Marvel News & Notes

It's unprecedented to see critics respond negatively to an MCU film, but that is the fate of Eternals and I don't think the quality of the product is the only reason for this response (even The Incredible Hulk has a better score). Let's just quickly go over recent scores (keeping in mind that they generally drop a few points as time passes; RT audience scores don't mean much of anything, but I included them just for fun):

Black Panther 96%/79%

Infinity War 85%/91%

Ant-Man 2 87%/75%

Captain Marvel 79%/45%*

Endgame 94%/90%

Spider-Man 2 90%/95%

WandaVision 91%/86%

Falcon and the Winter Soldier 89%/82%

Loki 92%/90%

Black Widow 79%/91%

Shang-Chi 92%/98%

Eternals 60%/NA

*Until Captain Marvel no proof that a voter had seen the film was required

What's apparent is how high MCU films score irrespective of quality, so why are we getting a critical drubbing for Eternals when that's been deserved for the entirety of Phase Four's output (and coming from places expected to applaud the film, eg, although the fanboys are still drooling all over it)? I don't think the film will be qualitatively worse than anything we've seen this year, but it seems like Disney has given the green light for critics to voice the obvious: things are not going well at Marvel. I would have argued, a few months ago, that the underwhelming cast is part of the problem, and while I still believe that's a factor, Shang-Chi has the same problem and did adequately domestically, so it's not the only issue. I'm not yet onboard Midnight's Edge idea that this criticism is part of the internal battles at Disney between Bob Chapek and Feige (you can see my old buddies at Small Screen going the anti-Chapek track here, where they see the internal machinations working for Feige), but I am open to the idea that there could be validity to ME's idea.

Largely unnoticed, but the marketing push for Hawkeye has begun and apparently made no impression. This echoes Marvel's inability to generate discussion for either Shang-Chi or Eternals, whereas the pre-existing interest in heroes like Loki and Black Widow brought the kind of notice they were hoping for. Hawkeye isn't a popular character, so a vehicle launching his less popular successor is a tough sell--does it have enough draw for the YA audience ? That will be interesting to follow, since I think that's its only path to success (barring the miracle of it being well-written).

Speaking of results, Venom 2 has passed Black Widow at the box office (not including its Disney+ earnings), although it's unlikely it can make another 30 million to catch Shang-Chi (beating the latter's international earnings, but the domestic performance seems like it's too much). For those wondering, the only other films in the top-20 that did better domestically than elsewhere are A Quiet Place II and Jungle Cruise (both are outside the top-ten). As I've said before, clearly you cannot target your film just for an American audience and get your money back if it's a blockbuster.

A story floating around in Culture Crave claims that Kevin Feige wanted all the original Avengers to die in Endgame. If true that's a bizarre idea, although in many ways the outcome of that film puts the iconic heroes on the shelf (only Black Widow and Iron Man die, but Cap retires, Hulk is disabled, Thor gives up his kingship/people/prior storylines, and Hawkeye was already retired). Apparently the Russo brothers pushed back against killing them all off. Phase Four certainly echoes this intention as the storylines have worked hard to diminish their accomplishments (Loki and seemingly Eternals) and replace them all (Black Widow with Yelena, Cap with Falcon, Hawkeye with Kate Bishop, and Hulk with She-Hulk).

It's been amusing to watch people like Andre (ME) bend over backwards to turn Dune's underwhelming box office results into a 'win'. Ever since the IP was announced he and others have been pushing it and  no result on screen was going to dissuade him from heavily praising it. The film squelched out an anemic 40 million opening weekend domestically and while the red flag of simultaneous release on streaming was raised, no one made the obvious comparison with Black Widow which did the same thing--and worldwide, unlike Dune--that film pulled in twice the box office. This hasn't prevented the WB from giving it a sequel, but we need to be honest about how it performed.

This just reminds me to offer a reminder of how uneven ME can be in their coverage, as they will happily parrot stories that have been firmly debunked (eg) in their live shows (most recently the 2017 Macaulay Culkin/Heather O'Rourke story they and Kamran Pasha regurgitated as truth). While ME can source-check very carefully at times, that's not a holistic approach.

This article was written by Peter Levi

MCU News & Notes

I'm at the end of my entertainment rope when it comes to film/television (MCU or otherwise). It's not that mediocre trash being popular is a new thing (there's a reason McDonalds does so well), but amongst the wreckage there were always diamonds in the rough. It's not even the absence of the latter that's so frustrating, but during the catastrophes of the past none were from IP I had a strong investment in, so there was a level of detachment when they failed. Watching fanboys doing mental gymnastics to enjoy crap like the Snyder Cut is as painful as it is frustrating. It's paradoxical that in an era where the genre entertainment I favour has become mainstream it's being systematically butchered such that it will sit on a shelf for a decade or more yet again (Conan, John Carter, Dungeons & Dragons, Judge Dredd, Lovecraft adaptations, etc, etc, etc). The remaining hope for fans of narrative is in video games, but that hangs by a thread (the colossal stupidity of The Last of Us Part II serving as the gold standard of failure--telling a coherent story is apparently beyond the abilities of today's writers, even if they are all very brave and important).

