Has the MCU peaked?

[Bayne]

Ah man you guys write such long posts! I bring up Blade because I do think with the actor they have and the movies AND tv show that he had(I know it sucked but still)he is a lot more popular than people realize. And as far as Marvel not giving comic fans what they want, they have been able to tweek characters but not take away from them completely earlier on. These new changes, I don't know about. But time will tell. I'm just replying to the threads and some people are getting in their feelings but it is what it is. I can see the next batch of films underperforming and I stick to that. Hawkeye's Disney plus numbers are way down from Loki and Wandavision and I think Ms Marvel's will be the same. And with covid going on, a Marvel show shouldn't lose viewers, it should actually gain since people are home way more.

But again, he was *made* popular by previous movie makers doing exactly what Marvel is trying to do now with other characters.

And if the actor's popularity can be an extra factor for you to expect his film to do better, then it shouldn't be so hard to admit that other factors can also apply to films about newer characters in order to help them mitigate the disadvantage of being unknown. Literally no one is saying a popular character doesn't have an advantage. The point is just that movies can succeed even when they don't have every possible advantage, and won't always succeed when they do have every possible advantage.

 

[SirStrangefolk]

I bring up Blade because I do think with the actor they have and the movies AND tv show that he had(I know it sucked but still)he is a lot more popular than people realize. And as far as Marvel not giving comic fans what they want, they have been able to tweek characters but not take away from them completely earlier on.

Okay, it seems like we are fully on the same page at least about how giving a D-list character a movie or show can cause a big increase in their popularity which lasts quite long (it's been 15 years since the Blade show and 19 years since the last good Blade movie).

So I think our disagreement then stems from two points.
1. What we ourselves would like to see from Marvel movies and shows going forwards
2. What we believe is the best choice for Marvel.

The first point is purely personal preference, so it's not much of a point in arguing about it.

For the second point I'll reiterate my stance.
To most of the general audience Moon Knight, Nova, Northstar, Dazzler, Echo, Squirrel Girl, Darkhawk, Sleepwalker and Crescent are all pretty much equals and all are equal now to what Iron Man, Doctor Strange, Black Panther and Luke Cage were before the MCU. They know none of them so any of them would have to just be good movies or shows that can stand on their own and offer an interesting premise with a solid execution, just like Blade did in 1999 and GotG did in 2014.

And it's true that it's unlikely that those characters' first appearance would match the financial success of characters that have long been established in the mainstream. But that can be built up over time with exposure. And the increased popularity is not only a boon for future films, but it allows for synergy. It will help all branches of Marvel sell. A popular movie character will also sell more comics, toys and other merchandise, video games, cartoons, etc. for years to come. That's possibly worth more in total than the box office numbers. And having more characters that are popular as a result of MCU exposure is a good decision for Marvel imo for 3 reasons.

A. Because there is need for Innovation.If you keep recycling the same few characters it'll become stale eventually.
B. Because Marvel wants Diversification. In order to keep with the times and appeal to a wide demographic, Marvel will want their lineup of most popular characters that benefit from synergy to be diverse. We can see that they want this from what they have done in the comics over the last decade or so.
C. For the sake of Ownership. In about as much time as it has been since the MCU started copyrights on the golden age heroes like Captain America and Namor will start to expire. After another 20 years they'll start losing copyrights on their silver age characters which include pretty much ever A-lister and B-lister they currently have. When that time comes they will want to have some characters with raised popularity that they won't lose copyrights on anytime soon.

 

[Docker2.0]

I am not at the point yet where I am ready to leave the MCU. I won't watch everything in the MCU (probably not any animated shows except X Men 97 and maybe not Secret Invasion) but I will continue to watch them as long as the stories and characters are (at least for me anyways) still gaining my interest. I watched What If? Season One all the way through about a few weeks after the first season ended, but I doubt I will be back for season two.

Now whether or not canoncity of the Marvel shows before WandaVision is up for debate remains to be seen. I have watched all of the Netflix shows and all seven seasons of Agents of SHIELD and all 2 seasons of Agent Carter. I never did watch any episodes of Helstrom, The Inhumans, Runaways or Cloak and Dagger, so I can't judge the quality of those shows compared to the ones I have seen.

Runaways is actually pretty good.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I liked Cloak & Dagger

 

[Docker2.0]

Okay, it seems like we are fully on the same page at least about how giving a D-list character a movie or show can cause a big increase in their popularity which lasts quite long (it's been 15 years since the Blade show and 19 years since the last good Blade movie).

So I think our disagreement then stems from two points.
1. What we ourselves would like to see from Marvel movies and shows going forwards
2. What we believe is the best choice for Marvel.

The first point is purely personal preference, so it's not much of a point in arguing about it.

For the second point I'll reiterate my stance.
To most of the general audience Moon Knight, Nova, Northstar, Dazzler, Echo, Squirrel Girl, Darkhawk, Sleepwalker and Crescent are all pretty much equals and all are equal now to what Iron Man, Doctor Strange, Black Panther and Luke Cage were before the MCU. They know none of them so any of them would have to just be good movies or shows that can stand on their own and offer an interesting premise with a solid execution, just like Blade did in 1999 and GotG did in 2014.

