I have no idea who was eager for Guardians 3 (the Christmas Special barely made a blip and no one I know has seen it). We had indications of diminished interest when the second film failed to outperform the first (an anomaly in that era of the MCU). The Infinity Saga films helped, but they also created a problem for the finale: there were almost no character arcs left to finish--the second film completed Quill's personal arc; the Infinity films completed the romance along with Gamora and Nebula's arcs; Groot isn't a character, so all that's left is Rocket. I like the racoon, but never felt drawn to his backstory (something that seemed purely functional). I've said before that James Gunn's 'magic' from the first film was a fluke because he's never repeated it (The Suicide Squad was horrendous). In addition, the MCU brand has turned into a broken sewer pipe, dragging down each new product. All of this meant that Guardians 3 was going to have to be a great movie to reach box office expectations. Clearly, it isn't (as we can see above).
Prior to release projections for it were falling, but it managed to open better than Ant-Man 3. Despite the weak opening, it had a strong second weekend, so it won't bomb. That said, it's still on track to be limp, final gasp of the nostalgic holdovers from the first three Phases (it will fall short of Thor 3 numbers, which is a disappointment, but it will at least break even).
This film was the last nostalgia bullet left in the MCU gun (even most of the Netflix nostalgia is exhausted, with only an aged Jessica Jones left to debut). The big names won't come back (although money could change that), and there's nothing in the pipeline for anyone to get excited about (the hilarity continues as the MCU-run Marvel comics has killed Ms. Marvel, which must say something about how that IP has been received). Marvel has admitted internally that their writing is terrible and hurting the product, but the people responsible for that are still in charge and I can't imagine anything can change so long as they continue to aim for ESG/BlackRock funding (which, besides the money itself, is required to win awards, and winning awards often has cash incentives attached to it for creators).
More often than not, critics give expensive films a free pass when they put out their reviews, but the gloves are off for Indian Jones 5 and it's amusing to see (similar to Witcher: Blood Origin, where Netflix allowed critics to dogpile it, cf, unlike the equally awful Willow). This latitude can only come with the tacit permission of the studio, so clearly Bob Iger is aware there's no saving the Kathleen Kennedy spearheaded sequel. Personally, given how awful Indiana Jones 4 is (and how comparatively weak the third film is), this isn't a surprise. Only the short-lived TV adaptation (1992-93) of the IP properly navigated what you could do with it (that show made me aware of Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck, among other things). This is also the wrong era for pulp adaptations (see Conan below), as that's considered too toxic for the sensibilities of the sensitive public (apparently no one in the 1% has read or viewed manga/anime). In this case, I'm perfectly content putting the IP to bed and it's another welcome embarrassment for Disney (not that I think this will meaningfully improve their future products).
The Blade odyssey continues, as production was halted due to the writer's strike. You have to wonder just what they'll do given that Mahershala Ali was not young when signed and, now at 49, how far you can go with the character whenever it appears? Marvel's initial pan was for Blade to immediately pass the torch to a female successor (ala Kate Bishop/Hawkeye), so his age wasn't an issue when hired, but as Ali has almost certainly demanded having the focus on him, the problem re-emerges. I also wonder what sort of MCU environment Blade could fit into--the brand is in freefall, so will anyone care in 2-3 years when (if) the film comes out?
The Jada Smith Cleopatra controversy has been hilarious to watch. It's one of the few occasions where people on the right and left came together to reject nonsense (The Mary Sue condemned it, when you'd assume they would fully support ESG initiatives irrespective of quality). On the surface the documentary is no different than the broader trend we've seen in entertainment (be it a black Anne Boleyn or Queen Charlotte), but Smith irrationally made the decision to call her historical invention a 'documentary' and this put Netflix in a bind (despite their reputation for being 'creative' with facts). While the usual response of calling any criticism racist was used, it didn't cause the usual reflection in the media since Egyptians were protesting the lunacy on display. The show bombed immediately and if there's a positive beyond that, it's that a few Americans have become educated on the issue (it's amazing how many, including Smith herself, believe Africa is racially homogenized--the star was also unaware, saying "I find it sad that people are either so self-loathing or so threatened by the Blackness that they feel the need to do that, to separate Egypt from the rest of the continent"). For decades I've watched Americans try to claim Egypt as a cultural touchstone for African-Americans and it's a bizarre approach given that there are plenty of genuine options to use. I suspect the appeal is a mix of Egypt's importance in the bible (Christianity remains an important element within the African-American community) and as the most well-known/popular culture in Africa.
We finally got an update on Conan at Netflix, which is to say Conan is no longer at Netflix and is now being pursued as a future film. The IP sat at the streaming service for three years after being given a pass at Amazon (spending two years there). The problem was the same in both places, as neither was willing to make an authentic adaptation. Fortunately for Conan, his rights holder won't cave ala Sapkowski or the Tolkien Estate, so whenever we do see him on-screen, it will be in the proper spirit. Just like with Indiana Jones above, this is a bad era for pulp heroes, since there's no interest in white male leads and the usual story arcs that go with them. That's not to say the public doesn't want them, but rather that executives making creative decisions do not. Culturally we are starting to see this be slightly rolled back and that change could accelerate depending on a number of factors, but at least for Conan none of this is an issue as long as there's a distributor found (a problem the sister IP, Red Sonja, has yet to conquer, cf).
This article was written by Peter Levi
No comments:
Post a Comment