Changes within Disney could signal changes in the MCU, but in what way and to what degree is less clear. Ideologue Victoria Alonso, who has been campaigning against the use of the term 'X-Men' for years (based on third wave ideas that it's exclusionary--echoing the late 80s/early 90s push to change 'fireman' to 'fireperson' etc), has been promoted away from development, limiting her impact on Marvel. Being an ideologue isn't inherently nefarious--Edward Snowden is an example of the positive side--but it hasn't resulted in quality entertainment. Susan Arnold, whose past (much like CEO Bob Chapek) is in finance, has become the new Chairman in 2022, and some believe that background will make her less ideologically motivated (while others argue the fact that she's a lesbian means full steam ahead, as if everyone in the LGBT community functions via groupthink). We've also seen unprecedented criticism of the MCU allowed from those who made it successful in the first place (the Russo brothers in particular), which either signals change or that the duo are never coming back. What kind of changes are coming? I have no idea. Some speculate Feige himself is on the way out, although that's hard to imagine. Could Marvel move back to being fan-friendly? On the comic side that seems impossible, but there's time for the MCU to recoup its loses--Phase Four is easily jettisoned, but I wouldn't expect any major changes soon.
One of the reasons these moves are happening at Disney is illustrated by 2021's box office--MCU films haven't performed as expected. A weak James Bond film and middling Fast Nine installment crossed 700k, so that's where Marvel films ought to be--competing at the top. Instead, the MCU and Sony's independent effort are close to 40% lower than that number--a failure by any measure. The Disney+ shows have also failed--they ought to be among the top streaming shows, but they trail them considerably and we're at the point where their low quality is impacting new releases (Hawkeye, see below). At some point Disney has to start hitting the targets expected by investors. It's not clear to me what that will mean in terms of specific changes, since garbage can still sell, but this garbage clearly isn't cutting it.
We know Disney has experienced a significant slowdown for Disney+ (missing their quarterly goal by 80%). The streaming service isn't just Marvel, but in terms of original content they are expected to lead. I don't think changes, whatever they are, will come in time to fix shows already in progress. Positive signs I'm looking for are removal of people like Mark Waldron and Jac Schaeffer from their projects, and perhaps cancelling unwanted fair like the Agatha Harkness show. Hawkeye's opener underperformed, falling behind all the previous MCU shows, making it clear that the interest in Phase Four is continuing to drop (a good indicator of this is looking at reactor views for it in comparison to prior MCU shows).
I was reminiscing over various figures in the fandom in my last post and there's an interesting comparison we can make to notables currently in the field. Mikey Sutton, who started his public push for exposure back in 2019 (with Lords of the Long Box, Pete's Basement, Matt Jarbo, etc) remains a marginal figure in the fandom, as demonstrated by his impact on viewership (look at the indifference his scoops are met with on Midnight's Edge, for instance). Sutton, as a former (music) journalist and a man with plenty of people pushing his work, hasn't achieved the market penetration he desires (he'd be better off in roundtable formats--Shadiversity has made this conclusion and is doing so on Knights Watch). On the flipside, Kamran Pasha burst into the space months ago and is now a byword to boosting shows within the community. While this is confined to the outrage sphere, it's launched his reputation in the fandom to a place where he's actively sought after for his commentary. Sutton remains a scooper with a smaller presence than the irritating Charles Murphy. Daniel and Murphy are on the opposite side of the political spectrum from Pasha (while all three support diversity, the latter is otherwise conservative), entertainment lefties don't impact YT much (there's not much space for them since big channels already fill that niche), making them dependent on Patreon/being reflected in the wider fandom. These popularity restrictions are the main reason why I think both Daniel and Murphy object so strongly to Sutton (even though he shares their ideology), as he directly challenges their pocketbooks (they opposed Jeremy Conrad/Manabyte for the same reason). Incidentally, while writing this I noticed that Jarbo has gone back to his dying 3 Buck Theater channel with Sutton scoops, so Mikey is returning to that relationship (god knows why--for Jarbo this seems part of his never ending feud with Doomcock, but I don't know what Sutton gets out of it--there's no audience to be gained from Jarbo, although it's interesting that the latter's colourful past doesn't concern him). The issue for Sutton is making any waves at all can crush him like it did Jeremy Conrad, but towing the line makes it impossible for him to standout from people offering the exact same material. Pasha comes at it from the other side of the equation, so by default he makes waves and brings with him the background in the industry to give him credibility, thus (in my opinion) the difference in their impacts. Btw, just for fun, here are current Patreon/YT numbers:
