Blue Beetle Bombs, James Gunn's Struggles Continue, MCU Changes, Executive States the Obvious, Baldur's Gate 'Controversy', and a Silly Barbie Theory

As expected, Blue Beetle has bombed, falling short of even Shazam 2's anemic opener (25 vs 30). As I went through back in March, the film is the last from the Ann Sarnoff regime that was left untouched when Discovery bought WB. While I can imagine an iteration of this character that works (a smaller budget and based on the 80s version of the IP), Sarnoff saddled us with a family drama with all the baggage of the current superhero era. It's only hope was to hit it big with American Latinos (the targeted audience), but the pandering hasn't worked (unlike with Disney's bomb Encanto). Are there any lessons learned by the current James Gunn regime? It doesn't look like it, as we'll get into below.

The disaster of James Gunn's tenure as the head of DC continues (the guy has to be more careful with what he says to the media). After revealing in December that he wasn't bringing back Henry Cavill because of his age, he began to change the narrative in January and now says he's not writing a film for a younger Superman. Why put yourself in this position? Why lie at the outset and have to walk it back? This comes off the heels of 'is he or is he not' bringing back Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman which followed endless praising of Ezra Miller despite the The Mad Goose Wizard's innumerable issues (cf). My belief is Gunn has no plan. Nothing definitive, just ideas. I thought he was a poor pick as an executive (that includes when he was going to helm 'Cosmic Marvel' for Kevin Feige) and there's no evidence that he understands or could create a good Superman story. Most people's impression of him is the first Guardians film, a story written by someone else and whose success he can't replicate. His 'true form', as it were, is The Suicide Squad, a boring bomb that's less memorable than David Ayer's mess years earlier (I'll take a bad B-movie over an unfunny comedy any day).

Flipping over to the MCU, rumours about dumping terrible writers are floating around. One comes from the reputable Jeff Sneider, which is that Ant-Man 3 writer Jeff Loveness had been dumped from co-writing the next Avengers films. More interestingly, if on less solid ground, K. C. Walsh (who is a friend of scoopers rather than a scooper himself) claims the laughable Michael Waldron (Loki/Doctor Strange 2) has also been dumped from that project. Both writers are terrible, so if true their departures are a blessing, but it's highly probable Kevin Feige (if given the freedom) will find folks equally as awful to fill their shoes.

One Piece EP Marty Adelstein just realized that 1+1=2 saying, in light of Cowboy Bebop bombing (cf), "we learned is the fans are expecting you to be true to the source material." No shit Sherlock. Apparently Adelstein never looked at the box office for The Lord of the Rings (2001-03) or the Harry Potter films (2001-11). In fairness to Adelstein, he's hamstrung by ESG obligations, but it's still funny to hear comments like this from people in power.

I've been playing Baldur's Gate 3 most of this month and thoroughly enjoying it--the game feels like Dragon Age prior to their safe approach in Inquisition (2014). I bring it up here because of comments from former DA writer David Gaider who said (in reference to the character Lae'zel):

"The Dragon Age fandom consistently gave WAY more latitude and forgiveness to male as opposed to female characters, in every game. ... Fandom has always treated male characters with more forgiveness - full stop."

Gaider makes no effort to justify his position because, in his mind, none is needed. The opinion has been handed down to him from on high and questioning it is a sign that you are ignorant and an ideological enemy. His comment (even if you agree with it) is worthless because it doesn't actually address the issue which is why this specific character doesn't resonate with (some) fans? The notion that the problem is tied to gender is absurd on its face. The worthwhile exploration would be digging into the specifics of the character (my two cents is that all the BG3 characters are fairly thin 'types' and, lacking depth, so are judged on their dominant characteristics). This kind of rhetorical shorthand by privileged people like Gaider is dismissive, divisive and unhelpful.

Speaking of divisive, I wanted to look at something that Randall Park said, not because I'm interested in Park (who is an unremarkable character actor), but because it neatly encapsulates an underlying belief shared in Hollywood (and to a lesser extent some in the public):

"I feel like, just in general, this industry is taking the wrong lessons. For example, Barbie is this massive blockbuster, and the idea is: Make more movies about toys! No. Make more movies by and about women!" and "Asians folks have some of the worst representation in Hollywood by the numbers, and it’s never made sense to me because studios are courting the Asian box office, which is almost as big as the North American box office. But it feels like Asians aren’t really allowed to complain about that because of the whole ‘model minority’ thing"

Let's quickly go over Park's assumptions:

