Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread

[Rich Watson]

Feige has confirmed a 'Nova' series is coming to Disney+.... eventually. They really are sticking to their two series a year rule, so it's three or four years away.

Marvel's Kevin Feige Confirms Nova Project Is a TV Show, Reveals Timeline for Release (Exclusive)

Despite several voyages into the Marvel cosmos and the introduction of the Nova Corps, the MCU still has yet to bring in one of Marvel’s biggest cosmic characters from the comics Richard Rider, aka Nova. That’s not to say that there haven’t been attempts to bring him into the universe, and there...

comicbook.com

 

[Mage]

I don't think that follows. For one thing, it was just one of multiple issues that drove the strike. For another, the strikes happened because the studios wouldn't deal in good faith at all, refusing to negotiate on matters that could've been easily resolved, so it's not really an indicator of how major any single issue was.

For another, most writers and actors are struggling to make ends meet; it's only a tiny fraction who actually get rich from their professions. So every little bit helps. And the problem was that streaming has replaced a lot of their former sources of residuals and they weren't getting anything from it. So they had to fight to get something from it, even if it's less than they got before.

Yes, that is known.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Feige has confirmed a 'Nova' series is coming to Disney+.... eventually. They really are sticking to their two series a year rule, so it's three or four years away.

Marvel's Kevin Feige Confirms Nova Project Is a TV Show, Reveals Timeline for Release (Exclusive)

Despite several voyages into the Marvel cosmos and the introduction of the Nova Corps, the MCU still has yet to bring in one of Marvel’s biggest cosmic characters from the comics Richard Rider, aka Nova. That’s not to say that there haven’t been attempts to bring him into the universe, and there...

comicbook.com

Since I'm apparently one of the few who has always been indifferent to Nova, I'm perfectly fine with waiting that long or longer for it. I'm far more interested in the plethora of other projects that are still in the pipeline. Yes, including Armor Wars if it ever happens (hopefully we'll finally get some concrete news on it next week).

 

[Anwar]

You really don't. Movies are made to make a profit in theaters.

Not anymore, that's outdated thinking that businesses are struggling to let go of. The industry has changed, the landscape has changed, and streaming is now valid income.

 

[Tuskin38]

Feige says “The Mutant Era” is next

Kevin Feige: “Of Course” All Marvel Films Won’t Be R-Rated & Says “The Mutant Era” Comes Next

Kevin Feige teases the Mutant era coming to the MCU, and says don't expect every Marvel movie to be R-Rated after 'Deadpool & Wolverine.'

theplaylist.net

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

You really don't. Movies are made to make a profit in theaters.

True--it is still the primary business model for first-run movies, despite the deluge of made for streaming productions.

Auxiliary income is auxiliary for a reason, and even the worst bomb in movie history probably could eventually creep into the black after enough decades of broadcast and streaming rights. The only time anyone ever claims otherwise is when defensive fans don't want to admit a movie failed.

It was a dumb defense for Black Adam - to which, as I recall, you weren't willing to extend this same logical get out of jail free card - and it's still a dumb defense for Quantumania.

Indeed. The hyper-defensive, pro-MCU behavior at work with that one.

Underperforming or flop films are in every franchise, whether its entries were Shazam: Fury of the Gods, Quantumania, Blue Beetle or The Marvels.

 

[Mage]

True--it is still the primary business model for first-run movies, despite the deluge of made for streaming productions.

Sorry, but no. That is a "I want it to still be like that" way of thinking. Streaming income is part of how studios calculate what they can make of a movie these days.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Every major, announced MCU movie (e.g., Cap4, Avengers, F.F., etc.) is making its debut...where?

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Wh


Movies WERE made to make a profit in movies. Times have changed. And they might change again. But right now, studios (especially those with their own streaming services) take streaming profit into account. Can we gain more subscribers when this releases on streaming services? And they double down on that. Amazon Prime getting Dune 2 as a Buy Or Rent movie earns WB money, while releasing it on HBO Max later one as a free movie when subscribed. I've known two people close to me who considered getting HBO Max after they told me they liked the first Dune and explained how it would be free there and some of the other stuff that's on there.

