MCU Fallout Continues; He-Man/She-Ra Sold; Hunger Games Flops; Netflix's Hannibal

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

MCU Troubles Continue, RT Exposed, Snow White Drama, and Abrams' Constantine Cancelled

Marvel/Disney's issues are piling up and the hilarious, on-target South Park "Panderverse" (ostensibly pointed at moribund Star Wars head Kathleen Kennedy) hits all things Disney--is there a project that doesn't fit the mocking narrative? One of the primary signs that this specific approach is disappearing is that the gigantic corporations funding it (BlackRock, Vanguard, etc) are actively withdrawing from ESG. This means ESG will cease financially dictating these decisions and, while it's likely to be replaced by something similar, it could mean a pause as the industry tries to recover from the damage following it has caused.

Vulture has exposed that RT reviews are rigged (cf). This isn't a surprise to those who follow this issue, but having it confirmed means the numbers can be ignored. IMDB has similar issues (owned/controlled as it is by Amazon), so ultimately we are left with box office, Nielsen ratings, toy sales, etc to measure success/impact.

This story paired nicely with the discovery (via Rolling Stone) that HBO created fake social media accounts to attack those who criticized their shows. This approach is less impactful than the RT manipulation, but illustrates just how petty entertainment giants are when it comes to criticism of their products.

Changes at Disney continue--not only did they sell off ESPN (to add liquidity given their money problems), but a number of D+ shows have been cancelled or released for their creators to try and find a home/financing:

• Doogie Kamealoha (riffing off the 80s hit Doogie Howswer) after two seasons; no, I'd never heard of it either
• The Spiderwick Chronicles (based on the popular children's books, 03-09) - filming of the show is complete (it's apparently a fairly straightforward adaptation) and its makers found a home on Roku; the IP already had a film made in 2008 (Nickelodoen, which bombed)
• Nautilus (based on the Jules Verne novel 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea) - filming of the show was complete (made via the usual 're-imagined' modern adaptation), and it was picked up by AMC

This was accompanied by two rounds of MCU shuffling (second round), some of which is related to the ongoing strike in Hollywood:

• Echo - the unwanted spinoff of Hawkeye has moved from November to January; filming is complete, so I can only assume this change was made to make room for What If? (which gets the better release slot because Echo is apparently a disaster and much of it had to be re-shot, with the episode count dropped from eight to five and debuting Netflix-style--all at once--which is not normal for D+)
• X-Men 97 (animated) - shifted from fall 2023 to early 2024; filming is complete so this is either a change due to lack of confidence or it's meant to be a palate-cleanser after Echo
• Agatha - the unwanted spinoff of WandaVision from winter 2023 to fall 2024; filming is complete and I suspect this is going to get the Echo-treatment of a Netflix-style one-day dump whenever it appears (no word about episode cuts as-yet, but it has been renamed three times)
• Ironheart - has been pulled from the schedule entirely (THR says filming is complete, but it's impacted by the strike, which is hard to accept when a date swap could have covered that (as it has for other shows)--for those unaware, this is the Miles Moralesing of Iron Man (the same creator created both)
• Daredevil - filming interrupted by the strike and it being completely retooled (see below)
• Wonder Man - filming interrupted by the strike and it may be cancelled entirely (at the moment it's on an indefinite hiatus)
• Other planned shows are also rumoured to be scrapped (link above), but none have been named (those announced: a Wakanda-based show; two animated Spider-Man shows; Marvel Zombies; a Nova series; Vision Quest; and a third season of What If?; I suspect the animated efforts are safe)
• Deadpool 3 - from May/24 to July/24 (great slot to an okay one; the small shift is likely strike-related); this is the only film approved/made by Bob Chapek prior to being ousted
• Captain America 4 - from July/24 to Feb/25 (okay slot to a bad one); filming was complete, but emergency reshoots are occurring now as apparently the original plot was calqued on January 6th
• Thunderbolts - from Dec/24 to July/25 (bad slot to an okay one); yet to be filmed and thus could easily shelved or jettisoned in the future
• Blade (again!) - from Feb/25 to Nov/25 (bad slot to an okay one); it's not clear if this film has a script yet (after discarding four already)

Marvel is scrapping the eight episodes they've filmed of the new Daredevil-series and completely retooling it. From reports, what was completed was a bland court drama with ESG casting, and while I expect the latter to remain unchanged, the belief is more action will be inserted (whether Daredevil will need a smarter, more talented female character to save him and defeat the villain remains to be seen, but that would be on-brand). What I don't think we'll get is the kind of frenetic, meaningful action from Daredevil season one on Netflix (and to a lesser degree in its other two seasons).