• The entertainment industry is underrepresented by films made by and about women. This is a quantitative argument, with the idea being if 50% (or more) films fit that paradigm lives (or at least women's lives) would be measurably better. This is a false equivalency (if just having representation made things better, we'd already be living in a better society--how many people are watching the WNBA?--instead the aggressive application of this approach has lead to further divisiveness). There's an underlying sexism and racism in Park's comment as he implies only women can write for women and that women can only relate to a character if she's from her own ethnic group--this has never been true (ask the Japanese about Anne of Green Gables). It's a sign of how little critical thinking Park is engaged in when talking like this
• Representation can be assessed by volume (the higher the density of diverse group X, the better): as I said above, forced diversity seems to make race relations worse; Park is also part of a minority group that's near the top of the economic pyramid (cf; for those unaware, Indian-Americans (not to be confused with Natives) are at the top in the US, UK, and Canada). Park is using 'Asian' to mean East and Southeast Asians (not West, South, or the forgotten North Asians--I doubt Park is concerned with the Russian representation from North Asia). How has diverse casting helped the African-American community (the most commonly inserted group)? Not at all (see the economic list). This problem is unrelated to skin colour (as should be already be obvious), as many Caribbean and African populations in the US do better than white Americans (as, indeed, do all the Asians in Park's sense of the term)
• Courting the Asian box office means you should cast more Asians (in the 'Asian' sense of the above, although I can assure you none of those varied groups see themselves as interchangeable): we have to read between the lines, but given Park's understanding of 'Asian' he means the Chinese box office and he's missing the point that they don't need 'Asians' in them to be popular--what audiences want are entertaining films (this seems obvious, but Park clearly doesn't understand the qualitative difference between Ant-Man 3 and The Avengers)
• Asians can't complain: this isn't true at all, as there are innumerable Asians (including Park himself) who complain. The problem is, Park's ethnic group (Korean) is doing extremely well in the entertainment industry and he's in the fortunate position where his culture is broadly popular and has an extremely successful entertainment industry (as do Japan, China, and India for that matter). Korea doesn't need to be pandered too--they export their culture--and I highly doubt Park is demanding Korean films to be more diverse (however amusing it would be to have Jada Pinkett Smith do a Psy biopic where he's a black woman)

Why is Park complaining? I think it's twofold. 1) Park himself isn't being offered the roles he believes he should be, 2) These ideas are what he hears repeatedly from his colleagues and peer group--Park is repeating talking points without thinking critically about them.

This article was written by Peter Levi

DCEU Chaos Continues; TMNT Avoids a Bud Light-Style Boycott; Mission Impossible Bombs; More DEI Fallout

I've felt like James Gunn's plans for DC have been haphazard and poorly thought out from the beginning (cf and cf), and bringing back Gal Gadot (the Synderverse's Wonder Woman) fits that perfectly. The character is coming off an embarrassing second film where she rapes a man (an incident DC has ignored since, passively going with Patty Jenkins after-the-fact justification), with the sequel not matching her prior continuity (cf). Gadot is getting older (38) and can't act, so why bring her back? My assumption is Gadot is being set-up for a Indiana Jones/Hulk situation, preparing to hand things off to a younger, more diverse iteration. I believe Gadot was kept over the other two Snyder trilogy characters because Ben Affleck can't return as Batman (age being problematic (51), as well as the complications of the Matt Reeves iteration), while Henry Cavill won't come back after WB has systematically screwed him over and rejected him. We know Gadot doesn't have much audience pull because of The Flash box office, so I don't think the memberberry is going to perform the task Gunn has set out for her. It's just another boondoggle for DC which has been at sea since the third Nolan Batman movie in 2012.

I don't really care about Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles one way or another (I enjoyed the original RPG, but that's it), but I have been amused that Paramount appears to have been caught doing a little pre-emptive damage control for the upcoming film. Apparently the film was originally going to feature an orientation swapping, with Splinter switched from straight to gay. This was caught out in an early screening and a poster that was up for a month. However, someone at the company has made all that disappear and the director has disavowed the whole thing. The speculation, which seems reasonable, is that they are terrified of a Bud Light-scenario where the film gets boycotted, so with some VO work and editing that element has been removed. I wouldn't be seeing this movie anyway, but as someone who wants adaptations to respect the source material, I'm glad they've backed off on the ESG nonsense.

There were a lot of people on the right komming over Top Gun: Maverick's success as it was seen as bucking the BlackRock trends to massive success. For whatever reason they put a lot of faith in Tom Cruise as someone who could succeed without leaning on that apparatus and assumed his next Mission Impossible would achieve success. My only thought about Cruise is his ridiculous Oprah appearance (2005) and South Park putting him in the closet for most of an episode (2005). That aside, Mission Impossible has bombed (just 451 on a budget of nearly 300 million). To reiterate what many people have been saying for years: movie stars don't matter. A popular actor appearing in something has no influence on box office. Memberberries (popular characters) can help, but by themselves aren't enough. The trick in modern cinema seems to be: 1) spectacle (Avatar 2) a sense of fun or action (Maverick/Barbie), 3) relatively inoffensive (simplistic messaging for the targeted market that doesn't overwhelm the story). This hasn't produce anything good (I haven't seen anything I really enjoyed in five years), but it works enough for the popular audience.

The fallout of Disney's legal battle with Florida continues, as the state has eliminated diversity, equity, and inclusion programs (or DEI). These likely would have been struck down anyway via the Supreme Court's Affirmative Action decision, but could have taken years as lawsuits worked their way through the courts. This only impacts Disney's parks and associated business ventures in the state and does not preclude informal approaches along those lines. Effectively it eliminate a few positions and means Disney will have to be more creative if it wants to maintain the approach (as it must to continue receiving BlackRock funding).

