Has the MCU peaked?

[LivingBrocholy]

I agree to some extent if only because I believe most Marvel comic fans are included in "MCU fans" and as such making MCU fans happy includes making many comic fans happy. That said, comic fans are a relatively small fraction of MCU fans, and as such have only a fraction of importance when it comes to making them happy.

Having said that, I also don't understand your reasoning as to which characters should get used from your own logic. You say that characters like Spider-Man, X-Men, Fantastic Four, etc. should be used because it's what makes comic fans happy, but obviously not all comic fans want the same thing. As evidenced by the fact that you and I have opposite stances despite us both being comic fans. Thus doing the thing you want them to do is not "giving comic fans what they want", as I'm a comic fan and it's not what I want. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see the mutants in the MCU and see what they do with it, but if given the choice between getting Wolverine in the MCU and getting Darkhawk I'd absolutely pick Darkhawk, because I've already gotten Wolverine in a movie like 8 times over.


I disagree. I do not feel like anything they've done recently has specifically excluded comic fans.

If anything, it'd make more sense the other way around. Before I even knew of the comics I knew Spider-Man and X-Men because he had cartoons on television, toys and merchandise in stores, etc. And since the early 2000s they have been more in the public consciousness than ever because of their movies. On the other hand, a comic fan would benefit more than the general audience from seeing an underrated comic character like Star-Lord or Echo getting more exposure and gaining popularity through a movie, because this will also lead to those characters getting more comic appearances and their own video games and such.


I don't think they're too big to fail. They're not. But I do also think that they're big enough to take a risk. They can afford to risk having a movie underperform by MCU standards (which atm probably still has it performing higher than most non-MCU movies and still increases overall popularity of that IP among a general audience) because that same risk could also pay off by having a new franchise blow up in popularity which can pave the way for sales of sequels movies, toys, video games, cartoons, comics, etc. for decades to come (see GotG again).

And unlike something like the Star Wars sequel trilogy where the success of each part is crucial for the overall reception of the franchise because they all tell one continuous story and there was increasing amounts of annual disappointment, the MCU can have a situation where even if a fan is underwhelmed by a movie like Eternals they can then have their mind blown from incredible hype only a month later by Spider-Man without Eternals affecting that hype. Which is also why it makes sense to keep some big characters back. They know they're going to get to them. If the MCU's momentum starts to slow down too much they know they can inject renewed interest and hype from the general audience by announcing X-Men is coming to the MCU.



Sure, but fans alone are not enough. If only comic fans came to see these movies they'd all flop. That's why you need to give the general movie going audiences what they want (sometimes). But also, audiences can only express things they want that they already know. You have to also give audiences new things that they didn't know yet they wanted in order to innovate. Otherwise you'd really get into a situation where every movie can only be a sequel or reboot of something that has already been highly popular and successful. And that to me sounds very bleak.


You keep bringing up Blade. You don't really believe Blade having a more popular introduction into the MCU will be because of all the hardcore comic readers from the 70s and 80s, right? We both know that the reason Blade will do well is because New Line and David S. Goyer decided to take a D-list character unknown to general audiences and give him a very cool movie which made him instantly more recognizable and popular. You know, the entire thing I've been arguing Marvel Studios should keep doing with their D-list characters? Blade is like the prime example along with GotG as for why this is a good thing to be doing.

Since most MCU fans aren´t comic book fans it should force Marvel to hurry up with F4, Xmen and a proper adaptation of Spiderman. Marvel had to rely from past sagas to make succesful NWH lol. Why? Because that´s what most people know. Most people didn´t read comic books but they saw animated shows of F4 or X-men or their movies as well.

 

[SirStrangefolk]

It makes no sense that Marvel rathers to do a Captain America 4, Agatha Harkness show, an Echo show and a Groot show when they have the best of their properties on hand.

It makes total sense. As long as the MCU has some bigger, more popular characters the less popular ones will benefit from the synergy and simultaneously be boosted to higher popularity in all media. If they only do all the most popular ones first, then once those run out it'll be harder to sell people on a group of only total unknowns. By strategically spreading out the use of their most popular characters they massively extend the lifespan of the MCU and thus the potential profit from other IP as well.

Also, unlike comic book characters. Actors age. When it will be a crossover of Avengers and X-men. Anthony Mackie and Nataly Portman will be almost 50.

Yes, actors age and this means that all characters have an expiration date from the moment they're introduced. Introducing all the big characters at once would then get us 10-15 years of all the big characters followed by either a period of the MCU with no big characters left, or a reboot. And in the case of a reboot, what characters should they use then? Those same few big characters again until a reboot, repeated ad infinitum?