My predictions about Shang-Chi's box office have largely failed. The film has both caught up to Black Widow's total box office as well as surpassed it's international tally. There are a lot of caveats here (it has not, and will not, catch BW's gross including Disney+ sales), but in the soft post-pandemic film market I have to accept it is a 'success' and will get a sequel (although it is odd it hasn't been announced).

There is context to keep in mind, and not just for Shang-Chi, but for box office in general. Venom beat Shang-Chi's record opener (with 90 million), but facing stiff competition from other big movies it's not likely to catch-up to Shang-Chi's final tally (which opened against very weak opposition). That said, No Time to Die has already surpassed it worldwide. Here's the current relevant numbers (excluding China-exclusives); films still in early release in important markets are in italics:

1. F9: The Fast Saga 716k (173 domestic/543 worldwide)

2. Godzilla vs Kong 467k (100/367)

3. No Time to Die 456k (108/348)

4. Shang-Chi 415k (218/196)

5. Black Widow 379k (183/195)--504 with Disney+

8. Venom 2 288k (172/115)

15. The Suicide Squad 167k (55/111)

21. Dune 129k (0/129)--also released on HBO Max

The results look quite different domestically:

1. Shang-Chi 218

2. Black Widow 183

3. F9 173

4. Venom 172

8. No Time to Die 108

9. Godzilla vs Kong 100

16. The Suicide Squad 55--also released on HBO Max

This suggests is that worldwide box office is more impactful than domestic even without China. It makes me wonder if entertainment aimed at an American audience isn't translating as well outside of it and, if that's the case, why? Is it American politics? Casting? I don't think quality of writing is a factor, but it's difficult to pin down what the disconnect is. What I don't think we'll see is much change from Hollywood in the immediate future--not only are the films being made for the next few years done so without this information, but there's an inherent conservatism in approach from executives.

Due to the potential strike in Hollywood, Disney announced a series of MCU delays that break down like this:

Doctor Strange 2 - March to May

Thor 4 - May to July

Black Panther 2 - July to November

The Marvels - November to February/22

Ant-Man 3 - February/22 to July/22

An untitled Marvel film - moves up a week forward in November/23

Two other untitled Marvel films are removed from the schedule entirely (July/23 and October/23)

Guardians 3 (along with the upcoming Eternals and Spider-Man 3) are unchanged

Most of this is simply shifting films slightly down the schedule, with Guardians 3 remaining in place likely due to scheduling commitments for James Gunn etc. What's more interesting to me are the two removed projects and what that means--the MCU hasn't cancelled a film since Inhumans (when it was swapped with Marvel Entertainment for Eternals), but has it happened again? Could we be seeing repercussions from lower box office/weak TV returns? Could this be Bob Chapek imposing his will on Feige? Or is it purely the mechanics of the potential strike? Time will tell.

Just over a year ago Kris Tapley Tweeted out that Harry Styles would be in an MCU film; about six months later Cinemax Tweeted that it would be in The Eternals and 4chan said he'd play Eros; finally, in the plot leak months ago (taken from the initial cut of the film) Eros appears in the second end-credit scene. All have proven to be correct, as a Variety writer on Twitter confirmed it after seeing the film. There's a theory out there (eg) that this reveal is part of a marketing strategy to help boost interest because the film is not tracking well.

I'll repeat that Google Trends is just a tool and does not equate to box office success. What's interesting is the film's continuing minimal impact (the same goes for Shang-Chi which, despite success, simply hasn't generated discussion). This kind of thing--social impact--actually does matter to Marvel, because it indicates how much penetration an IP is getting with fans (and is likely reflected in merchandizing sales). I think that the MCU, due to the mixed reception of Phase Four, is becoming increasingly insular and that does not bode well for the future. We aren't at Game of Thrones levels of interest crashing, but as we know from that show it takes just a few tipping points before everything falls apart.

This article was written by Peter Levi

MCU News & Notes

While I haven't been writing about it for months, I keep an eye on scoops leaking out about the MCU. I haven't commented because they've repeated things I've heard before or that I don't consider interesting. However, two items come across my desk that I want to comment on. The first of these is from Daniel regarding Doctor Strange 2:

Here's everything I know about Doctor Strange 2: Wanda is [the] main villain and is trying to get America Chavez to travel the multiverse and get back her kids. Rintrah (ie) has a big role in it. A lot of cameos. The Illuminati play a big part as peace keeping force of the multiverse [too big to appear in Loki apparently]. Charles Xavier is one of them. Strange is traveling the multiverse with Chavez to run away from Wanda who's trying to get them.