This article was written by Peter Levi

More Troubles for Netflix Witcher; George R. R. Martin's HBO Deal on Hold; Barbenheimer Stays Strong at the Box Office; and More

The embarrassing mess that is Netflix's The Witcher (see below) has been given a welcome reprieve as production of season four (originally planned for September) is on hold until 2024. As RDI speculates, this is probably due to the writer and actor strikes, but it serves as a welcome pause which could allow Netflix to just let it die. No one is excited about the Netflix show anymore and with Cavill leaving, there's nothing to retain the casuals who have survived the incoherence to this point.

George R. R. Martin's HBO deal (2021) has been suspended. I think most of the projects proposed would never see the light of day anyway, but this suspension is unrelated to that and more about the strike. What I don't believe is that he's working on book six of Game of Thrones (cf on his general bullshitting on that account)--I've long thought Martin gave up on finishing the series, which he hopelessly complicated and derailed with the fourth and fifth books. He's allowed himself to become a fanboy of his own content, hopelessly lost in the imagined histories about events whose outcomes are already known.

Barbie and Oppenheimer have had soft drops for their second weekends, meaning they are both smash hits in terms of box office (helped, to be fair, by having almost no competition). Barbie will catch Guardians 3 for second place this year (I don't think it can reach Super Mario's number), while Oppenheimer could roll past Little Mermaid to 6th this year (yes, that's how dismal the box office has been). Oppenheimer's success doesn't mean much of anything beyond more blank cheques for Christopher Nolan. The Barbie result is more interesting to me, because (some) conservatives attempted to Bud Light the film because of how they saw its messaging, but 'won't someone think of the children!' has only ever had a Streisand Effect so I'm curious what lessons, if any, they learn from this (the same goes for the industry, which has been trying films and shows like this for years but with little to no success).

Angry Joe is about as milquetoast of a critic as you could get for film and TV (cf). However, he, like parts of the mainstream media, has either hit a breaking point or (more likely) seen enough backlash that he's finally put the breaks on praising all of it. Joe has dunked on Witcher season three as well as the unwatchable Secret Invasion. Your reaction might be, hey, they were just bad shows, but that doesn't normally stop Joe, as he went to bat for She-Hulk among other thing. This is only interesting as a barometer of a cultural shift I've been seeing for awhile--one that hasn't impacted what's being made, but is killing much of what is.

A little over a year ago there were rumours that Kamala Khan creator Sana Amanat was going to be quietly removed from Marvel due to MeToo allegations. That clearly has not happened, which suggests any consequences Amanat faced (if any) did not impact her career. I don't know if these accusations are true (they were never tried in court), but as with sexual assault it's uncommon for women to face the same kind of penalties as men (even when their victims are also women, ala Joey Soloman, cf, or the better known Amber Heard situation).

This article was written by Peter Levi

Barbenheimer Takes Theatres Off Life Support, Snow White Adaptation in Trouble, and Affirmative Action Fallout Continues

After two mega bombs in Indiana Jones 5 (June 30, 335; cf) and The Flash (June 16, 267; cf) allowed Discount Spiderman 2 (June 2) and Little Mermaid (May 26) to eek out a bit more box office (675/556 respectively), Mission Impossible: Tom Cruise plays Tom Cruise (July 12) cleared the slate despite a weak opening (short of 55 million its opening weekend) and is on target to disappoint vs expectations. What's arrived now is Barbie and another bloated, overrated Christopher Nolan film (Oppenheimer). Both are having genuinely big opening weekends (estimates are 155/80) assisted by excellent marketing (no fan-baiting; somehow I missed the entire campaign), but it remains to be seen if they have legs (are they like Batman v Superman or Black Panther 2, where word-of-mouth killed them after a big opener?). On the plus side, they face no meaningful competition. Putting the openers in perspective, if the estimates are correct Barbie beat Super Mario for the biggest opener of 2023, although it trails 2022's Doctor Strange 2 and Black Panther 2 among recent films (releases that occurred before fans realized the MCU had become utter shit). It's important to remember that because of ticket price inflation there's about half as many people in theaters as there were 20 years ago, so while in comparison to recent films it's a great opener, it's unremarkable historically. What's interesting to me is if it can hold audience interest. I've seen a lot of pushback from conservatives over Barbie's messaging, but whether general audiences care remains to be seen (I don't think The Sound of Freedom is a good comparison for people on the right, as the Neo-Liberal backlash to that film seems to be what boosted it--complaining about a true story about human trafficking created a Streisand effect).

I had no idea there was a live action Snow White film in the works (to be inflicted on the world in 2024), but it looks just as clueless as Little Mermaid and I have no idea why you'd pose Gal Gadot as being jealous of Rachel Zegler--it causes ludonarrative dissonance and no one seeing that believes it. People can wish beauty standards were different, but that can't be meaningfully changed (there's some historical and cultural variation in body shape, but facial beauty is related to symmetry and both are tied to underlying signs of health--that's never going to change). That aside, Snow White is yet another girl boss--oh boy, that's a fresh take! I'm curious to see how much of the target audience (girls/women) will show up (my expectation is it will do better in the US than internationally, but flop regardless). Much like Barbie above, this film wasn't made for me, but I am curious about audience trends and what does (or doesn't) work for the public.