Since most MCU fans aren´t comic book fans it should force Marvel to hurry up with F4, Xmen and a proper adaptation of Spiderman. Marvel had to rely from past sagas to make succesful NWH lol. Why? Because that´s what most people know. Most people didn´t read comic books but they saw animated shows of F4 or X-men or their movies as well.

I don't think NWH had to "rely" on past sagas. Including them surely made the movie bigger, but if they had released a third Spider-Man movie that was just a continuation of Tom Holland only it's not like the movie would've failed.
And yes, the mainstream audience is more familiar with F4 and X-Men than Shang-Chi or Moon Knight. But like I said:
1. Spacing out those character introductions and strategically drip feeding them allows for the extension of the MCU's lifespan by a lot. An MCU X-Men movie would make the same in 2028 as in 2024 because people will come see it anyway. It might even make more because people have had more time inbetween to miss them. But whether people will come see Darkhawk or White Fox might depend on their investment in the MCU as a whole, which in turn may depend on whether it has any characters they're familiar with and like left. Waiting longer now means getting more time during which people spend money on other parts of the MCU in the long term.
2. In these inbetween periods there is also the possibility of indeed having breakout characters like the GotG, which can benefit the Marvel brand for decades to come in all media (movies, comics, video games, etc.). Plus even movies that don't explode in popularity are still giving massive exposure to lesser known characters. This makes for a healthier Marvel in the future because it'll leave them with more IP that the general audience knows and they can thus make more from in the future.

 

[Docker2.0]

Yes. It makes no sense that Marvel rathers to do a Captain America 4, Agatha Harkness show, an Echo show and a Groot show when they have the best of their properties on hand. I just expect that the Echo show is to use Netflix Daredevil, even if they won´t do a straight mention to the events of Netflix shows.

I guess that Marvel wants to replicate the success of Avengers and GoG. You know, unkown characters whose movies became blockbusters. But that hasn´t been working with Eternals, Shang Chi or even Hawkeye(that had the lowest ratings). Some people may say that is lockdown fault but Spiderman NWH and Venom 2 had better box office. Venom is a villain and if it had a better box office is because is more famous.

Also, unlike comic book characters. Actors age. When it will be a crossover of Avengers and X-men. Anthony Mackie and Nataly Portman will be almost 50.

Careful now. You are making way to much sense. It seems like when a movie bombs, then it's because of covid but when Venom and Spiderman come along, all logic is thrown out the window. Truth is they are movies people want to see, not Eternals and Shang Chi. GotG struck gold at the right time but I don't see any of the other d list characters doing it again. I don't see Eternals or Shang Chi breaking their original box office in their sequels. I still say Marvel is playing a dangerous game with the direction they are going in with D list characters, replacing the old guard with females(call me a hater but I just have no desire to see a female BP or Thor this early, especially when Helmsworth wants to play Thor)and losing all the original stars like Evans and Downey. Heck even Holland is having thoughts now.

 

[Venom 1988]

But that hasn´t been working with Eternals, Shang Chi or even Hawkeye(that had the lowest ratings). Some people may say that is lockdown fault but Spiderman NWH and Venom 2 had better box office.

That's because theyre Spider-Man movies and NWH in particular had this massive amount of hype going in. Also Shang-Chi did pretty well all things considering.

 

[Docker2.0]

That's because theyre Spider-Man movies and NWH in particular had this massive amount of hype going in. Also Shang-Chi did pretty well all things considering.

Ok..............keep that same energy when Thor comes out. I think Dr Strange will do better numbers than the original but I can guarantee you Thor won't be the numbers of Ragnorak. Helmsworth last Thor film with no big named Marvel movies on the horizon is not drawing fans in. The only reason Dr. Strange will do the numbers it will is because of the multiverse. But like I said, time will tell. I was right about Shang Chi, Eternals, and Spiderman because it's kind of obvious but time will tell...............

The Batman as well....................

 

[Venom 1988]

Ok..............keep that same energy when Thor comes out. I think Dr Strange will do better numbers than the original but I can guarantee you Thor won't be the numbers of Ragnorak. Helmsworth last Thor film with no big named Marvel movies on the horizon is not drawing fans in. The only reason Dr. Strange will do the numbers it will is because of the multiverse. But like I said, time will tell. I was right about Shang Chi, Eternals, and Spiderman because it's kind of obvious but time will tell...............

Dunno what any of that has to do with what I said but cool?

