MCU News & Notes

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/$1,276

Nerdrodic (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

MCU News & Notes

I've been waiting for the Eternals box office numbers to settle. The film currently sits at 368k with a chance to catch Black Widow's box office (379), although not its gross including Disney+ (which remains the MCU/Sony Marvel's 2021 high, which No Way Home will certainly top). Unlike Shang-Chi, whose box office was stronger domestically (it is still the #1 domestic box office film thus far, despite being #8 overall or #6 when Chinese exclusives are removed), Eternals is being floated by the foreign box office (almost 60%) and I find that interesting (it isn't as slanted as Dune, which is close to 73%, or No Time to Die at 79%). Anecdotally I've noticed critically panning tends to impact the domestic market more than the foreign one. All pandemic releases seem to have featured mediocre to bad writing, such that spectacles are dominating the box office (Fast Saga, No Time to Die, etc).

As for the reception of Hawkeye (which I haven't seen yet), from ancillary figures it seems soft (eg, Charlie at Emergency Awesome is trying to draw eyes with clickbait titles about Daredevil rather than leaning on the IP itself), albeit seemingly better than the failure that was Falcon and the Winter Soldier (Google Trends numbers are still coming in, but Hawkeye's initial peak is better than that show, albeit far lower than either WandaVision or Loki)--it is, amusingly, garnering more discussion than Amazon's Wheel of Time, whose adaptation looked like a dumpster fire from the beginning.

Not long after Youtube's terrible decision to remove the downvote button, Twitter's new CEO is initiating his own round of censorship on the platform, as he hilariously let it be known that he doesn't feel bound by the First Amendment. I think giant conglomerates are immune from governmental interference, but public perception does matter to their advertisers, and it will be interesting to see if backlash will force any change or not. That kind of backlash was never going to be the case with Youtube, since hiding information actual benefits selling to advertisers, but Twitter's situation is different. My guess is the CEO won't be swayed, but I do think the verbal dance required is going to be more delicate than Youtube's.

It seems as though the honeymoon for Syl Abdul (someone I quite like) as a primary conduit for Mikey Sutton material on his channel has changed, at least judging by the frequency he's had Sutton on. It's a bit confusing to unpack, since Syd now writes for Geekosity, but given his channel's slow decline (alongside the enthusiasm for Snyder), it doesn't serve Mikey well to focus on his channel. This decline seems even more pronounced for Small Screen, which (as I warned months ago) has lost a lot of viewership after Edward stepped away from engaging roundtable discussions. I'm not sure where Sutton puts his YT focus now (perhaps LotLB, even if their YT growth ended long ago), but he's certainly still out there in the ether. Unfortunately for Mikey and all the other scoopers, what positive news can they report on? Star Wars is still a clusterfuck, the WB still hasn't figured out DC, and the MCU has been slamming its face against the wall throughout Phase Four. This situation has been perfect for outrage YTers, whose numbers had been falling in 2020 (eg).

Periodically I check-in with personalities who have come and gone in the scene and I was surprised to note that Matt Jarbo, who imploded a few years ago in a non-MCU context, has largely fallen off the face of the earth--nuking his main channel by not posting on it, largely giving up on his second largest channel (3 Buck Theater), let another ancillary channel die, and is focused on his Forbidden Knowledge channel which doesn't get much traffic. He seems to be trying to transition into podcasting, although his Patreon is essentially dead (12 patrons). It's a fascinating if crazy fall for a guy who was a known figure in a number of different scenes. Around the time I was associated with Small Screen he was trying to break into the DC scene (after trying and failing to ingratiate himself with Mikey Sutton--for those with long memories he did the same with Midnights' Edge), but he can't stop himself from feuding with personalities (for DC he was anti-Snyder, which in some ways mirrors his prior pro-Disney stance with Star Wars). While he's had ethical issues all along the way, plenty of people have survived that so I think what's destroyed his career is his unending combativeness and hostility (perhaps emphasized by the fact that he tends to attack larger channels). It's one thing to 'stick it to the man' when taking an ethical stance, but Jarbo's views all seem calculated to find a niche that's unoccupied in a fandom--unfortunately for him, this only leaves being pro-corporate and traditional media already does that, leaving him no space whatsoever.

This article was written by Peter Levi

MCU News & Notes

Back in October I failed to mention the delay for Ms. Marvel. Originally scheduled for late 2021, Hawkeye took its place--bumping it to early 2022--and then the overall shift in the MCU's schedule pushed it down to mid-2022. I bring this sequence up because I've seen it suggested that this has been done to allow for emergency reshoots (something that's true for Doctor Strange 2, incidentally). On a functional level I don't see the same signs of panic that's clear in the case of the Indiana Jones 5 (which was pushed back an entire year--the sort of thing that happened to the New Mutants to allow reshoots that never happened, or No Time to Die where the reshoots did happen). While there may be planned tweaks to the show given the extra time, I'm not sure this is as wholesale as some are suggesting.