Diversity

My prior surmise that the recent Supreme Court decision about Affirmative Action would impact Hollywood has been confirmed. This doesn't mean efforts to cast diversely will stop (people will certainly continue to push for it, even in historic biopics like Oppenheimer), just like BlackRock moving away from the ESG name won't alter their funding of such efforts. What it does mean is the executives who were hired for such tasks are being jettisoned. As The Wall Street Journal says:

New analysis from employment data provider Live Data Technologies shows that chief diversity officers have been more vulnerable to layoffs than their human resources counterparts, experiencing 40% higher turnover. Their job searches are also taking longer. ... The number of CDO searches is down 75% in the past year, says Jason Hanold, chief executive of Hanold Associates Executive Search, which works with Fortune 100 companies to recruit HR and DEI executives, among other roles. Demand is the lowest he has seen in his 30 years of recruiting. [my emphasis] ... “They’re telling us, the only way I want to go into another role with DEI is if it includes something else,” he says of the requests for broader titles that offer more responsibilities and resources. He estimates that 60% of diversity roles he is currently filling combine the title with another position, such as chief human resources officer, up from about 10% five years ago. ... Since the Supreme Court overturned affirmative action in June, companies are anticipating spillover legal action could have an impact on them [my emphasis]

What people should take away from this is that corporations don't care about causes (something I would have assumed everyone knew, but apparently that's not the case). BlackRock does have an underlying reason for funding this (largely as a distraction from its unethical practices), so as long as they do, others will play that game. However, the people being funded are only interested in the money, so the moment that disappears, so does everything else (for those who think this only applies to Target or Walmart or other giant companies, don't fool yourself--if progressive Critical Role couldn't make money promoting the agenda, they wouldn't promote it--it's a business, not a charity). There's also been a complete failure to spread this approach elsewhere. Russia and China are going in the opposite direction (ultraconservative, with Russia at that point and China following suit) and there are indications many African and Eastern European nations are going the same way, while the Middle East never embraced the agenda. You have to ask yourself: what has this approach achieved? The populations in the West are now heavily divided over something they felt positively about just ten years ago (the 2013 legalization of same-sex marriage in the US serving as a kind of capstone)--the autocratic, preachy, top down approach not only doesn't help but has created a backlash that's becoming increasingly virulent. It's worth asking why corporate entities (and their government drones) continue the confrontational approach when the prior tactic of bottom-up, hey we just want the same rights as everyone else, worked so well (oddly enough, screaming at someone does not turn them into an ally).

This article was written by Peter Levi

Indiana Jones 5 and Witcher Season Three Bomb along with more Echo Troubles

To the surprise of no one Indiana Jones 5 has bombed in spectacular fashion, as it echoed The Flash's anemic opener. The film wasn't helped by how bad Indy 4 is and that, unlike Star Wars, other than the original film, there's no universal acclaim for the prior entries (both Temple of Doom and Last Crusade had their critics--as a kid I preferred the former to the latter, but neither were as good as the first film). That said, there was still plenty of affection for the IP and, unlike The Flash, the impact of its failure is far more limited--Disney knew the film was bad before release and the IP has been largely inert since Indy 4. I've seen it argued (1:38:42-1:39:34/2:42:27-2:42:42) that the Affirmative Action decision in the US will impact how ESG functions at the company (if the approach can be legally challenged, companies will have to search for a workaround). This pair of big budget failures has helped discount Spider-Man continue to limp forward into 'meh' box office territory (Spider-Man 3 made 1.9 billion, Miles Morales has reached 647 million). To dovetail back into the Indiana Jones IP: I don't think either George Lucas or Steven Spielberg ever understood the IP, not just because of the abominable fourth film, but from the various problems that occurred in the sequels. I mentioned previously that only the TV-show came close to capturing the right spirit, but it also failed and I think we're in for an unfortunate reboot in the future.

More rumours about the poor quality of Echo have leaked, with a long time Marvel stuntman saying he's been told that the show was originally going to be scrapped (Batgirl-style), but Disney was desperate for content because of the (still ongoing) writer's strike so decided to air it. This echoes (heh) comments from insider Jeff Sneider who said in May the show was so bad it had to be completely reshot with a shorter episode count. All of this seems highly plausible and I expect Willow-levels of awfulness. The only question is: does it kill Echo as an IP and further damage Daredevil and Kingpin? Time will tell, but I think for the former the answer is definitively 'yes'.

While it's much too late, Bud Light finally fired Marketing VP Alissa Heinerscheid for the campaign that has lost them around 28 billion at this point. The marketing began (appropriately enough) on April 1st, but many (myself included) did not think Bud would ever fire the person responsible. Billions of value lost later and on June 27th, she was terminated. While Heinerscheid did not get the same gush of media support that Disney's Victoria Alonso received months ago, the press did their best to shame any and all who participated in the backlash, but to no effect--the people who drink cheap, crappy beer hated the media long before this. I'm curious what impact, if any, this has on the entertainment industry (many of their viewers also drink cheap beer). Is this why the hammer has started to fall diversity heads? I suspect there's another cause, but I'll get into that below.