 

[LivingBrocholy]

It makes total sense. As long as the MCU has some bigger, more popular characters the less popular ones will benefit from the synergy and simultaneously be boosted to higher popularity in all media. If they only do all the most popular ones first, then once those run out it'll be harder to sell people on a group of only total unknowns. By strategically spreading out the use of their most popular characters they massively extend the lifespan of the MCU and thus the potential profit from other IP as well.


Yes, actors age and this means that all characters have an expiration date from the moment they're introduced. Introducing all the big characters at once would then get us 10-15 years of all the big characters followed by either a period of the MCU with no big characters left, or a reboot. And in the case of a reboot, what characters should they use then? Those same few big characters again until a reboot, repeated ad infinitum?


I don't think NWH had to "rely" on past sagas. Including them surely made the movie bigger, but if they had released a third Spider-Man movie that was just a continuation of Tom Holland only it's not like the movie would've failed.
And yes, the mainstream audience is more familiar with F4 and X-Men than Shang-Chi or Moon Knight. But like I said:
1. Spacing out those character introductions and strategically drip feeding them allows for the extension of the MCU's lifespan by a lot. An MCU X-Men movie would make the same in 2028 as in 2024 because people will come see it anyway. It might even make more because people have had more time inbetween to miss them. But whether people will come see Darkhawk or White Fox might depend on their investment in the MCU as a whole, which in turn may depend on whether it has any characters they're familiar with and like left. Waiting longer now means getting more time during which people spend money on other parts of the MCU in the long term.
2. In these inbetween periods there is also the possibility of indeed having breakout characters like the GotG, which can benefit the Marvel brand for decades to come in all media (movies, comics, video games, etc.). Plus even movies that don't explode in popularity are still giving massive exposure to lesser known characters. This makes for a healthier Marvel in the future because it'll leave them with more IP that the general audience knows and they can thus make more from in the future.

I disagree here. Marvel studios success roots from crossovers. Don't get me wrong I like stand alone movies. I'm open to see a marvel show of Moonknight or Ghost Rider. But losing time in support characters of D type comic books like Agatha Harkness or Groot is a lose of time. Also, if they wait to introduce their best properties they will have less time to do a crossover with proper set characters. A good example is Spiderman, they wanted to rush him the MCU ignoring his story and his trilogy ended uo a origin story lol. The worst part is that they had to rely from Raimivers and TAS. Otherwise his movie wouldn't have reached 1.6B USD.

Of course such thing affected the character. Spiderman is meant tohave a tragic lose and terrenal issues (issues paying renting, issues keeping a job, issues dealing with his daily life and superhero life). As you can see everythung of that wasn't present in the first Spiderman solo movies. In fact: this movies relied from the fact that Spiderman was in the MCU and had a MCU character in their posters lol.

If we want to see a F4 and X-men of better quality than MCU Spiderman Marvel should work with them ALONE(without crossovers, just like early 2000s, just as Spiderman 2, Guardians of Galaxy or Captain America 2).

A last thing to add is that X-men alone can increase MCU lifespan without losing time in a Agatha Harkness show, a Groot show etc. They have tons of teams like X-Force, X-Factor, Excallibur, New Mutants and the main team has different stages like O5, Giant Size X-men, Blue and Gold. With interesting stories like Days of Future Past, Age of Apocalypse (that hasn't been adapted), House of M, Messiah Complex, House of X etc. Wolverine and Deadpool themselves are franquises. If Fox didn't handdle this was because they delivered 2 or 3 proyects yearly when it became serious while Disney nowadays delivers 8 in the same length of time.

 

[SirStrangefolk]

I disagree here. Marvel studios success roots from crossovers. Don't get me wrong I like stand alone movies. I'm open to see a marvel show of Moonknight or Ghost Rider. But losing time in support characters of D type comic books like Agatha Harkness or Groot is a lose of time.

If we want to see a F4 and X-men of better quality than MCU Spiderman Marvel should work with them ALONE(without crossovers, just like early 2000s, just as Spiderman 2, Guardians of Galaxy or Captain America 2).

I'm confused what your stance is here. Are you saying crossovers are more financially successful while standalone movies tend to be of higher quality? I thought before that you thought it would be better for them to introduce X-Men and FF as soon as possible so they could crossover with the current Avengers, but now it also sounds like you think rushing into things and doing crossovers would make the movies worse? So what exactly is your preference here?

A last thing to add is that X-men alone can increase MCU lifespan without losing time in a Agatha Harkness show, a Groot show etc. They have tons of teams like X-Force, X-Factor, Excallibur, New Mutants and the main team has different stages like O5, Giant Size X-men, Blue and Gold.

