Marvel Cinematic Universe Movie • Page 277

Fewer showssssssssssss thank god

 

I wanted more shows and less movies

 

Less shows and averaging 3 movies a year like this year should be fine.

 

Would rather Fassbender but ok

 

Whoa one last ride

 

Secret Wars is going to be a giant farewell to all the Fox characters

 

Everyone dies

I mean, not everyone

To quote Mark Ruffalo

 

There's part of me that wouldn't mind an 80 year break at this point

 

We’ll see if the MCU survives 30 years first. Unlike the comics, these characters are embodied by the actors.

Marvel will have to find the right excuses to change actors and continue to find very charismatic actors to bring these characters to life. I believe that’s the make-or-break for the long term survivability of the franchise. People have to feel like they are going on a journey with these characters.

The Infinity Saga was effective because the actors aged with the audience so the audience grew up and and had life experiences while seeing their favorite characters also age and encounter different life experiences. You don’t care to do that if the actor doesn’t capture the performance.

 

The MCU is one of the things that brings joy to my life, so I want you to know that if anything goes wrong, I'm holding you personally responsible.

 

Disney and the MCU are also choking the rest of the cinematic landscape out of theaters, and since seeing mid budget/independent/foreign films in theaters is one of the things I enjoy most in the world, I’m begging them to take a break

(I won’t belabor the point and anyone can enjoy these movies as much as they like, obviously, but the consequences are real)

 

In the end, I want everyone to be happy, but I have to consider my happiness first and foremost, so I guess at some point in the future, we're probably going to have to fight to the death.

 

If the MCU was to just take a break I don’t think it would fix anything. It’s not as if the MCU films make the money they do because there are no other options. Disney uses its power leverage to unethically keep some films in theaters for longer durations, however, and that obviously could change.

But the MCU is mainstream for a reason while other films gather smaller audiences for a reason. The MCU has merely pointed out what the majority of audiences want when they go to the theater, for better or for worse. Perhaps it’s something they’ve wanted but never knew, or it’s something they’ve always wanted but never could get in such a large quantity. Either way, audiences are drawn to it in masses.

That won’t go away if the MCU goes away. Something else will fill its place. The Pandora’s box has been opened, especially now that DC is about to do the exact same thing under Gunn.

 

I actually wonder if the MCU went away if the effect would just be that people go to less movies.

 

I largely disagree:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/opinion/martin-scorsese-marvel.html

 

I think the whole keeping MCU films on screens longer thing is a big deal. My theater gets the vast majority of major and bigger movies. But smaller movies are hit or miss. I don’t think my theaters needed Wakanda Forever on multiple screen for weeks and weeks. But it’s either they do it or not get the movie. Obviously they will do it as the masses do generally go to them. But it then gives the masses at my theater zero opportunity to see a smaller film there. So either going away for a bit or reducing the rate of movies would literally open up more screens for those smaller movies, allowing them a chance to gain filmgoers. Instead those films don’t screen here at all. How can we judge those smaller films for smaller box office when they don’t even get to screen here?

 

I think this would probably be what plays out. The pandemic played a part, but it’s also partially because Marvel/Disney (and the studios attempting to emulate their success) monopolize theaters, including independent theaters (Disney threatened indie theaters that they’d withhold future films if they didn’t play Star Wars). The pandemic didn’t help, as tons of indie theaters shut down, leaving mainstream corporate theaters as the only option for most moviegoers, and if all they’re playing nearly all the time is superheroes and franchises, people who are tired of those kinds of movies won’t go, and turn to streaming, where independent/foreign/midbudget works have been relegated to.

 

Would the Irishman make even half of what most MCU films make if it was in the same number of screens? Does it get the same streaming views on Netflix as Marvel films?

I’d need to see the stats, not just it being suggested in an interview.

All of my friends, including I, own more non-MCU films than we do MCU films. Our collections are certainly not geared towards Marvel, but when we go to pay $15+ for a movie together, it’s to see a spectacle like a Marvel film, not the majority of the films we own.

 

It’s not a question of if it would make as much as a Marvel movie; it’s a question of smaller movies even getting a chance to find an audience. If Martin fucking Scorsese can’t get a movie shown in theaters for more than a 2 week window for a giant streamer (who I believe are reportedly moving away from spending on auteurs and their works), then what is the landscape going to look like when young, up and coming directors have no theatrical opportunities to make personal projects? They’ll do them independently for streamers, reach a fraction of the audience they otherwise would if they were in theaters, because despite moviegoing audiences trending downwards, films still get more of a marketing push and find larger audiences when given time and screens in theaters. Then they’ll sign onto a Disney project to pay the bills and hopefully get to do something personal and original again, but as I’ve been saying: Disney is actively shutting out the ability for filmmakers to make movies like that, so there won’t be as many chances and they’ll have to probably keep going to the corporate franchise well to have any kind of sustainable career.

 

But that doesn’t answer the question as to if MCU films are what general audiences want.

Yes, it is harder for directors to get a studio to sign on to smaller films or for those smaller films to be shown to as many people, but that doesn’t answer what the audiences want and what they’re willing to pay for.

