3) Digital compositing can give you too much leeway to "just do the shot, we'll finalize it in editing" (George Lucas was guilty of this in TPM, where he would splice actors from different takes into the same scene, digitally move arms, etc... essentially micromanage the composition of each frame)
4) Big name celebs want big $$$ up front. So do you NOT hire A-listers?

 

[blewis17]

Iman Vellani perfectly sums it up "that's Bob Iger's problem".

All this back and forth over numbers that some people are obsessed with, as if they are shareholders in Disney.
Bottom line, did you enjoy the film....if you actually saw it and didn't just moan about the decline of a product you have "zero interest in" etc.

I agree with you, of course. Did you ENJOY the film? That's its purpose... right?

But an enjoyable film that DOESN'T make money puts the kibosh on future attempts to make more enjoyable films.

And Iman is right... it is Bob Iger's problem... and so he gets to respond and act in kind. Because CEOs don't stay in the good graces of their shareholders or board of directors when their business is losing money.

P.S. I have been a shareholder in Disney at some time or another in my 401K, I'm sure. I want them to do well, to succeed. My main argument with The Marvels is that, REGARDLESS of how enjoyable the film is, something(s) went VERY wrong when it's on track to lose hundreds of millions for the company, and I'm not so sure that Bob Iger and Kevin Feige can figure that out in a timely fashion and course correct.

 

[jusdrewit]

Interesting that The Creator (which just came out recently), was pretty heavy in special effects, only had a budget of $80 million. Where's The Marvels had a budget 2.75x that, and Indy was at a astronomical $295-300 million dollar budget and that's not even including promotion etc.

 

[blewis17]

This is where I come out. I think, fundamentally, the market has simply changed. There are glimmers of the "before times," like with Barbie, but at the core, studios cannot expect to crank out $1B hits anymore, or even +$500M hits. And yet, across the board (not just Marvel) they mostly keep spending like that on them.

Exceptions: John Wick 4, and the recent Hunger Games films which both had estimated budgets of around $100M (not including marketing -- the figures never include marketing). You'll note that the cinematic world isn't collectively losing its **** over the Hunger Games' performance, but it's performing...about as well as Captain Marvel did in terms of raw box office.

As I see it, the biggest problem is that studios keep burning cash to make these films, and the end result is that a $44M opening is seen as "disappointing," just like an overall performance of around $470M is "disappointing." And this has been true across the board, across studios, across franchises. Until and unless Hollywood can figure out how to make blockbusters for "only" $100M, they're gonna keep losing money like this.

Over thirty years ago, Terminator 2 was the first feature film to break the $100 million production budget. Yet every bit of that money was evident on screen. And we know what a landmark success that turned out to be.

But again... the fates were aligned, because you had a good screenplay ready to go, a known entity with Arnold playing a robot (a strength for him), solid performances by Linda Hamilton and Robert Patrick (I'm still not sold on Eddie's John Connor, FWIW), a great score, revolutionary visual effects AND practical special effects, and a workaholic director with a singular vision.

 

[blewis17]

Why is it interesting the US is less than the rest of the world? The US makes up what? maybe 8% of worlds population?

I'm just wondering about the spread outside of North America... I'll check BOM

 

[Solo4114]

I agree with you, of course. Did you ENJOY the film? That's its purpose... right?

But an enjoyable film that DOESN'T make money puts the kibosh on future attempts to make more enjoyable films.

And Iman is right... it is Bob Iger's problem... and so he gets to respond and act in kind. Because CEOs don't stay in the good graces of their shareholders or board of directors when their business is losing money.

P.S. I have been a shareholder in Disney. I want them to do well, to succeed. My main argument with The Marvels is that, REGARDLESS of how enjoyable the film is, something(s) went VERY wrong when it's on track to lose hundreds of millions for the company, and I'm not so sure that Bob Iger and Kevin Feige can figure that out in a timely fashion and course correct.

Yeah, it's wild to me how they're losing money on this one, especially given the apparent budget. I don't get what they're doing in the production process, but something's going haywire there. This is also true for other studios, though, not just Disney.