Okay, but most of those teams share a significant number of core members so there is no way you can make all of those their own franchises (or at least not with their most recognizable members on the teams). That's the same reason we so far have only had a main series of four Avengers movies and no West Coast Avengers, Secret Avengers, New Avengers, Mighty Avengers, etc. No Ultimates. No Force Works. No Defenders with Hulk and Strange.

I'm not sure they'll have characters like Kitty Pryde and Nightcrawler do double duty as part of the main X-Men team and Excalibur. Psylocke I could see being introduced in X-Men and move to Excalibur but she's not then also going to be on X-Force as well.
If they do X-Factor it will probably be X-Factor Investigations with possibly some trainees from earlier iterations, but without the O5.
X-Force depends on what they do with the cast. If they keep the cast of Deadpool 2 it may be more successful than if they recast, but it would also limit the shelf life of their most popular members as I can't see people like Ryan Reynolds and Josh Brolin stay in those parts for a very long time to come. Which could also mean that the Deadpool franchise has a very limited time left going forward. And again, I don't think they'll put the likes of Wolverine, Cyclops, Archangel, Storm, etc. on both this team and the main X-Men team.
And when you look at it like that, Excalibur without Kitty and Kurt, X-Factor without O5, the New Mutants, X-Force once Deadpool and Cable leave; none of those have any members that are as popular as Groot is now.

Don't get me wrong, I like many of the lesser known X-Men characters and hope we get to see them. But it's simply not true that anything X-related is automatically more popular simply by being about mutants. If you'd ask your average movie fan to either see more Groot or a movie/show with Polaris, Sunfire, Longshot, Dazzler, Forge and Bishop, I'd bet more people would go for Groot right now. So I think it's also logical to spread out the introduction of the most popular X-Men (O5, Giant Size and a few later additions like Rogue, Kitty Pryde and Gambit) over a longer time period and put them on teams with less popular mutants, rather than rushing to introduce them all together ASAP.

 

[Bayne]

Careful now. You are making way to much sense. It seems like when a movie bombs, then it's because of covid but when Venom and Spiderman come along, all logic is thrown out the window. Truth is they are movies people want to see, not Eternals and Shang Chi. GotG struck gold at the right time but I don't see any of the other d list characters doing it again.

Funny, then, how Shang-Chi made more money than Venom in the US (which is the only market where the relative popularity of Marvel Comics characters is really relevant, since the comics and the cartoons do not really reach that far into foreign markets). And Black Widow only made 20m less than it. And even on a worldwide scale, Venom only made 70m total over Shang-Chi's total - not exactly a grandiose victory margin - and Eternals only 30m under Shang-Chi's.

It's almost like your characterization of how these movies have 'bombed' is just plain bull**** from top to bottom. And the fact that Venom 2 made so much less than Venom 1 makes it pretty damn clear that *all* of them suffered from the pandemic.

I don't see Eternals or Shang Chi breaking their original box office in their sequels. I still say Marvel is playing a dangerous game with the direction they are going in with D list characters, replacing the old guard with females(call me a hater but I just have no desire to see a female BP or Thor this early, especially when Helmsworth wants to play Thor)and losing all the original stars like Evans and Downey. Heck even Holland is having thoughts now.

I don't know that there will be an Eternals sequel (because of the critical reception, not the box office - at worst the box office means the budget was too big, which would easily be fixed in a sequel). If there is one, though, the fact that the original came out during an era of depressed box office combined with the fact that no marvel sequel other than AoU has ever made less money than its predecessor pretty clearly argues against your 'analysis'. And that streak of sequels includes most of the MCU's most controversial/universally disliked movies, as well as the sequels of characters clearly far less cared about than others (Thor and Ant-man). Shang-Chi has all the same arguments in favor plus the fact that it holds a 91% on RT (eighth highest of all MCU movies), 71/100 on MC (9th highest of all MCU movies) and an A CinemaScore (as good as or better than more than 3/4s of the MCU).

Go ahead and mark your words. The idea that the Shang-Chi sequel (assuming it doesn't somehow become the worst movie MS ever made) won't make more money than this is obviously ludicrous as you will unquestionably find out in time. If any Marvel movie were in any serious danger of making less money than their predecessor it's BP2, The Marvels or Avengers 5, not because they won't succeed but because their previous films set the bar ridiculously high.

Also, your claims about replacing Hemsworth with Portman are total bs that don't come from any publicly stated facts about the film. Giving her a story is in no way the same thing as getting rid of him. And the fact that you somehow think it does pretty clearly shows how laughably biased you are in this entire discussion. Even a lesser known character existing in a film headlined by the classic Thor is somehow a sin to you.