It's 2024, not 2004 anymore.

Of course it's not 2004 anymore. In 2004 the same studios were getting far more auxiliary income from broadcast rights and vhs/dvd sales.

Auxiliary income hasn't been new since before I was born. And since streaming has heavily damaged both the physical media market and broadcast/cable tv there is no particularly good reason to believe the studios are making any more on auxiliary income today than they were 20 years ago. And no particularly good reason to believe any of them are pleased with a movie that can't make a profit without auxiliary income.

Not anymore, that's outdated thinking that businesses are struggling to let go of. The industry has changed, the landscape has changed, and streaming is now valid income.

Not anymore since two years ago when you were on the opposite side of this argument in the DC thread?

Sorry, but no. That is a "I want it to still be like that" way of thinking. Streaming income is part of how studios calculate what they can make of a movie these days.

Based on what actual evidence? The only people I've ever seen bring up streaming revenue as something a studio actually considers just as good as box office profit were fans and Dwayne Johnson trying to save his job.

 

[Anwar]

Not anymore since two years ago when you were on the opposite side of this argument in the DC thread?

Did Black Adam even do that well on streaming?

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Of course it's not 2004 anymore. In 2004 the same studios were getting far more auxiliary income from broadcast rights and vhs/dvd sales.

Auxiliary income hasn't been new since before I was born. And since streaming has heavily damaged both the physical media market and broadcast/cable tv there is no particularly good reason to believe the studios are making any more on auxiliary income today than they were 20 years ago.

Well, the long-accepted belief is that the portability of the current media age means people are far more accustomed to watching content sitting in their homes or on the go than any other time in history, so they would--in theory--be an audience to target....

...that said...

And no particularly good reason to believe any of them are pleased with a movie that can't make a profit without auxiliary income.

That's the problem; no matter how convenient watching streaming content is, its not going to polish a filmed creatively bankrupt turd and turn it into a massive, appealing hit, when the very essence of the movie (not to mention the hundreds of millions spent on advertising the "merits" of the film on every platform available) was not enough to drive audiences away from said creatively bankrupt turd. There was no slight of hand that somehow hid the "great" aspects of Shazam: Fury of the Gods or The Marvels away from moviegoers, but was suddenly found and appreciated (enough to become a miracle success) by streaming audiences.

A terrible film is just that, and all of the hand-waving hoodoo attempting to salvage every film in a pockmarked franchise is divorced from reality. Disney/Marvel was not at all pleased with The Marvels' astounding box office failure, which was intended--like every theatrical release--to be able to succeed in that venue, not needing--as you point out--auxiliary income to earn a profit.

Not anymore since two years ago when you were on the opposite side of this argument in the DC thread?

Yep.

 

[kirk55555]

I agree to an extent, but Quantumania definitely did not break even. Earning less than 500m gross on a 326m budget is not even remotely close to breaking even. Huge portions of that gross box office do not go to the studio and the budget figures don't even usually include all the marketing costs.

So, yeah, two movies in one year that lost money (large sums of money in both cases) is a serious issue, especially for a franchise that hasn't lost money on a non-pandemic release since 2008, despite releasing literally dozens of films since then.

At the same time, though, a serious issue is not automatically death's doorstep, either, and Deadpool 3 is showing every sign of probably being the most successful superhero movie since No Way Home.

I'll give you Quantumania (I was looking at a source that had its budget at only $200 million, but that might have been ignoring marketing), but still two bad releases isn't that serious, especially when you realize how many films Disney releases in general and the fact that Movies/TV aren't Disney's biggest money makers anyway. They made over 30 billion in revenue just off of their theme park/cruise business alone last year. Factoring in things like merchandising, licensing, etc and Disney can absorb two unsuccessful films in a massively successful franchise fairly easily, especially since the franchise makes them money on a lot of non-movie/TV things, too.