I'm not sure there's a point in covering Witcher season three, as I have no plans to watch it (even the overly generous xLetalis says he won't watch after this season--his poorly thought out pseudo-apology video for his reaction seems to be an effort to play nice with both sides). There are people enjoying the season, but for the first time I don't know any personally. To me there was never any hope for the show after its botched first season. What we can hope for is that there is no fourth season and that the push for botched adaptations disappears with Rings of Power (Jeff Bezos is finally asking what Amazon Prime is doing to bleed so much money, but Bezos is an ESG supporter, so I wouldn't expect any meaningful changes to their products).

Diversity Heads fired

I mentioned last time that Diversity Chief Latondra Newton was fired from Disney, but as it turns out she is one of four who have been terminated recently (Verna Myers at Netflix and Karen Horne and Jeanell English at WB--they are all women, of course, because men are inherently problematic--except for people like Elliott Page, presumably). There are reasons to think these moves are connected to the Supreme Court decision referenced above, although all three of these companies are bleeding money and cutting expensive sinecures helps. The reality is meaningful diversity doesn't require a manager (creating departments to govern behaviour is Orwellian, after all). It's not clear that this will result in any meaningful changes in the quality of entertainment produced, as there are no signs of positive developments as box office hits historic lows. For those few who find firings like this alarming, there are plenty of safe places to go, from Mastodon to Critical Role and so forth. While BlackRock has talked about moving away from the name ESG, it continues to fund its goals so I'm expecting plenty more Witcher: Blood Origins, She-Hulks, The Woman Kings, and so on.

It's been interesting watching Andy Signore's career evolve after beating the MeToo charges that got him fired from Screen Rant (cf; a channel that seems dead outside of Pitch Meeting). At first Signore attached himself to Fandom Wire, then jumped back into the YT game as an entertainment commentator/scooper. This effort did not work, as he had generic, Campea-like opinions and often got into fights with other people in the community. He jumped on the Johnny Depp trial and has ridden that success into being a celebrity gossip channel for court cases--it's a successful niche and a redemption story. I have no investment in Signore (his content isn't to my taste), but it's interesting to see that some people are able to find a way out of a losing career path.

This article was written by Peter Levi

The Flash Bombs while the MCU and Disney Continue to Struggle

It's no surprise that The Flash has bombed, although how badly it's failed is a surprise (losing to discount Spider-Man is pretty sad). Flash will still speed past a few benchmarks, as it has cleared Sony bomb Morbius as well as DC bomb Shazam 2. Will it make Dungeons & Dragons money (208)? I think so, but it's still going to be one of the biggest bombs of all time because of its ludicrous budget (officially 220, but believed to 300) and save us from Ezra Miller in the future (who also serves as a convenient scapegoat for the film, but is not the only problem). If there's a specific lesson to be learned it's that memberberries don't work without a strong foundation (either of prior success or the film itself)--while the MCU is busy destroying itself, it still has three Phases of success to reflect on (consider how long it took Star Wars to die when that franchise hasn't had a great film since 1981). The only positive for DC going forward is the film has no relevance to whatever James Gunn is planning, but it does mean Blue Beetle will likely get pulverized Shazam-style when it comes out (Aquaman 2 should do better, despite Amber Heard's inclusion).

Since Bob Iger's return, Disney has been firing people (7,000 jobs, cf) and those cuts have included several prominent folks (Susan Arnold, CFO Christine McCarthy, etc), the biggest being the firing Victoria Alonso (despite triple protection: female, Latina, and a lesbian--a win for equality as she too can get fired for incompetence). We've now had another 'name' of sorts receive similar treatment, as Chief Diversity Officer Latondra Newton (who also checks three boxes) was fired (she's supposedly behind the race swaps in The Little Mermaid and others, although I doubt Newton is the true cause of that). None of this implies a major creative shift at Disney because BlackRock is still their biggest shareholder (although others do see a change; [it is amusing to see BlackRock CEO Larry Fink giving up the label ESG now that the public is aware of it--so not the policies it advocates, but the label]). My belief is that these sacrifices are being made to point the blame at someone other than Bob Iger.

Speaking more broadly, let's take a look at recent Disney Films (estimated losses noted below are via Deadline; brackets compare it to its predecessor factoring inflation; the slash is domestic/foreign)

2022

• May - MCU Doctor Strange 2 955 (411/544) < 2016 film 826 (+129) - budget c.200
• June - Lightyear 226 (118/108) < 2019 film 1.228 (-1.002) - lost c.105 million
• July - MCU Thor 4 760 (343/417) < 2017 film 1.02 (-260) - budget c.250
• Nov - MCU Black Panther 2 859 (453/405) < 2018 film 1.573 (-714) - budget c.250
• Nov - Strange World 73 (37/35) - lost c.200 million

2023

• Feb - MCU Ant-Man 3 476 (214/261) < 2018 film 725 (-249) - budget c.200
• May - MCU Guardians 3 824 (347/476) < 2017 film 1.052 (-228) - budget c.250
• May - Little Mermaid 477 (264/213) < 1989 film 518 (-41) - budget c.250
• June - Elemental 68 (52/16) - budget c.200

None of this includes after market numbers (DVD/streaming) or toy sales, all of whose modern iterations are dwarfed by their prior predecessor (Frozen seems to be the only recent IP that still pushes merch).