 

[Docker2.0]

Funny, then, how Shang-Chi made more money than Venom in the US (which is the only market where the relative popularity of Marvel Comics characters is really relevant, since the comics and the cartoons do not really reach that far into foreign markets). And Black Widow only made 20m less than it. And even on a worldwide scale, Venom only made 70m total over Shang-Chi's total - not exactly a grandiose victory margin - and Eternals only 30m under Shang-Chi's.

It's almost like your characterization of how these movies have 'bombed' is just plain bull**** from top to bottom. And the fact that Venom 2 made so much less than Venom 1 makes it pretty damn clear that *all* of them suffered from the pandemic.



I don't know that there will be an Eternals sequel (because of the critical reception, not the box office - at worst the box office means the budget was too big, which would easily be fixed in a sequel). If there is one, though, the fact that the original came out during an era of depressed box office combined with the fact that no marvel sequel other than AoU has ever made less money than its predecessor pretty clearly argues against your 'analysis'. And that streak of sequels includes most of the MCU's most controversial/universally disliked movies, as well as the sequels of characters clearly far less cared about than others (Thor and Ant-man). Shang-Chi has all the same arguments in favor plus the fact that it holds a 91% on RT (eighth highest of all MCU movies), 71/100 on MC (9th highest of all MCU movies) and an A CinemaScore (as good as or better than more than 3/4s of the MCU).

Go ahead and mark your words. The idea that the Shang-Chi sequel (assuming it doesn't somehow become the worst movie MS ever made) won't make more money than this is obviously ludicrous as you will unquestionably find out in time. If any Marvel movie were in any serious danger of making less money than their predecessor it's BP2, The Marvels or Avengers 5, not because they won't succeed but because their previous films set the bar ridiculously high.

Also, your claims about replacing Hemsworth with Portman are total bs that don't come from any publicly stated facts about the film. Giving her a story is in no way the same thing as getting rid of him. And the fact that you somehow think it does pretty clearly shows how laughably biased you are in this entire discussion. Even a lesser known character existing in a film headlined by the classic Thor is somehow a sin to you.

Call me bias or whatever but the numbers don't lie. The Batman comes out next month. Let's see those numbers again compared to Thor which again, I'm on record saying it won't touch Ragnarok. How is me speaking my OPINION bias? What is the point of the thread if everyone agrees? I said Eternals wouldn't do good and it didn't so people used the covid excuse but then Spiderman came out and shattered that excuse so now it will be something new. It's like people love to believe lies. The truth is the MCU has peaked because it is not really giving people what they want but pushing C level characters during this phase.

 

[Bayne]

Call me bias or whatever but the numbers don't lie. The Batman comes out next month. Let's see those numbers again compared to Thor which again, I'm on record saying it won't touch Ragnarok. How is me speaking my OPINION bias? What is the point of the thread if everyone agrees? I said Eternals wouldn't do good and it didn't so people used the covid excuse but then Spiderman came out and shattered that excuse so now it will be something new. It's like people love to believe lies. The truth is the MCU has peaked because it is not really giving people what they want but pushing C level characters during this phase.

It's biased because you're blatantly ignoring facts (like it's far from just the MCU movies which have suffered at the box office) and you're literally twisting reality to serve your own claims (like claiming that Shang-Chi was 'a bomb' but Venom a 'success' when they both performed very similarly). Plus inventing bs about Hemsworth being replaced.

 

[obredaan]

Call me bias or whatever but the numbers don't lie. The Batman comes out next month. Let's see those numbers again compared to Thor which again, I'm on record saying it won't touch Ragnarok.

Comparing Thor to Batman speaks volumes about how Marvel hasn't peaked while DC is still relying the same characters. I'm very much looking forward to what Reeves is going to do with Batman but at the same time, its just another Batman reboot. There are plenty of great DC characters that I would prefer to see on the big screen over another reboot of Batman.

Meanwhile Thor is about to get his 4th film. Superman can't even get a decent movie made these days so comparing anything DC to Marvel is comical. And I say this as a DC Superman fan.

 

[SirStrangefolk]

Comparing Thor to Batman speaks volumes about how Marvel hasn't peaked while DC is still relying the same characters. I'm very much looking forward to what Reeves is going to do with Batman but at the same time, its just another Batman reboot. There are plenty of great DC characters that I would prefer to see on the big screen over another reboot of Batman.