Disney isn't WB, they aren't on death's door, hobbled by debt. They're a massively profitable company that had a few dings on one part of their business, and its doubtful that those small dings actually indicate problems with their film stuff overall. Remember that they also had to deal with an idiot CEO for a few years, and apparently Feige even got overruled on MCU stuff (at least some of the streaming stuff) during that time. A lot of factors hurt the MCU for a bit, but it was never in much danger overall, and its looking to have a big upswing.

 

[JD]

The theatrical release has always been a minor part of the money that movies bring, back when I was in high school in the early '00s, I took a marketing or some kind of business class and the teacher had called the theatrical release of a movie a two hour commercial for the DVD because at the time that was where the majority of the money came from. I'm pretty sure now you can probably add streaming to that. And I think with TV it was syndication and possibly international sales that bring in a lot of their money, and now streaming too.

 

[Turtletrekker]

The theatrical release has always been a minor part of the money that movies bring, back when I was in high school in the early '00s, I took a marketing or some kind of business class and the teacher had called the theatrical release of a movie a two hour commercial for the DVD because at the time that was where the majority of the money came from. I'm pretty sure now you can probably add streaming to that. And I think with TV it was syndication and possibly international sales that bring in a lot of their money, and now streaming too.

Don't forget merchandising. Jon Favreau tells the story of how when they were producing Iron Man, Ike Perlmitter, who was co-owner of the Toy Biz brand with Avi Arad, commented that he would be happy if the movie broke even because he believed that the toys and merchandise was where the real money was.

 

[Anwar]

There was no slight of hand that somehow hid the "great" aspects of Shazam: Fury of the Gods or The Marvels away from moviegoers, but was suddenly found and appreciated (enough to become a miracle success) by streaming audiences.

Actually, The Marvels' was due to the Strikes, the lack of promotions and marketing and what little marketing it got making people think they needed to see the D+ shows to understand it when they didn't.

And by your logic, the Shining and Fight Club and the Thing 1982 must all be awful.

 

[JD]

Don't forget merchandising. Jon Favreau tells the story of how when they were producing Iron Man, Ike Perlmitter, who was co-owner of the Toy Biz brand with Avi Arad, commented that he would be happy if the movie broke even because he believed that the toys and merchandise was where the real money was.

Oh yeah, that too. I don't even want to imagine what franchises like Star Wars and the MCU bring in through merchandising.

 

[Christopher]

Oh yeah, that too. I don't even want to imagine what franchises like Star Wars and the MCU bring in through merchandising.

Yes, I think Star Wars's financial success as a franchise was due at least as much to the toys as it was to the films, probably more so. Certainly Boba Fett's popularity came overwhelmingly from the toys, since he was a bit player in the movies. And much of the lore of the universe, species and character names and backstories, was created for the action figures rather than the films.

 

[FreezeC77]

Don't forget merchandising. Jon Favreau tells the story of how when they were producing Iron Man, Ike Perlmitter, who was co-owner of the Toy Biz brand with Avi Arad, commented that he would be happy if the movie broke even because he believed that the toys and merchandise was where the real money was.

 

[FreezeC77]

Yes, I think Star Wars's financial success as a franchise was due at least as much to the toys as it was to the films, probably more so. Certainly Boba Fett's popularity came overwhelmingly from the toys, since he was a bit player in the movies. And much of the lore of the universe, species and character names and backstories, was created for the action figures rather than the films.

I wonder how much 'toy sales' really are. It doesn't seem like toy figures and vehicles are in the 2020s what they were in the 80s or 90s. Of course you have other merchandising avenues that didn't exist. Video Games are bigger. I think clothing and apparel is larger with more global worldwide as well.

 

[Christopher]

I think clothing and apparel is larger with more global worldwide as well.

Oh, there was plenty of Star Wars clothing and apparel back in the '70s-'80s. I think I had Star Wars pajamas or sheets once, and I went trick-or-treating as C-3PO. And the model kits! I had a C-3PO model kit and one of Darth Vader's TIE Fighter, neither of which I assembled or painted particularly well.

Oddly, though, the only SW action figure I ever owned was a solitary R5-D4. I mostly just played with my across-the-street neighbor's SW toys. (And space LEGOs, back when they were new.)