As for the box office MCU trends: 955-760-859-476-822; all the films are sequels and have varying degrees of memberberries; two (Strange and Ant-Man) were heavily connected to Disney+ shows (clearly of no importance); at least three of the five MCU films were subject to emergency re-shoots (Strange, Black Panther, and Ant-Man). From these IP virtually none of the classic characters are coming back: no Guardians (or James Gunn), no Thor, etc. Of those that remain, Hulk and Hawkeye have already passed the torch to irrelevant or disliked spinoff characters. There's no positives to derive from any of this and no sign of anything good forthcoming (very much like where DC has been since 2008's The Dark Knight).

As for the non-Marvel stuff, it's been god awful. Pixar and Disney animation are completely lost, having lost an atrocious amount of money (Onward 142, Soul 121, Luca 50, and Turning Red 20, were all abysmal failures, as were Raya 130 and Encanto 256). The formula in all of them has been the much like the MCU: terrible writing with combative marketing--a rainbow coloured shit sandwich. The major difference between these projects and the MCU above (given that the quality and approach is similar), is because of its continuity, the MCU has a lot of goodwill to carryover from prior efforts, whereas these fresh IP have to stand on their own. The corporate media has finally started to say 'no' to some of this, but in a very limited, tepid way (they gave Willow a free pass), looking for technical excuses rather than the turgid base of this garbage. I don't see how Disney can change at this point, but I do think they will make things cheaper.

Back to Marvel, Namor star Tenoch Huerta has now been accused of sexual assault. This hasn't gone to court, so we don't know what's happened. However, unlike with Kang, this isn't a big deal for the MCU, as Black Panther 2 disappointed and no one was clamouring for more Namor anyway. They can easily recast the character (they probably should have regardless) and move on.

This article was written by Peter Levi

Concerns about Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty DLC

I haven't posted anything about Cyberpunk 2077 since December, 2020 (other than referencing it's highly successful animated spinoff, Cyberpunk: Edgerunners, which I enjoyed and wasn't crippled by ESG restrictions, as we'll discuss below). That doesn't mean I haven't written about it, but that I never got around to finishing my review (whose inchoate state is nowhere near my Last of Us Part II review). As for the experience, I really enjoyed the game at launch (you can watch that playthrough here) and I've re-played the game many times. As good as it is (the best RPG of the last few years), it's not as good as Witcher 3 (which I first played in 2016; I have a playthrough of it from two years ago posted).  When comparing the two I'm primarily talking about its story, since that's what matters to me most. Now that we're near the release of the game's one and only DLC (September 26) I'm interested to see what we're getting from CDPR beyond simply a gameplay overhaul. On the surface there are reasons to be concerned that no one seems to be discussing, so let's go over it.

Modern storytelling (film, TV, etc) has fallen into a political mire making it predictable and boring. CDPR accepts ESG scores because they want the funding associated with it (cf), so have restrictions imposed on how they want to make their games (if unfamiliar, this and this gives you some perspective--in essence, it's a soulless corporation using virtue signaling to deflect from how it makes its money). Now that we know our entertainment is tainted by ESG, the old chestnut about 'creative decisions' and 'looking for a new audience' is exposed as a lie: they have no choice, so there's nothing creative about it. The signs of this in Phantom Liberty are painfully obvious, even if the veneer is easier to disguise in this setting than something like the Witcher:

• Girl Boss (the president and presumably Songbird)
• Evil White Man (the leader of the evil faction)
• POC bad ass (Idris Elba and presumably Songbird)

If this was ten years ago these elements could have occurred organically and would be much less cliche, but we now know the marching orders CDPR gets by participating in ESG, so that's the 'why' of these choices (this is also clear in the base game). The absurdity of using this straightjacket can be seen in real world examples: OceanGate (of the missing submarine) didn’t want to hire any experienced “50 year old white guys” because they weren’t “inspirational”. Video games are less serious than subs, but it's still a ridiculous way to operate (is writer Pawel Sasko in danger of not being 'inspirational'?). On the creative side, the problem with adhering to this approach is there's no mystery or intrigue because good and bad are dictated by ethnicity, gender, and orientation. Can you make a palatable story with these restrictions?

The simple answer is 'yes, but', since Cyberpunk 2077 is a good game, but not a great game (with those flaws less obviously impacted by ESG). On the surface (the preview etc) the warning signs aren't as glaring as The Last of Us Part II or Rings of Power or She-Hulk. Some of that is helped because V isn't a pre-determined character (although clearly they used female-V for ESG reasons, albeit they've tweaked how they've shown her vs 2020--I still prefer the original version). Because V is the player, the majority of the player base (white men) aren't automatically denigrated and emasculated simply for existing--all that hatred can be safely directed towards the enemy faction (Woodman and Fingers are the most despicable characters in the base game, lest we forget, and the least sympathetic gang--Maelstrom--are anomalously white).