One thing thing I missed when discussing the show was showrunner Bisha K. Ali deleting her old social media posts in 2019 for the same reason as Nia DaCosta and others (although apparently Ali had much more inflammatory material than what I could find from DaCosta). According to the coverage I've seen, you can boil down Ali's comments to the very standard upper class rhetoric that 'white man bad' (Richard Madden filling that role for us in Eternals), which wouldn't impact Ms. Marvel's content much (given that there are few male Caucasian characters attached to it). Whatever one's opinions of Ali or the IP, the show is likely to be the exact same clusterfuck of terrible writing that's plagued Phase Four (there are rumours that directors El Arbi and Fallah were not happy with the scripts, but without further substantiation that has to remain rumour). It's a show I had no interest in when it was announced, so on a personal level this is simply interesting trivia and follows a Phase Four hiring trend.

At the end of the day money trumps everything, so with Eternals opening weekends in the books, how did it do? The film picked up 71 million in the opener, so here are the relevant comparisons:

• Venom 2 90 (Oct)
• Black Widow 80 (July)
• Shang-Chi 75 (Sept)
• Eternals 71 (Nov)
• The Suicide Squad 26 (Aug)

We can kick James Gunn's flop out of the equation as an outlier, but Eternals (as expected) opened lower than any other similar film, if not by a massive amount. While Black Widow's gross tumbled after a strong opening (keeping in mind its simultaneous release on Disney+), both Shang-Chi and Venom lingered like a bad smell (the latter having passed the former). None of these films will reach the top-five for the year (although if we cut out the Chinese exclusives, they are #4 and #5 currently), but can Eternals eek out numbers approaching the others? It's unlikely, both because of upcoming competition and given its low Cinemascore. Unlike Shang-Chi, Eternals has received more of its box office internationally, albeit those numbers are still well below both Chi and Black Widow.

The above brings up comic book box office grosses since 2020, something I find very interesting given that from 2016-19 we had at least two films a year making 800k+ (topping out in 2019 with 4 films hitting a billion). Since then the bottom has fallen out:

• Birds of Prey 201k (WB)
• New Mutants 49k (Fox)
• Wonder Woman 2 166k (WB)
• Black Widow 504k (379k/125k) (Disney)
• The Suicide Squad 167k (WB)
• Shang-Chi 430k (still in theaters) (Disney)
• Venom 2 441k (still in theaters) (Sony)
• Eternals 281k (still in theaters) (Disney)

You can argue--and I would--that these films are all bad to awful, however, poorly made films used to make a ton of money regardless (Captain Marvel, Aquaman, the first Venom, etc), so what's happened? There's obviously a certain depression of the market due to Covid--I argued awhile ago that it's 20%-25% lower than it ought to be, although that excuse gets less and less valid as time goes on. Let's pick the high side of that and see what we get for the post-Covid releases:

• Black Widow 630k
• The Suicide Squad 208k
• Shang-Chi 536k
• Venom 2 551k

These are still atrocious numbers (particularly when you factor in inflation for earlier films) and even upping it to 30% (which I think is too much) they are far below their expectations. I think the first Venom's box office was essentially a fluke (buoyed by when it was released and the rub-off element from the MCU) and what we see now is far more appropriate to its quality; the WB has no idea what it's doing, so their DC films are a hodgepodge of mediocre to awful; for the MCU however, this is all Feige's fault. To go from a poorly written film like Captain Marvel making a billion to something only slightly worse making half that is embarrassing. To my mind it's all down to the writing. While I think the cast choices for Shang-Chi and Eternals are an issue, good writing could have helped that, but Marvel simply won't hire people who can do the job. Just like with other genre media (fantasy, sci-fi, etc), people who aren't native to that space routinely bomb adapting it (Wrath of Khan remains the exception that proves the rule).

One thing to point out from the above, and I haven't seen it discussed, is that Black Widow's simultaneous release on Disney+ has performed better than both Shang-Chi and Eternals appearing exclusively in theaters. Mindboggling.

