As for where I was right, that's The Little Mermaid (currently at 422 million). It's strongest domestically (where the appetite for this approach is strongest), but the overall take is unimpressive (it has no hope of catching the anemic Ant-Man 3). There's limited appetite for this kind of film and even domestically it's nowhere near something like 2017's Frozen 2. Overall, less people are going to see these films, so the industry trails far behind pre-pandemic numbers. You'd think this kind of failure would involve some soul searching and a change in approach, but there's no sign of that. Perhaps the situations of Bud Light, Target, etc (even court cases like this) will make an impact and help the industry turn away from toxic ESG approaches (eg). If the MCU brand gets attacked, Disney would be in even greater financial trouble than it already is.
A reminder for this discussion: quality is not what makes a film successful. I saw the latest Jurassic Park last year and it was terrible, but it made a ton of money (just over a billion--spectacle can win out). What's turning people off isn't strictly the quality of the film, but the obvious and toxic marketing and messaging.
I was curious how Into the Spider-Verse 2 would do (As I've said repeatedly over the years, the hype for the first isn't backed by numbers--just 384 at the time, or 464 in today's dollars), so I wondered what would happen five years later after an endless sea of positive coverage. The expectation that the domestic audience would show up has largely proven true (240), but thus far the foreign gross has been awful (88; it echoes Cocaine Bear's domestic/foreign percentages). I have no interest in Miles Morales (sequel characters whose raison d'etre is inclusivity are derivative--what creators should do is create an engaging original character or IP), but I'm curious about popular taste. The film saw a sharp drop last Friday (68%), but had a Guardians-like hold on the weekend proper (43-44%). I don't think the appetite for the IP is strong (it hasn't had any serious competition at the box office yet). The big question is: can it make an impact internationally and, if not, is the domestic market enough? This was not a cheap movie to make so I don't think so. Right now there's a lot of talk of a sequel and spinoffs, but the latter never happened after the first film because of the weak box office, so I think we're on a similar trajectory here (cf Sony's trend of announcing and then deleting projects--announcements are free and pre-production is cheap, but making a film costs money).
The Titanic now known as the MCU has announced a number of date changes for upcoming projects (related, at least in theory, with the writer's strike) and I want to focus on those that are significant:
- Thunderbolts - July to December 2024; yet another IP no one asked for or wants (filled with characters no one likes except, perhaps, John Walker, cf); the change gives it more time for reshoots (aka: add a few jokes)
- Blade - September, 2024 to February, 2025; an expected delay given all the script problems; I'm still expecting it to be a handoff of the moniker to a younger, female character
- Fantastic Four - February to May 2025; creates more time to make it palatable (jokes!), but I'm not expecting any meaningful difference from the steaming pile of Phase Four
- Avengers 5 & 6 - to May, 2026 and May, 2027; as above (re-casting Kang if need-be, cf)
Deadpool 3 was moved up six months in 2024, giving it a better release slot (May), something easier to do since the film is less effects heavy and more self-contained. I'm not expecting much from it, as I thought Deadpool 2 was substantially worse than the original and that trend is likely to continue given the horrendous state of the MCU (cf). Ryan Reynolds signed a five-film deal with Marvel and that clock is ticking, but clearly they want his film to debut before he pops up elsewhere. One wonders if Reynolds' appearances will drag on into irrelevancy like Ben Affleck's in the DCEU.
Like most sane people I don't pay much attention to John Campea (despite his long presence within the community as a commentator). Because of that, it's only now that I've learned he gave up on his public talk show (putting it behind a paywall and firing his two co-hosts; this happened about two months ago) and is mostly posting shorter content. He justified the change because he's losing money (which in a ranting video claims he doesn't need--pick a lane John (cf; he's deleted the original so we're stuck with those that comment on it). His video views have dropped well below that of his competitors. This downward trend is a result of him being a soulless corporate cheerleader--a job anyone, including ChatGPT, can easily do (cf), and not content anyone struggles to find. Campea is on the fast train to obsolescence, but I doubt he'll disappear entirely (many of his less popular friends are still hanging on at the margins of YT; hell, even Matt Jarbo is still around and that's after being exposed for mass flagging other channels). As I mentioned about a year and a half ago, the cultural pendulum is swinging away from Campea and while that doesn't mean similar people won't enjoy a level of success, it does mean there's a ceiling on their popularity.
There was a lot of reader interest in my previous Robert E. Howard IP article, for which I'm thankful (more than the Conan article that preceded it). No doubt the fact no one else was talking about it helps.
This article was written by Peter Levi
No comments:
Post a Comment