Meanwhile Thor is about to get his 4th film. Superman can't even get a decent movie made these days so comparing anything DC to Marvel is comical. And I say this as a DC Superman fan.

Actually, if we're comparing with DC right now; The Suicide Squad underperformed heavily at the box office due to 1. the pandemic, 2. simultanous streaming release, 3. high quality pirated copies from the streaming release, 4. it coming off of the first Suicide Squad movie and 5. it being R-rated.
But I think James Gunn is showing that he can at least to some extent replicate what he did with the D-List Guardians with the reception of characters like Polka-Dot Man, Ratcatcher and Peacemaker. These characters are literal nobodies but their appearances seem to have received a very positive critical and fan reception. Peacemaker is the number 1 streaming show right now and beating out Boba Fett.

We'll never know how financially successful a James Gunn Suicide Squad movie with these characters might've been if it had released in 2016 instead of David Ayer's version, but I think it might actually have made for a very different DC landscape right now. I truly believe that as long as competent people are making the movies and the have a vision for what they want from these characters almost any character can be made compelling and liked.

 

[Docker2.0]

It's biased because you're blatantly ignoring facts (like it's far from just the MCU movies which have suffered at the box office) and you're literally twisting reality to serve your own claims (like claiming that Shang-Chi was 'a bomb' but Venom a 'success' when they both performed very similarly). Plus inventing bs about Hemsworth being replaced.

Or maybe it's movies that people want to see. Like how Jackass forever is killing Moonfall because it's something that people want to see. Keep calling me bias because I'm speaking MY opinion of what is going on with the MCU because again, a lot of people are saying it but it seems like people only want to hear good things but phase 4 is not written in stone to do well. As far as Helmsworth being replaced even he is on record saying numerous times that he doesn't know what is going on because he wants to come back but Disney/Marvel is not letting him know anything. As far as the Eternals bombing, it clearly underperformed and Venom overperformed. You can keep saying I'm bias but look at the receptions of when they came out. It wasn't until the audience loved Venom that the narrative changed and when the audience wasn't receptive of Eternals that it changed as well. You are the one making this personal when, again, I have stated this is my opinion about how MCU needs to look at this next phase because it does not look good for them. Calling me bias over and over again because I question the direction of MCU is like a fat chick only asking Mcdonald employees is she fat. Of course they are going to tell her she is not so she can keep buying their food but a fitness trainer will tell her the truth.

 

[MadVillainy]

 

[Docker2.0]

 

[Bayne]

Or maybe it's movies that people want to see. Like how Jackass forever is killing Moonfall because it's something that people want to see. Keep calling me bias because I'm speaking MY opinion of what is going on with the MCU because again, a lot of people are saying it but it seems like people only want to hear good things but phase 4 is not written in stone to do well. As far as Helmsworth being replaced even he is on record saying numerous times that he doesn't know what is going on because he wants to come back but Disney/Marvel is not letting him know anything. As far as the Eternals bombing, it clearly underperformed and Venom overperformed. You can keep saying I'm bias but look at the receptions of when they came out. It wasn't until the audience loved Venom that the narrative changed and when the audience wasn't receptive of Eternals that it changed as well. You are the one making this personal when, again, I have stated this is my opinion about how MCU needs to look at this next phase because it does not look good for them. Calling me bias over and over again because I question the direction of MCU is like a fat chick only asking Mcdonald employees is she fat. Of course they are going to tell her she is not so she can keep buying their food but a fitness trainer will tell her the truth.

As always, you just dodge and refuse to answer any criticism you can't find a defense for. Trying to pretend I was talking about Eternals instead of Shang-Chi doesn't make it so, especially since I've stated repeatedly that Eternals did disappoint, especially in the US (though 400M is still not under any reasonable definition a 'bomb' ).

And likewise you prefer to ignore the fact that Americans clearly were MORE interested in watching Shang-Chi than Venom.

As for Thor, I don't know why Hemsworth should know exactly what is or isn't going on beyond Love and Thunder since Love and Thunder still isn't anywhere near release. The possibility that they don't necessarily want to use him for upcoming projects like Blade or the Marvels, etc, says absolutely nothing about whether they would have any interest making Thor 5 without him and so far there is zero evidence that that is true.

Nor do I know why anyone thinks this kind of random question aimed at actors is actually meaningful in any way, unless of course you somehow still believe that Andrew Garfield definitely isn't in No Way Home.

 

[Batgirl0202]

I'm thrilled with how well Shang-Chi performed, all things considered. As pointed out, it outperformed Venom which was a sequel to a financially successful film. Had Shang-Chi come out pre-pandemic and had it secured a China release, it probably would have crushed at the box office. Not bad for a first film from a basically unknown character...