But I'd have to say that Disney has been putting up huge budgets on films that do not seem to be justifying the costs overall. The Little Mermaid had a budget of $297M. Indy 5 had a budget of almost $300M. Elemental had a $200M budget. The Marvels had a budget of around $220-275M. Each of these films is pulling in under $600M in box office. Most under $500M, and The Marvels may not break $200M, depending on what happens this weekend.

So what the hell are they spending all this money on? Is it reshoots? F/X budgets? Scheduling mismanagement? Where is the money all going? Can they even account for it, or is it just so much money being spent that nobody's really paying that close attention? Given the performance of these films pretty much across the board, it sure looks like the budget Disney and its subsidiaries ought to be paying is closer to $100-150M, because that's about the max you'd spend to turn profits at the rate these films have been performing.

 

[jts1031]

The future solution to films losing money is quite obvious: The studios should crowdfund the movies before they're made! Follow the HasLab model, or Ertl's model. Nobody will really care when the movie they get isn't what was originally promised. It'll be close enough. And then they need goals; if they hit $150 million, then this actor will have a part, and at $200 million they'll get this person to direct it.

 

[pengbuzz]

Especially since, once Disney got ahold of some of these properties, especially Star Wars, we know that merchandising has fallen through the floor. Now we don't know the actual numbers for Marvel, or at the very least, I have no idea where to go to get those numbers if they are out there (and anyone who wants to point to a credible source, please do so), but we can look at the box office numbers and the streaming numbers (with Disney+, where most of this goes, hemorrhaging money and subscribers) and make some pretty decent inferences.

All the other side can do is say "but I liked it!" like that means anything. I guess some of us live in the real world.

Right? For example: the "Marvels" figures were done through the Marvel Legends line vs. having their own dedicated line (as far as I could tell). And SW merchandise is not doing as well as it used to, relying mainly other figures rather than more lines of their own (Mandalorian being the exception).

 

[Riceball]

Yeah, it's wild to me how they're losing money on this one, especially given the apparent budget. I don't get what they're doing in the production process, but something's going haywire there. This is also true for other studios, though, not just Disney.

But I'd have to say that Disney has been putting up huge budgets on films that do not seem to be justifying the costs overall. The Little Mermaid had a budget of $297M. Indy 5 had a budget of almost $300M. Elemental had a $200M budget. The Marvels had a budget of around $220-275M. Each of these films is pulling in under $600M in box office. Most under $500M, and The Marvels may not break $200M, depending on what happens this weekend.

So what the hell are they spending all this money on? Is it reshoots? F/X budgets? Scheduling mismanagement? Where is the money all going? Can they even account for it, or is it just so much money being spent that nobody's really paying that close attention? Given the performance of these films pretty much across the board, it sure looks like the budget Disney and its subsidiaries ought to be paying is closer to $100-150M, because that's about the max you'd spend to turn profits at the rate these films have been performing.

I wonder if adding up the names listed in the credits would help reveal anything as well as what some of the names are. Could some of it be because so and so is listed as an Executive Producer or because they have 15 different producers (of all kinds) listed whereas another project only has 10? Or because one movie had their sound recorded at Skywalker and another didn't, and one movie has 20 effects houses listed with some of them being heavy hitters like ILM and Weta while others have no more than half that number with only one of them being a big named effects house?

 

[VanPersie]

No, I really didn't, mostly because there were just too many characters and it became a mish-mash of characters appearing on screen for a few seconds because there just wasn't time to have them do anything worthwhile. I can point to objective reasons why I like or don't like something. I'm not sitting here going "duh, I like it!"

That's just stupid.

Right very last thing from. No you just like to tell us you don’t have any interest, but do have an interest, but have inarguable facts about why you don’t like a film you can’t decide you have an interest in, that you haven’t seen….

People can mock or sneer at people simply saying “I just liked it” as if having an emotional response to a film is wrong. If it is wrong then let’s all pack up, never log in and forget all about making and collecting props that we hold emotional attachments to because it’s sure as **** not based on the fundemental quality of the props themselves at times

 

[batguy]

Yeah, it's wild to me how they're losing money on this one, especially given the apparent budget. I don't get what they're doing in the production process, but something's going haywire there. This is also true for other studios, though, not just Disney.