On paper this isn't a bad premise (ignoring all the continuity and logic problems that Loki causes the MCU--god bless the Russo brothers for making fun of it). Wanda should be a villain after selfishly torturing an entire town (with Monica Rambeau chastised for being an idiot). I don't expect this story to be told with any subtlety or depth (how can we at this point?). Given the low standards of Phase Four I expect Wanda to be given an excuse for her bad behaviour (perhaps a man will be behind it--Nightmare?) and Chavez will go full Mary Sue throughout the film (think of Rey from the Star Wars sequels, particularly The Force Awakens). In terms of background, in January Sutton claimed Xavier would appear in the film (he now says Feige wants James McAvoy in the role), but this basic idea of a prior actor returning in the role is something we've known forever because Patrick Stewart talked about, we just didn't know where. The idea of the Illuminati also goes way back as a grid for its own IP that was floating around in the summer of 2020 (via Daniel), but Sutton was the first to put them in Doctor Strange 2 months before that.

Speaking of Sutton, he's claiming the dumbass Doctor Strange in the No Way Home trailer is actually Mephisto and at this point I hope so--I'm getting so desperate for something good out of Marvel and even average writing would be a welcome respite.

The next item, also from Daniel, is in regards to the Echo show that's forthcoming in relation to Daredevil:

There is a plan to give Daredevil his own project again down the line with [Charlie] Cox but for now the Echo show will serve as sort of Daredevil season 4 with most of the main cast of Daredevil returning. To be clear this is still very much Echo's show. When I say it's gonna feel like season 4 of Daredevil It's because we'll get to see all these characters from that show coming back and play big parts in it. BUT Echo is still the lead and it's her show. Also another thing that is important to note is the characters will be somewhat soft rebooted into the MCU but will still have a history with one another. So they'll look somewhat different with a bit of different backgrounds but still played by the same actors.

I'm one of the few Marvel fans who does not think maintaining continuity with Netflix's Daredevil is a good idea--that show goes off the rails in season two and while season three is better the character arcs make no sense and should be ignored. It's not clear what a 'soft reboot' really means, but we can expect Echo to be just that much better than Daredevil and lack character flaws to overcome. It's too bad, because you could do something interesting with her, but grafting her into the Daredevil universe is just a cheap way to try to make people interested--how much nostalgia remains for the Netflix show I don't know (clearly this is meant to echo--heh--the Hawkeye show with Kate Bishop--let the old white guy hand things over to a much better diverse young female). Incidentally, the basic idea about the show fits my speculation back when it was first announced, which Sutton repeated not long after.

Whatever I think of Shang-Chi (could they have found a less charismatic cast? Other than Tony Leung it's baffling), I have to credit Disney for it performing well in the anemic US market, as the film has passed Black Widow domestically (keeping in mind that the latter made 125 million via streaming), 197 vs 183, despite failing internationally, 167 vs 195. It's improbable that Shang-Chi can catch Black Widow's final tally (378), as another 10 million is virtually impossible now that it faces actual competition (Venom 2 etc). I wouldn't call either film a success, but internally I imagine Feige will argue that due to Covid and with comparisons, everything is fine--no need to upset the applecart. I believe he'll win that argument short-term, which means more horrendous writing to come. I hate being pessimistic, but Phase Four hasn't managed coherent writing yet, so expecting it requires special pleading.

Speaking of Shang-Chi, in September some old social media posts from Simu Liu came to light and the most salacious is relating to his opinion of homosexuality (above). I think this ghoulish exploration of people's past posts is ridiculous, but that's less important than the impact it could have on Liu's career (something unclear at the moment). The Marvels director Nia DaCosta was much more careful about her past, nuking her entire social media profile when she was hired. Will this impact Liu's future at Marvel? The story disappeared from the media quickly and while that's suggestive, these things tend to crop up again (James Gunn comes to mind). What's more obviously harmful for Liu is that his films can't be released in China, a market I'm not sure Disney is willing to give up on. If Feige still wants that lucrative Chinese box office, not only will he have to jettison his star, but the laissez-faire identity politics approach that works in the US will have to be toned down for that market--I think that would only happen if dictated by Bob Chapek, given how entrenched it is among Feige's executive group.

With a new Bond film out I wanted to briefly comment on it generally: to my mind, a new character playing 007--the James Bond designation--could be anyone. I don't see an argument against that, since it's simply the designation for a British secret agent--there's plenty of freedom there. What I would disagree with is swapping Bond himself--the identify of that character is firmly established so changing it is pointless--create a new character instead. Similarly, I have no issue with swapping out Doctor Who--if the Doctor changes bodies on the regular, there's no in-lore reason to be concerned with what that body is like. What you don't want is characters from the originals to be erased or treated with disrespect. I bring all this up because the fandoms of these IP tend to fight over this regularly and I wanted to draw a distinction over what I'm fine with and what I'm not.

This article was written by Peter Levi