I've mentioned this before, but I think it warrants it's own section. Critics and fans will throw around the comment that a film has 'bombed' without explaining what they mean. The problem is that term can be used to describe a number of situations:

1. Most commonly used when comparing a film's listed production budget (which is often inaccurate and low, but all we can use barring investigative journalism) to its gross; so a film that cost 50 million and made only 25 is a net negative and therefore, a financial bomb
2. Less common among fans, but seen a lot with critics/commentators, is when someone compares a film's gross to its listed production plus the expected marketing budget (a figure we rarely know accurately, with the same caveat as above, but is averaged to be half the production budget); ergo a film costing 50 million is expected to have a 25 million marketing budget, such that it's gross of 25 million is even worse
3. Very rarely you get commentators who factor in not just the total gross but the expected studio take; studios do not get 100% of the box office and how much they get varies considerably (China is notoriously low in that regard, with the usual figure quoted at 25%; so a film that makes 100 million in China earns the studio 25); while this is an important element to how profitable a film is, it's rarely considered
4. Performance vs expectations: each studio has an expected gross from its film, a total that's used to drum up financial support for making it and to pitch to stock holders; this figure is unrelated to any of the math above and can include sundry elements like merchandising or how it impacts other company elements (like theme parks); when a studio makes an art film, they often expect a loss, so it is budgeted accordingly (the reward is awards and prestige for the studio/executives); the flip side of this is a movie like Batman v Superman, where at the #1 level is profitable, but came nowhere near expectations and is therefore a failure (resulting, ultimately, in Zack Snyder's removal from future projects); this, to me, is what really matters, although it's not always easy to know what a studio wants from a film (barring leaks/stock holder meetings); when I talk about performance, this is how I'm doing it by making an educated guess on expectations--based on the past and what we know from the business

I'll reiterate that none of these factors are related to the quality of the film. Plenty of terrible films are successful, just as many landmark films fail financially. So when I talk about performance, I will offer my opinion on its quality, but I consider that irrelevant to the matter of whether the project has been successful.

Idris Elba's window as a leading man seems to have closed. This isn't a dig at the 49-year old actor, who I quite like (I was first exposed to him in The Office), but simply an observation about how charisma and talent isn't enough to make it as a movie star (Nathan Fillion is another example). Despite opportunities, Elba was never in the right vehicle to make his mark and I think the failure of The Suicide Squad marks his last chance. Elba's had two very different A+ chances to make that breakthrough (Fillion never got that opportunity). The first was 2017's disaster The Dark Tower. The box office for both his films is abysmal, as somehow Dark Tower only made 113k, while The Suicide Squad earned just 167k. Neither failure is due to Elba's performance, but instead due to the weak material around him. Of the two roles I think the latter was a better vehicle for him (and, indeed, it was more successful), as the hill to climb for Dark Tower was much, much higher. Unfortunately for him, his golden opportunity was in the midst of James Gunn's downward arc as a director. This isn't that dramatic an outcome for Elba, who will continue to get plenty of work as long as he wants, but it's interesting to see just how fickle all of this is (Jason Momoa had his bomb when he was young enough to wait for better second chance, that early failure being 2011's Conan film). Granted, Momoa isn't a great actor so much of his draw is due to his physique--I don't know how long he can realistically maintain that.

Apparently I missed Midnight's Edge drama from back in May (and beyond), where comments by outrage YTer MechaRandom42 about Zack Snyder spiraled into accusations that ME sidekick Tom conflicted with most (all?) the female personalities on the unwatchable Midnight's Edge After Dark. The subsequent attempt to cancel Tom failed (that's the wrong audience to try that with). ME has never addressed the issue, simply removing those involved from their network, which is in line with Andre's approach to drama (ergo booting Matt Jarbo when he imploded a few years ago, something Mundane Matt is still triggered about up to this day). This is all very trivial, but I bring it up because it's the kind of drama that's rampant in fandom and gives you an idea of why so few people want to say something controversial within that space (it isn't that long ago that Jeremy Conrad got booted from the MCU space, albeit his issues aren't a matter of conjecture; this is why Mikey Sutton's reviews of virtually everything are incredibly positive, but in conversations about the same material there's plenty of criticism).

Youtube plans to remove the dislike button from videos is a naked attempt to encourage advertisers to spend as well as a way to protect corporate channels from embarrassing reactions. Indirectly this helps a certain kind of controversial creator (disproportionately big ones, since they get large amounts of votes in both categories). YT claims it's protecting smaller creators, but I (and most people) recognize this as utter bullshit and believe it's a terrible idea. Vote brigading does happen from time-to-time, but small creators don't matter enough to generate that kind of attention and if your content is good isolated attacks make no impact. Whether YT will stick with this unpopular decision I don't know, but given that it benefits big companies I expect they will. At least for me, I still see the button.