The Marvels is projected to bomb hard, with projections putting it behind Ant-Man 3 and it has opened on Thursday lower than Ezra Miller's Flash. This is a film with a ton of baggage, from Brie Larson fighting with fans (to the point of losing top billing, as this was originally Captain Marvel 2), to no one watching Ms. Marvel (whose video game also bombed), to Monica Rambeau having the least interesting origin of all time (walking through a force field?) and then absolving Wanda of torturing an entire town because she felt a little sad. Guardians 3's modest success has provided no lift for the film and no one knows (or cares) what's going on in Phase Five. As a reminder for context, here are the superhero film performances from this year (I've included the official budgets after the slash, but many of these are actually higher; broadly speaking a film needs to more than double its budget to turn a profit):

• Guardians 3 (May) - 845/250; with inflation this is 251 million less than Guardians 2
• Miles Morales 2 (June) - 690/90; with inflation this is 217 more than its first film
• Ant-Man 3 (February) - 476/200; with inflation this is 290 million less than Ant-Man 2
• The Flash (June) - 270/220
• Shazam 2 (March) - 133/125; with inflation this is 308 million less than Shazam
• Blue Beetle (August) - 129/104

The DC movies faired worse (as they always have as the DCEU), but the MCU films got killed other than Guardians. I'm lost on the appeal of Miles Morales, but in context that's a low end performance vs just four years ago (and dwarfed by Peter Parker's 1.9 billion), so it's only in comparison to the disasters around it that Sony can feel good (I see very little merch impact from that film). Back to The Marvels, whose reported budget is 275 million and has no hope to achieve Captain Marvel's box office. It will lose money, but the question is how much. It's widely rumoured that Brie Larson will step away from the MCU after this, which is a fittingly botched ending for the character (the modern, re-imagined Kelly Sue DeConnick iteration of Captain Marvel), lest we forget she was intended to be the new leader of The Avengers. What will the MCU do? If Nelson Peltz and Ike Perlmutter take over Disney's board (a realistic possibility that's currently in progress), I'd expect massive changes whose impact will be seen in theaters in 2-3 years. If not, I don't think Bob Iger will fundamentally change anything other than budgets and the MCU will ultimately implode (assuming it's not sold off).

We have to talk about Disney's attempted damage control with their live action Snow White (a film I'd have no interest in irrespective of circumstances). Star Rachel Zegler has inflamed fans with various silly comments (nothing unexpected--watch Rings of Powers interviews and its rinse and repeat; she has been quiet lately, so clearly she has been told to shut-up), which in part had the film's release date bumped (March, 2024, to March, 2025). This was explained as being due to the strikes, but we know that's not the only reason as the filmmakers have replaced their diverse group of Dwarves with a non-diverse group of creepy CGI Dwarves. In many ways this is exactly like so many other recent films, but as I said prior to all this happening, I don't think there's any appetite for this regardless (I'm still lost on who believes Gal Gadot would feel jealous of Zegler). Time will tell.

Speaking of race swaps, J. J. Abrams' planned (2021) Constantine series is dead. Sope Dirisu was apparently up for the role, but the series (along with another race-swapped property) could not find a home (on HBO or elsewhere). I wonder if Abrams' ability to get paid to do nothing has finally run out (he hasn't had a film in theaters since Star Wars in 2019 or a show since 2014-15). In terms of the IP, Keanu Reeves may come back to reprise the role, but at his age (59) it's difficult to see that being more than a one-off. We seem to be at the tipping point of maximum pandering, but given production schedules, it will take some time before any change will be seen in theaters or the small screen.

This article was written by Peter Levi

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