Eternals of course is another can of worms. However, considering how Marvel just turned another C-Lister into a major box office contender, I'd say it's still way too early to claim that the MCU has peaked

 

[LivingBrocholy]

I'm confused what your stance is here. Are you saying crossovers are more financially successful while standalone movies tend to be of higher quality? I thought before that you thought it would be better for them to introduce X-Men and FF as soon as possible so they could crossover with the current Avengers, but now it also sounds like you think rushing into things and doing crossovers would make the movies worse? So what exactly is your preference here?

Yeah I say it. But with their own trilogies and not interacting with MCU characters until their trilogies are finished. Something similar of what MCU could´ve been if Fox and Sony colaborated several years ago.

If Marvel had been smart, we could´ve had MCU F4 and X-men by this year. Their trilogies would´ve ended in 2026 and the crossovers can came after it. Lets remember that this are teams with several characters so they need to be more explored than a crossover of single characters like Avengers. The crossovers can also come after two movies, not the entire trilogy.
Because when that thing doesn´t happen we have things like MCU Spiderman. (a spoiled boy who haven´t had tragic loses until the 3d movie), relying of MCU characters.

Okay, but most of those teams share a significant number of core members so there is no way you can make all of those their own franchises (or at least not with their most recognizable members on the teams). That's the same reason we so far have only had a main series of four Avengers movies and no West Coast Avengers, Secret Avengers, New Avengers, Mighty Avengers, etc. No Ultimates. No Force Works. No Defenders with Hulk and Strange.

I'm not sure they'll have characters like Kitty Pryde and Nightcrawler do double duty as part of the main X-Men team and Excalibur. Psylocke I could see being introduced in X-Men and move to Excalibur but she's not then also going to be on X-Force as well.
If they do X-Factor it will probably be X-Factor Investigations with possibly some trainees from earlier iterations, but without the O5.
X-Force depends on what they do with the cast. If they keep the cast of Deadpool 2 it may be more successful than if they recast, but it would also limit the shelf life of their most popular members as I can't see people like Ryan Reynolds and Josh Brolin stay in those parts for a very long time to come. Which could also mean that the Deadpool franchise has a very limited time left going forward. And again, I don't think they'll put the likes of Wolverine, Cyclops, Archangel, Storm, etc. on both this team and the main X-Men team.
And when you look at it like that, Excalibur without Kitty and Kurt, X-Factor without O5, the New Mutants, X-Force once Deadpool and Cable leave; none of those have any members that are as popular as Groot is now.

Don't get me wrong, I like many of the lesser known X-Men characters and hope we get to see them. But it's simply not true that anything X-related is automatically more popular simply by being about mutants. If you'd ask your average movie fan to either see more Groot or a movie/show with Polaris, Sunfire, Longshot, Dazzler, Forge and Bishop, I'd bet more people would go for Groot right now. So I think it's also logical to spread out the introduction of the most popular X-Men (O5, Giant Size and a few later additions like Rogue, Kitty Pryde and Gambit) over a longer time period and put them on teams with less popular mutants, rather than rushing to introduce them all together ASAP.

Wait what? Marvel had to water down X-men for a decade in order to make that. And now they had to bait their own fans bringing an X-men character to increase the ratings of their unnecesary shows. Even if such thing had no logic behind

Groot might be more popular, but if you assemble several characters who still popular BUT they are not popular as groot the show will be succesful.

That doesn´t justify that they have to do a show about Echo or Agatha Harkness who are less popular than most of the least known X-men.

 

[Docker2.0]

Yeah I say it. But with their own trilogies and not interacting with MCU characters until their trilogies are finished. Something similar of what MCU could´ve been if Fox and Sony colaborated several years ago.

If Marvel had been smart, we could´ve had MCU F4 and X-men by this year. Their trilogies would´ve ended in 2026 and the crossovers can came after it. Lets remember that this are teams with several characters so they need to be more explored than a crossover of single characters like Avengers. The crossovers can also come after two movies, not the entire trilogy.
Because when that thing doesn´t happen we have things like MCU Spiderman. (a spoiled boy who haven´t had tragic loses until the 3d movie), relying of MCU characters.


Wait what? Marvel had to water down X-men for a decade in order to make that. And now they had to bait their own fans bringing an X-men character to increase the ratings of their unnecesary shows. Even if such thing had no logic behind

Groot might be more popular, but if you assemble several characters who still popular BUT they are not popular as groot the show will be succesful.