This article was written by Peter Levi

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

Crawling Through the Wreckage

One glimmer of hope for the MCU--and this is likely years down the line--is that they've created a way to escape their bad decisions/poor writing: the multiverse. Assuming the IP is given a proper second chance, new voices could jettison this entire Phase out of existence--an aspect of the multiverse. This puts Marvel on much better footing than Star Wars, which is saddled with the horrendous prequels until the end of time. The question is, does the hammer ever fall? Due to the connections to the prior iterations of Spider-Man, I expect Spidey-3 to do very well (proper MCU money) no matter how good or bad it is, but it looks like it will arrive after four straight disappointing TV shows (it would be five but it looks like Ms. Marvel's shift will put after it), and three straight films. If Doctor Strange is the goofy dumbass we see from the Spidey-3 trailers, his film will be another disaster and I don't know what to expect from Thor 4 (does it follow the downward spiral of James Gunn's films or not?). Financially, both the latter films will do better than the new IP (irrespective of how good they are), but how well remains to be seen. I don't think we'll see any course correction from Feige irrespective of the numbers--the man believes in himself--so any change has to come from Bob Chapek and in what manner I don't know (revive the old Marvel story group?). Given how little Bob Iger changed Star Wars, I'm not sure how much really can be fixed.

Even its release couldn't push Shang-Chi into public discourse--if you zoom in Black Widow overtakes it the weekend after release. Google Trends is just one data point, however, but it's fascinating that neither the marketing or opening could push Shang-Chi into anything other than background noise. In contrast to the social discourse, Shang-Chi beat box office expectations. While unable to upset Black Widow's opening, it fell short only by about 7% (granting the latter's joint opening on Disney+ impacts the comparison). Like Black Widow, the film was pushed along domestically, as the Phase Four products all seem aimed at an American audience (people I know casually enjoyed it--as they have the shows--spectacle beats plot and writing for many). The film's box office, domestically, has held up better than I expected, going from 94 through Labour Day, to 34, and now to 21. It's likely that Shang-Chi will beat Black Widow as the #1 domestic film (as a percentage of its box office it's much more dependent on the domestic market--55% of its gross versus Black Widow's 48%). The two films are bumping against each other on the total gross chart (at #5 and #6), although it's less clear that Shang-Chi can catch Black Widow overall. Keep in mind that the latter film made 150 million through streaming versus Shang-Chi's zero, so in that sense the two films will never be close. It's worth noting that Shang-Chi was supposed to be the next Black Panther and in that intention it fails completely.

The kneejerk reaction of some MCU fans might be to say, hey, it's killing it domestically and worldwide Black Widow is competitive, so Phase Four is going great! The problem with that idea is F9: The Fast Saga, which was released when conditions for theater viewing were worse, did far better than both films, helped in large part by being released in China (something the MCU seems unable to do anymore). You cannot budget and plan, as Marvel has done, if you are going to throw away that much of your box office potential. This reality, if it persists, won't impact any of the projects currently underway, but you have to wonder about a few years down the line. We know that eschewing writing for spectacle--Michael Bay style--eventually fails. Transformers films saw increases initially, a small drop off, and then it tumbled off a cliff, and that's not something that ever tried to be serious.

The other thing we don't know--and we'll have to rely on business reports for--is whether merchandise sales for MCU products are stable or not. If the merch starts to suffer, that means the box office was soft and you have a real problem on your hands--the after market matters a lot to Disney.

I'm shocked by The Suicide Squad's anemic box office (165), largely because the reception I've seen has been so much better than the the MCU films. I don't think the fact that it's a nonsensical, tonally inconsistent mess with few laughs is the problem--worse films have done better. The movie performed better internationally, but part of the problem domestically was the simultaneous release on HBO Max without a pay wall. At least for the moment it seems like bland comicbook films can thrive domestically, but no one is going to pay for what they can watch for free.

On the MCU side, the lackluster impact of the shows is more worrying. Ratings/interest isn't the only thing that matters to Disney (subscriber retention and attraction is more vital), but the MCU ought to be in the same category as The Witcher/Stranger Things, if not beyond them, but it's not even close. An additional problem for the MCU is they couldn't have asked for a better time to debut these shows: during the lockdown with minimal impact from theaters. Despite that and very positive coverage, it's an anemic response. Hawkeye trailer seems to be aiming for a family friendly audience (what isn't heartwarming about an arrow in the face?), so it will be interesting to see if they can produce a show with coherent writing. For Hawkeye fans (are there any?) I expect we'll see Clint bumble around until his successor character shows him how much better she is Shang-Chi and Loki-style--yay?

I've given up covering the scoop game (we had a recent Sutton faceplant, but at this stage, who cares?), but an interesting note about Shang-Chi: the (partially) debunked Reddit scooper, "The Marvel Scoop Master", had one of his scoops validated. He claimed way back in June, 2019 that the film's script was considered dull and required an emergency re-write. We now know from the credits that the re-write is true, as Andrew Lanham was brought in to do just that. The issue with MCU scripts has been habitual, although bigger creators will likely be able to resist having their visions changed (for good or ill remains to be seen).

This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)