After the release of Shang-Chi (the second Phase Four bomb after Black Widow), featuring the irritating Simu Liu, a sequel was expected via the talentless Cretton (cf) returning to write and direct (those with good memories will recall Cretton claimed Shang-Chi would be like The Matrix--not so much!). Since then there has been radio silence (just a vague promise it would appear after Avengers: The Kang Dynasty, now set to appear in 2026). Given the lack of appetite for the character, I never believed we'd get a sequel (just Shang-Chi shoehorned into a hero group, presumably The Avengers), and now we've learned that Cretton has been booted from the aforementioned Avengers film (probably due to the new SAG agreement), but in theory is still in charge of the hypothetical Shang-Chi sequel and Wonderman show that's likely never going to appear (passim; it's rumoured the actors from that show have been told to move on). Cretton, just like Nia DaCosta (The Marvels), Chloe Zhao (The Eternals), etc, were hired because of what he is, not who he is (ticking a representation box for ESG). With the strike agreement in place it's impossible to continue the MCU's approach of ghost directors handling action/FX-heavy scenes while leaving the talking to ESG picks. Marvel is now forced to have actual showrunners and directors and none of the aforementioned (nor D+ folks) have shown any ability to do that successfully with comicbook material.
In the same theme as Shang-Chi above, there was talk of an Eternals sequel when released, with comments from Feige that the characters would be appearing subsequently. However, not only has a sequel not been announced, none of the characters have reappeared and the expected attachment of Kamala Khan to the franchise was removed entirely. It's not that Eternals bombed much harder than Shang-Chi (402 vs 432), but the film was seen as so horrendous by the industry (even shills) that they gave up on it immediately (the leak prior to its release, something virtually unprecedented for the MCU, seems like a sign of how little faith they had in it).
Grace Randolph, the more successful female version of John Campea, is stating the obvious: the MCU (a brand built to sell toys to boys, but happened to appeal to girls as well) is struggling to switch that appeal to a larger female/diverse audience. None of the efforts have worked (I know people it does work for, but that number has shrank to just a few). The most amusing thing about The Marvels flop is that women did not show up (35% of the audience); it's less surprising that Caucasians skipped it (just 36%; Marvel constantly attacking that audience is paying dividends). The only thing the MCU's approach has achieved is to mildly appeal to older diverse men, but in numbers too small to support the franchise. This reality isn't something Disney or Marvel can accept (or its few remaining fans, in my experience) so we aren't going to see a change in approach until the brand completely implodes. Until then, most MCU fans have (just like graphic novel fans) migrated to Anime/Manga where there's no ESG in sight.
Speaking of the future, Andre has a theory that Loki season two (which no one is watching; not in the top-10 streaming shows and only 5th among originals) has opened the door to replacing the very troubled Jonathan Majors (Kang; his legal situation isn't as bad as Tenoch Huerta (Namor)--as the fired Victoria Alonso would remind us, you have to role the 'R' with Huerta, "Rrrrrrrape"). Tom Hiddleston has said he's done with Marvel (I wouldn't put much stock in that comment, but it is amusing to see someone as 'progressive' as Hiddleston get fed-up with the direction of his character--just like his buddy Thor, Chris Hemsworth). Loki would be an excellent Memberberry to include in the next Avengers film (repeating his appearance as their original villain). Marvel could get away with that since most of its audience has no idea what's been happening in Phase Four and Five. That would be the perfect recipe for a reboot, but it's difficult to imagine that happening or, if it did, it improving while an unfettered Kevin Feige is in charge (bringing back Robert Downey Jr.'s Iron Man is a desperate act and you have to wonder if they will John Krasinski-him in the process).
Netflix's She-Ra (2018-20) and He-Man (2021-22) have been sold off to Amazon. If it's difficult to parse this reality with the media narrative about how successful the shows were, that's tells you something about corporate media. The IP is meant to sell toys and when it doesn't and struggles with ratings that's not a success. Regardless, it's extremely unlikely Amazon will do anything useful with the IP (more Rings of Power volcanoes to the face), but it's a suitably botched ending for Netflix's hilarious fumbling of the franchise.
The pampered lunatic known as Rachal Zegler (the upcoming Snow White, passim) has seen her Hunger Games film open lower than megabomb The Marvels (44 vs 46). There's a context in that The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes cost less (80 million), so there's a chance it could avoid losing money. Whether treading water is enough for more films to be made is hard to say (probably), but you have to think Zegler won't be a part of that future. What's funny is this is exactly the fanbase that The Marvels was pursuing, but neither has worked (albeit I assume the female demographic of the audience is much higher).
You would have thought after the Cleopatra disaster a lesson might have been learned by Netflix about race swapping popular historical figures, but clearly that's not the case as Denzel Washington has been tapped to play Hannibal of Carthage (I'm sure someone's mother also dreamed about him being black). For those who don't know, the descendants of the Phoenicians are the Lebanese, an underrepresented minority group (just like Egyptians) who are not sub-Saharan Africans (and thus don't seem to 'count' as meaningful in America--along with North Africans, Turks, and so on). I don't know what audience they think they are targeting--Bridgerton? Washington is a fantastic actor, but he's far too old for the part (68; Hannibal was 29 at the start of the Second Punic War), not to mention it's a cultural insult to both the historical person and the culture he was part of (it's both cultural imperialism and appropriation, but we'll have to see if the Neo-Liberal left (ala The Mary Sue) oppose it here like they did with Cleopatra). What this choice tells me is Netflix is still receiving ESG money (or some equivalent), as none of this vapid virtue signaling actually appeals to the general audience. My guess is execs wanted the hero (Hannibal) to be played by a minority in order to fight the evil white (Roman) enemies.
This article was written by Peter Levi