But I'd have to say that Disney has been putting up huge budgets on films that do not seem to be justifying the costs overall. The Little Mermaid had a budget of $297M. Indy 5 had a budget of almost $300M. Elemental had a $200M budget. The Marvels had a budget of around $220-275M. Each of these films is pulling in under $600M in box office. Most under $500M, and The Marvels may not break $200M, depending on what happens this weekend.

So what the hell are they spending all this money on? Is it reshoots? F/X budgets? Scheduling mismanagement? Where is the money all going? Can they even account for it, or is it just so much money being spent that nobody's really paying that close attention? Given the performance of these films pretty much across the board, it sure looks like the budget Disney and its subsidiaries ought to be paying is closer to $100-150M, because that's about the max you'd spend to turn profits at the rate these films have been performing.

The glaring issue I see is that the studios are pushing big projects through the pipeline too quickly. (Or maybe just too quickly for the amount of corporate focus-group intereference they are going to do).

It becomes impossible to get the scripts & pre-production work done and approved before the cameras are rolling. Then they end up finishing that work during shooting & post-production. In cases like Lucasfilm, all 3 stages have been happening almost concurrently. That means ridiculous amounts of re-shooting (and re-VFX-ing), which ramps up the costs to a stupid degree.

 

[blewis17]

The glaring issue I see is that the studios are pushing big projects through the pipeline too quickly. (Or maybe just too quickly for the amount of corporate focus-group intereference they are going to do).

It becomes impossible to get the scripts & pre-production work done and approved before the cameras are rolling. Then they end up finishing that work during shooting & post-production. In cases like Lucasfilm all 3 stages have been happening almost concurrently. That means ridiculous amounts of re-shooting (and re-VFX-ing), which ramps up the costs to a stupid degree.

 

[NeoRutty]

People love a comeback story…

But they LUST to watch someone or something FALL… whether it’s Disney or Marvel or Rick and Morty or Taylor swift…

Build it up, knock it down. Kill your idols.

 

[blewis17]

People love a comeback story…

But they LUST to watch someone or something FALL… whether it’s Disney or Marvel or Rick and Morty or Taylor swift…

Build it up, knock it down. Kill your idols.

And then...

 

[Vagabond Elf]

Probably won’t check it out in theatres as still recovering from a health issue… BUT, these are the types of reviews that generally have me watching after thinking, “What!?!? this is hilarious! What are peoples problems? Does every movie have to be The Departed to be considered good!? Some movies are just entertaining and not high art!”

EG.

The Flash
WW84
Ms Marvel

But every movie I hear is “great!” I end up watching and hating

Original wonder woman
Rogue One
Turning Red
Encanto

Maybe I just like traaaaaaash.

I’ll probably love it. Ha… but I did HATE “Captain Marvel”…

Back in the 90s, when movie reviews in newspapers were still a thing, there was a reviewer in my local paper that I found super useful - because if he hated a movie I almost always loved it, and if he like I movie I usually found it boring. The biggest thing was that, whilst he'd offer his opinion and conclusions, he also gave enough context for me to form my own opinion.

Anyway, I saw the Marvels last weekend and my conclusion is: it was fun, it was worth my two hours and twenty dollars, it was formulaic enough to be comfortable but changed it up enough to be interesting, and it's a movie that stands by itself - you don't need to have watch Captain Marvel or Wandavision or Ms. Marvel to understand this film, they recap the important bits really well. But they don't dwell on the recap so long that you end up going "I did watch Wandavision, I know all this!"

Also, the stinger made me happy.

 

[JediG60racer]

I liked it, it was fun.

Weird how the over neon CGI has made Marvel movies become the modern day Nickelodeon movie like Shark Boy and Lava Girl or Spy Kids.
The Marvel apple has fallen pretty far from the tree in terms of the Zack Synderization of superhero movies being oddly colored with too much slow mo and the requisite Beastie Boys song montage. But it was still fun.