RPK 561/c.$2,000
Ethan Van Scriver (YT 146k) 516/c.$1,500
Doomcock (YT 272k) 450/c.$1,500
MauLer (YT 382k) 429/$2,064
Charles Murphy 308/$1,276Nerdrodic (376k) 181/$792
Kamran Pasha 150/c.$950
Midnight's Edge (YT 205k) 89/$274
Syl Abdul (YT 2k) 15/$30
Matt Jarbo (YT 32k) 12/c.$35
Small Screen (YT 1k) 4/$57
Patreon doesn't mean much to live streamers (because of superchats), which is largely what Gary, MauLer, and Andre lean on, but it's most of the income RPK and Murphy gain through doing this (Charles has a real job, so this is all just gravy for him, but I believe RPK makes his living doing this). I don't pay attention to Scriver and rarely encounter Doomcock, but they are all part of the same ecosystem.
One of the reasons I stopped covering these curmudgeons (scoopers) is because fans don't seem to care how accurate they are. From what I can tell, this is reflected in all fandoms, where what people are looking for are things to get excited/mad about, with the validity being largely meaningless. I couldn't tell you why that's the case, but it became more and more apparent as time went on. Promoting a scoop is less about how real it is and more about how sensational it is (for whatever audience you target). Think of it like sports commentary--this fighter is better than that fighter, this player is better than that player--no one cares if the commentator is right, but focus on the debate itself. Given that, the amount of labour required to track all of it, and the fact that the MCU's output has turned to dreck I decided to walk away.
To dovetail back to Alonso and the culture war, it will be interesting to see if small steps like the media giving up on "Latinex" (since the Latino community hates the term) is a sign of a return to sanity, or if it's an irrelevant pause in the madness. Given that identity politics is a top down movement (rather than grass roots), it's difficult to say what will or won't change. The argument that underlying economics could shift things has some merit (China saying 'no' has an immediate impact; there's a rather desperate attempt to make India take its place, but the latter has its own vibrant entertainment industry so I don't think that's an easy transition), but how much and in what way is unclear to me. We can see how meaningless this all is in terms of direct political action in the US, where the elite are happy to allow abortion laws to return to the Stone Age so long as they get what they want in film and television.
A friend of mine has been trying to get me to watch The Wheel of Time despite me telling him that nothing I saw about the production, casting, or showrunner were positives. I have now seen/read some reviews and they seem to validate my expectations (I should note that despite losing to Hawkeye on Trends, it had more viewers for the premiere episode--as I've always said, Trends is just an indicator). Will I torture myself with an episode or two? Time will tell, but it's no surprise that Amazon Prime would take classic, epic fantasy, and ignore it to create generic modern television. I'm not the target for this material anyway, as I expect adaptations to adapt the material as faithfully as possible (ala Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and the early seasons of Game of Thrones) and no one in the business wants to do that anymore (you are welcome to enjoy it, but I do not--that approach works best for those unfamiliar with the IP). This reaction is different from my ignoring Dune, which I did because I've seen the IP adapted twice already (1984 and 2000) and made a firm commitment to avoid anything featuring Zendaya (Spider-Man excluded) for the sake of my own sanity--she clearly attended the Gal Gadot school of acting and her publicist has made her insufferably impossible to avoid (for the love of god get her off my Twitter feed).
Back to The Wheel of Time: keep in mind season two is happening regardless of the response and that's inevitable because fantasy shows are so expensive to produce (the unwatchable Shannara series got three seasons). I am curious, when the dust settles, to see the numbers and hear what (internally) the reaction within Amazon is to the response. We all know Jeff Bezos respects one thing and one thing only: profits.
This article was written by Peter Levi
No comments:
Post a Comment