That aside, my guess is the writers of the DLC will make things ambiguous (otherwise their story has no weight). White man bad, yes, but there will be some sort of qualification (maybe he had an absent or violent father--which is very ESG--just like Jackie); Girl Boss is a bad ass, but there will be moral ambiguity (maybe she's unethical, like Elizabeth Peralez); POC bad ass is awesome, but he has issues (like Saul); and so on. That approach would match what we sometimes see in the base game (like with Claire). This is the only way to successfully navigate ESG restrictions and make it appealing to players. If I'm wrong about this ambiguity, the DLC will be a massive disappointment in terms of story.

Would I rather CDPR not involve themselves in this nonsense and just make creative decisions like they did in the Witcher franchise? Of course, but like the good capitalists they are, money matters more than ethics. One hopes the financial disasters that have afflicted Disney and others will encourage the company to change, but I have my doubts. BlackRock's Faustian bargain is simply too tempting not to take, whatever the risk (we know how they'd resolve Hearts of Stone, clearly). What I'm interested to see is how CDPR navigates this with the Witcher IP (both sequels and remakes)--I don't think they can make it work and clearly ignored those elements from the Netflix show in their update. In the meantime, let's hope the DLC is well done despite the restrictions.

This article was written by Peter Levi

Qualifying the Success of Guardians 3 and Into the Spider-Verse 2, Plus MCU Delays

I call things out when I'm right and when I'm wrong and we have an example of each to go over. Let's start where I was wrong: Guardians 3 looked like it would fall well short of Thor 3 (760 million) after an anemic opening, but it currently stands at 808 million, putting it ahead of both Thor 3 and the first film of the series (in 2023 dollars the original Guardians made 989.8 million, just for perspective). The third installment won't catch Guardians 2 (869, or 1.078 in 2023 dollars), so while the film is not a failure, it underperformed. Like all MCU films from Phase Four onward, it held fairly well domestically, but unlike most others it hasn't failed internationally (Fast X is the opposite of the MCU, doing extremely well internationally, but failing domestically). What success the MCU (and Sony) have had relies on memberberries, albeit that doesn't help anything going forward because those elements won't be returning.

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

Developments with Robert E. Howard IP other than Conan (Solomon Kane, Dark Agnes, Kull, Valeria, etc)

In the free preview of Titan's upcoming Conan comic there's an illustration of Robert E. Howard IP (above) that indicates an underlying hope to see them receive similar treatment (as, indeed, was attempted at Marvel a few years ago). I wanted to look at what's presented and think about what has potential to succeed. I am a fan of Howard's, but I don't have encyclopedic knowledge of his voluminous writings. What I'm familiar with are his Conan stories (which I've re-read recently), his horror stories (read long ago), the author himself, and a small smattering of things outside of that (mostly read long ago). I have not read the lauded 70s comics (before my time), so my exposure in that format is only via Marvel's recent output (mostly mediocre). I've seen both the 80s films featuring Conan (as well as the terrible Red Sonya movie), but not in a long time.

It's interesting to see who is in this image, because many Howard characters are not. Here's the list in order from the illustration (Note: Howard's Picts are his own synthesis of Native Americans and a now-debunked view of the aboriginal peoples of Scotland; the colour coding: green=currently being published (book/comic) and pushed as a film/show; pink= published/produced after the Howard boom; orange=published during the Howard boom in the 70s/early 80s; red=only published during REH's lifetime or as part of the general publishing of all his unpublished work):