To immediately assume it’s simple because more people have the chance to see Marvel films is not grounded in the evidence presented. Both are on the same streaming service. Most of the viewers of Marvel films on Netflix probably already watched the movie, so they’re choosing to watch it again instead of The Irishman.

Can it be possible be more people don’t give a damn about an Irish mob movie but are more into fantasy, adventure, heroism, and escapism?

Just look at Disney+ and how fast it had subscribers. A lot of those were probably from people who chose to pay to watch the same franchise films for the 15th time. General audiences go back to those films when they could be watching anything else on Netflix, including the Irishman, which was heavily advertised when it premiered and has (to my knowledge) been on the service for over 3 years.

 

You’re hung up on comparing The Irishman and a hypothetical Marvel movie 1:1, that’s not really a lens that works on the problem that’s happening. Of course Disney and their product are broadly appealing: they’re designed to try and be as broadly appealing as possible because Disney wants to be the most powerful monopoly in entertainment. But you’re ignoring the history and active decisions and factors and just saying people would rather watch superheroes than “an Irish mob movie”. For some people that’s certainly true. For a significant number of people, even. Even if what you’re arguing is that you don’t think there’s a theatrical audience for midbudget non-superhero movies, I would agree. But it was Disney’s strategy to dominate theaters! This is how they do that! By being the only option! The arthouse theater near me showed The Force Awakens and Endgame for months. There are theaters all around Chicago showing those movies. People go to arthouse theaters to see the movies that *don’t* get released in mainstream theaters. But Disney wants to maximize every single opportunity for profit. You can Google this stuff, it happened. Scorsese isn’t complaining that his movie didn’t get much theatrical distribution, he’s arguing that cinema as a medium is in a dangerous place as corporations treat art as “content” and devalue anything that doesn’t seem like a guarantee to make hundreds of millions, preferably at least a billion.

We disagree. Knives Out 2 blew away theatrical numbers when Netflix shuffled it to like a 2 week window because people actually do want to go to a theater and see non-superhero movies for adults. It’s not the only example of a small movie on limited screens blowing away projected per-screen averages

 

The link posted was about Scorsese talking about the Irishman, so I assumed that was being used as case study #1.

And as for the ArtHouse theater showing MCU films. Weird? Certainly. Were they doing it because Disney had them or did the owner think they’d just sell more concessions while playing films that a larger number of people want to see?

Myths of heroes have been a staple of story telling that has captured the imagination since basically the dawn of story telling. I just believe, and we disagree, that the MCU has created enough films that grab the attention of audiences to create an awakening or realization as to what it is most want to see and experience in a theater and that it has forever changed expectations when it comes to the theater experience, even if the MCU was gone tomorrow.

Does Disney know this and take advantage of it? Of course. Would the MCU be as big as it is without Disney? Possibly? Probably?

I’m going to guess that a portion of people are like me and prefer to watch smaller, more intimate films at home. Scorsese wasn’t wrong when he compared MCU films to theme parks, but I agree with him in that people want to see films like that in theaters. That’s why a lot go. It’s fun to see loud and adventurous movies on a big screen while it’s more soothing to watch smaller films in the intimacy of my house. Even something like Avatar would fit the “theme park” comparison, imo. Grand visuals and scope that demand to be seen with a large group of people on the biggest screen possible.

And, yeah, there are examples of films like Knives Out 2. Great films that come off of a great first film with solid reviews and just the right marketing. Rian Johnson’s name certainly helped, too. I wouldn’t say films like that can’t make a lot of money. They do and can break expectations, but would 3 Knives Out films a year pull the same numbers?

 

I actually feel the same way. If I'm going to make a trip to a theater, it's going to be for a big loud movie, not for something smaller and lower-key. I know that sucks for filmmakers who no doubt make their films to be seen on the big screen, but that's my mentality. I don't like going to theaters a lot, honestly.

 

Because Disney forced them:

Small theater chains worry a mid-century rule is all that stands between them and extinction

https://www.thedailystar.net/views/opinion/news/disney-destroying-independent-cinema-3044926?amp

The Day Disney Denied Tarantino’s Dome Dream

We definitely disagree, because while the scope of the MCU is something not before seen in movies, the stories themselves are not revolutionary art making people finally understand that superhero stories are great. I do not believe people go to the theater and see a bunch of superhero movies and then see like, Banshees of Inishiein or Tar and go “when’s Samuel L. Jackson gonna invite them to the Avengers, where are the quips, this isn’t what I expected out of cinema as a medium”.

This is true, and was accelerated by the pandemic, but is also a symptom of those movies largely only being available at home now!

Yes, that’s his point: not that they aren’t entertaining, but that at this moment in culture, anything that *isn’t* those kinds of movies are in danger of being squeezed out of theaters altogether, left to hope that a streamer actually attempts to market it. It’s a bad time for cinema right now. Steven Spielberg’s last two movies showed for like, two weeks each near me. Maybe a month, though in the later weeks they had like, one or two inconvenient showtimes a day. Because DISNEY is demanding premium placement. Not because people don’t want to see movies by the most popular filmmaker of all-time.