That doesn´t justify that they have to do a show about Echo or Agatha Harkness who are less popular than most of the least known X-men.

See you are saying what I'm saying, just better. I can't articulate as well as you. But I am sexier than you, no doubt about it.

 

[Venom 1988]

If Marvel had been smart, we could´ve had MCU F4 and X-men by this year. Their trilogies would´ve ended in 2026

No they wouldn't have. Marvel wouldn't have been able to start developing any Fox properties until March 2019 at the earliest (when the Disney/Fox merger was finalized). And by that point, they already had a lot of these current projects like Eternals and Shang-Chi already in motion.

But let's say they wanted to fast track an F4 or X-Men movie. Sure maybe they could have gotten a movie out at the earliest 2022. There's no way either property would have a completed trilogy by 2026.

Groot might be more popular, but if you assemble several characters who still popular BUT they are not popular as groot the show will be succesful.

You keep bringing up Groot like he's getting some long form show with 45min episodes. Groot getting a series of shorts is not taking away air time from the X-Men or F4.

 

[Bayne]

Realistically speaking, none of the D+ series is taking air-time away from the X-Men or the F4.

Neither the X-Men nor the F4 would ever be introduced in a D+ series (except, maybe, as a direct lead-in to their first film). Marvel is still making the same number of movies per year as always (allowing for Covid delays, obviously). The D+ series are not being used to set up new film series that will push the X-Men or F4 debuts farther away.

They're nothing but extra stories for the hyper fans (and to keep the Disney overlords happy by helping keep D+ attractive). And they will have plenty of X-related content just as soon as the X-men are actually ready to appear on the big screen, which obviously isn't the case yet. F4 content is also probable, though less guaranteed, but will also obviously have to wait until they actually have a F4 movie ready to go.

It is the movie schedule that moves like molasses, for tons of reasons mostly having to do with the practical considerations of making movies and pretty much none of which having anything to do with what characters are appearing on D+.

 

[LivingBrocholy]

Realistically speaking, none of the D+ series is taking air-time away from the X-Men or the F4.

Neither the X-Men nor the F4 would ever be introduced in a D+ series (except, maybe, as a direct lead-in to their first film). Marvel is still making the same number of movies per year as always (allowing for Covid delays, obviously). The D+ series are not being used to set up new film series that will push the X-Men or F4 debuts farther away.

They're nothing but extra stories for the hyper fans (and to keep the Disney overlords happy by helping keep D+ attractive). And they will have plenty of X-related content just as soon as the X-men are actually ready to appear on the big screen, which obviously isn't the case yet. F4 content is also probable, though less guaranteed, but will also obviously have to wait until they actually have a F4 movie ready to go.

It is the movie schedule that moves like molasses, for tons of reasons mostly having to do with the practical considerations of making movies and pretty much none of which having anything to do with what characters are appearing on D+.

I was saying that because those shows cost millions. Most of those D+ shows cost over 100 million USD. Two of those shows are enough to do a F4 or X-men movie.

 

[Bayne]

I was saying that because those shows cost millions. Most of those D+ shows cost over 100 million USD. Two of those shows are enough to do a F4 or X-men movie.

The money didn't come from the MCU's budget for making movies. It came with strings attached to make Disney+ series that will help make D+ a success. Without D+ series, that extra money wouldn't be there at all. And since we all know Marvel would never launch something as big as the X-Men as a D+ only franchise, it won't be used for X-related stuff until the movies are actually ready to do X-men stuff. Not because they don't want to make X-shows but because they're not going to flood D+ with X-men stuff and then not have a movie ready for people to go to. That would be a very stupid business decision.

And they're still making movies at the same speed as always (allowing for the pandemic). The fact that they chose to make Spider-Man No Way Home, Ant-man Quantummania, Dr Strange MOM, Thor LaT, Guardians 3, BP 2, The Marvels and Blade before making X-men has absolutely nothing do with whether Disney+ is showing I Am Groot and Agatha Harkness or whether its showing, in some alternate world, The Immortal Hulk and Captain America Classic starring Chris Evans.

 

[metaphysician]

I was saying that because those shows cost millions. Most of those D+ shows cost over 100 million USD. Two of those shows are enough to do a F4 or X-men movie.

200M might buy you a movie, but it can't buy you a release window. There are only so many days in the year, and Disney is already using up a lot of them with four Marvel movies each year. Regardless of money, they could either steal a release slot from another Disney release, or go knife-to-the-face with a competitor over one of *their* release slots, or they could release it in a dead time when it would do poorly. Those are their options, and none of them hinge on "money spent by Disney+".