• Ace Jessel (1929; boxing) - There are just two stories and the sub-genre is so specific I'm lost on why he's included (REH had more popular boxing characters, see below)
• Valeria (1935; fantasy/Conan) - from the Conan story "Red Nails"; Marvel (2019) attempted a series by Meredith Finch (wife of the more notable David Finch), which is tedious and bland despite good art
• Grom (1934; fantasy/side character) - from "The Valley of the Worm"; the Pictish Grom interacts with the lead of that story (Niord); it's not clear why he's on this list and Niord is not (representation, perhaps?)
• Bran Mak Morn (1930; historical, Dark Ages) - A Pictish king facing off against Romans among other things (he also has a crossover with Kull, below); had a couple of pastiche novels written for him in 1976 and 1981 during the Howard boom, but other than some adaptations from Dark Horse has since been invisible
• Solomon Kane (1928; historical, 16th century) - the Puritan adventurer fighting evil; Dark Horse published a few mini-series' featuring him in the mid-2000s and there was the 2009 (2012 for Americans) film; more recently there was a planned show at Netflix, but that's been abandoned along with the Conan show
• Cormac Mac Art (1920s; historical, Dark Ages) - an Irish pirate whose stories were published posthumously and gave birth to a pastiche sequel series from Andrew Offutt from 1975-82 and one comic adaptation (from Dark Horse in 1990); there's room for pseudo-historical adaptations
• Wulfhere (1920s; historical/Cormac Mac Art) - His fate is tied to the above
• Kull (1929; fantasy) - from REH's fantastical pre-history, but from an earlier epoch than Conan; while a forerunner to the latter, he's not the same character; his last comic book adaptation was from IDW in 2017 via Tom Waltz, but it only lasted 3 issues; there was a 1997 film, but that was intended to be a Conan movie, so while its existence is interesting I wouldn't call it indicative of interest
• Conan (1932; fantasy) - I won't repeat what I've said in my prior article; the most well-known REH character
• Francis Xavier Gordon aka "El Borak" (1934; historical) - an Indiana Jones type character who, as far as I can tell, has had no resonance since; that said, romping adventures like this is a viable route for the future (especially after the Indiana Jones franchise killed itself)
• Wild Bill Clanton (1936; Western) - the lead in 'spicy' stories of the time (so some bare calves may have been shown); Westerns are essentially dead, so I'm not sure what you can do with him
• Esau Cairn (1939; Science Fiction) - the lead in "Almuric", there was a Dark Horse comic for it in 1991; as an Edgar Rice Burroughs-style adventure (its similar to A Princess of Mars, 1912) I think there's potential in it
• Turlogh Dubh O'Brien (1931; historical, 11th century) - Irishman whose stories sometimes have fantastical or horror elements; he's had no resonance since the Howard boom in the 1970s (like so many others, his stories were used as raw material for Conan), but there are some possibilities given that the era is popular
• Sonya of Rogatino (1934; historical, 16th century) - from the story "The Shadow of the Vulture" (she's not the lead character, as that's Gottfried Von Kalmbach); she feels very modern (almost cliche for female protagonists), which could be a good thing
• Sailor Steve Costigan (1929; boxing/historical, 1920s) - sailor and a boxer (this is not the character of the same name from "Skull Face"); more popular than Ace above, but it's difficult to see what could be done with the character
• 'Dark' Agnes de Chastillon (1932/34; historical, 16th century) - posthumously published in the 1970s, her stories are similar to Sonya's above; plenty of fun to be had, although I think there are limits to what you can squeeze from historical adaptations; Marvel tried (2020) with a series by Becky Cloonan, but it only managed two issues with the same floompy writing seen in Belit and Valeria (above)--the Marvel iterations were disappointingly bland and indistinctive
• Breckinridge Elkins (1934; Western) - a humorous character, making the genre even more difficult to do anything with (Blazing Saddles was a long time ago); he was very popular at the time
• Brule (1929; fantasy/Kull) - a Pictish character I suspect is only here as an echo of that IP

Among those not included is the popular Conan character Belit ("Queen of the Black Coast", 1932), likely because the character does not survive her story and therefore is tricky to do anything significant with. Despite that, Poul Anderson's Conan the Rebel (1980) features her and Marvel tried to do something with her in 2019, but writer Tini Howard missed the point and turned her into a generic Girl Boss which (like Valeria above) only lasted five issues. She is hardly the only character not included, as Howard had so many (James Allison, Dennis Dorgan, Pike Bearfield, Cormac Fitzgeoffrey, Lal Singh, Black Vulmea, John Kirowan, Steve Harrison, De Montour the werewolf, and on and on).

Our list includes 18 characters representing 15 different IPs that can be organized by genre (with El Borak covering two of those):

• Historical: 8 (Dark Ages: Bran, Cormac/Wulfhere; 11th: O'Brien; 16th: Solomon, Sonya, Agnes; Early Modern: El Borak, Steve)
• Fantasy: 3 (Conan/Valeria, Kull/Brule, Grom)
• Boxing: 2 (Ace and El Borak)
• Western: 2 (Clanton and Elkins)
• Science Fiction: 1 (Cairn)

Historical fiction has its place and continues to have resonance on screen, but so much of the modern genre has a heavy emphasis on romance (is there any production about English royalty that isn't a romance?), which doesn't suit Howardian IP. What these need to stand out is a supernatural/fantastic element (which some already include, like Solomon Kane). Beyond that is what time periods attract the public. Vikings remain popular (which covers three of the IP), and Agnes' story crosses paths with the always popular Henry VIII; Bran faces off against Romans (also popular). I believe an Indiana Jones-style approach could work, which El Borak could be used for. As for poor Sonya, as modern as she seems, I don't think there's an appetite for the once popular Muslim Ottoman vs Christian Europe narrative.

The fantasy IP are all solid as-is, even though I remain puzzled by Grom's inclusion without his lead character and why that specific story was picked. For the other two, while Kull inspired Conan, they are different enough to not cause confusion. Ironically, despite the plethora of modern fantasy shows and films, nothing has worked since the early seasons of Game of Thrones, leaving plenty of room for it to be done right (and action-oriented fantasy hasn't been done properly since the 1980s).

I don't see any room for boxing stories (it's simply too niche) and Westerns are functionally dead (one-offs aren't impossible). On the flipside, there's an appetite for an SF story like Cairn's, which the poorly made John Carter botched over a decade ago.

What do I think will happen? Some of that depends on how well the Conan comic (and film, should it happen) performs. I'd expect Titan to do what Marvel tried and take shots at some of the other IP, beginning with those with resonance after the Howard boom (and leaving the possibility of some creative wanting to take a stab at something more obscure). Solomon Kane seems to be at the forefront of what's being pushed, which is understandable as it would be very easy to connect him to Dark Agnes and Sonya as they occupy the same eras. Beyond that it's difficult to say. I'd keep an eye out for new pastiches (like the S. M. Stirling Conan novel) and any further comic announcements as clues for what else might be in store. It's too bad streaming services won't make this kind of IP, as I think much of it is well-suited to TV.

This article was written by Peter Levi