And it's true that it's unlikely that those characters' first appearance would match the financial success of characters that have long been established in the mainstream. But that can be built up over time with exposure. And the increased popularity is not only a boon for future films, but it allows for synergy. It will help all branches of Marvel sell. A popular movie character will also sell more comics, toys and other merchandise, video games, cartoons, etc. for years to come. That's possibly worth more in total than the box office numbers. And having more characters that are popular as a result of MCU exposure is a good decision for Marvel imo for 3 reasons.

A. Because there is need for Innovation.If you keep recycling the same few characters it'll become stale eventually.
B. Because Marvel wants Diversification. In order to keep with the times and appeal to a wide demographic, Marvel will want their lineup of most popular characters that benefit from synergy to be diverse. We can see that they want this from what they have done in the comics over the last decade or so.
C. For the sake of Ownership. In about as much time as it has been since the MCU started copyrights on the golden age heroes like Captain America and Namor will start to expire. After another 20 years they'll start losing copyrights on their silver age characters which include pretty much ever A-lister and B-lister they currently have. When that time comes they will want to have some characters with raised popularity that they won't lose copyrights on anytime soon.

When that time comes, I can see Disney buying them back or something. Disney is not letting their money makers go.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Everything post-Endgame was disappointing, but MCU still has some tricks with FF and X-Men. On top of that they can always bring back Evans and RDJ in a decade or so. It might be similar to what Sony did with NWH.

 

[SirStrangefolk]

When that time comes, I can see Disney buying them back or something. Disney is not letting their money makers go.

I don't think that's how that works. They will become public domain by law. You can't just buy something from the public domain.

Plus even if they retain some of it, they'll still want to innovate and diversify

 

[Dr. Evil]

Runaways is actually pretty good.

I liked Cloak & Dagger

I may give those two shows a shot to see if I want any of those characters to join the MCU.

 

[Docker2.0]

I don't think that's how that works. They will become public domain by law. You can't just buy something from the public domain.

Plus even if they retain some of it, they'll still want to innovate and diversify

Yeah but if that is the case, isn't Snow White, Mickey Mouse and others public domain as well? Not trying to sound dumb but...........

 

[Docker2.0]

Everything post-Endgame was disappointing, but MCU still has some tricks with FF and X-Men. On top of that they can always bring back Evans and RDJ in a decade or so. It might be similar to what Sony did with NWH.

So...............you are saying I am right and you agree with me?

 

[DlAMONDZ]

The next huge event with the F4 and X-Men is gonna make Endgame look like a friendly stroll in the park

Just wait on it

 

[Bayne]

Yeah but if that is the case, isn't Snow White, Mickey Mouse and others public domain as well? Not trying to sound dumb but...........

Snow White the character has always been public domain. Snow White the original Disney movie isn't yet. Copyright originally lasted 20 years after creation. Then 56 years. Then the original creator's entire lifetime plus 50 years, or a flat 75 years if the work was created by a corporation. Both Mickey and Cap and Disney's Snow White (plus tons of others) would be in the public domain already if it weren't for Disney's (and other corporations') lobbying to add an extra 20 years on top of that back in the 90s. But they can't put it off forever. The fact that copyrights must be limited term is literally in the US constitution and the political climate these days seems unlikely to support even more extensions to the copyright term regardless.

Within the next 15 years, the copyrights should expire for Mickey, Cap, Superman, Batman, Bugs Bunny, Winnie the Pooh, Snow White and Pinocchio and on and on.

 

[Drizzle]

I thought that the MCU had peaked with Endgame but the reaction to and hype around No Way Home shut me right the hell up. I wouldn't consider it to necessarily be greater than Endgame but it's on the same level. When you think about it, it's all too appropriate considering Spider-Man is inarguably Marvel's most popular superhero and on film, the character has had a long climb to get back to this level of success since the Raimi movies.

 

[Docker2.0]

I thought that the MCU had peaked with Endgame but the reaction to and hype around No Way Home shut me right the hell up. I wouldn't consider it to necessarily be greater than Endgame but it's on the same level. When you think about it, it's all too appropriate considering Spider-Man is inarguably Marvel's most popular superhero and on film, the character has had a long climb to get back to this level of success since the Raimi movies.

Yeah but Spiderman is Sony. I know technically he is Marvel but...............technically he is Sony as well.

 

[Drizzle]

Yeah but Spiderman is Sony. I know technically he is Marvel but...............technically he is Sony as well.

Regardless, that doesn't make No Way Home any less of an MCU film.

 

[Iceman]

Snow White the character has always been public domain. Snow White the original Disney movie isn't yet. Copyright originally lasted 20 years after creation. Then 56 years. Then the original creator's entire lifetime plus 50 years, or a flat 75 years if the work was created by a corporation. Both Mickey and Cap and Disney's Snow White (plus tons of others) would be in the public domain already if it weren't for Disney's (and other corporations') lobbying to add an extra 20 years on top of that back in the 90s. But they can't put it off forever. The fact that copyrights must be limited term is literally in the US constitution and the political climate these days seems unlikely to support even more extensions to the copyright term regardless.

Within the next 15 years, the copyrights should expire for Mickey, Cap, Superman, Batman, Bugs Bunny, Winnie the Pooh, Snow White and Pinocchio and on and on.

Interesting to learn that

 

[Chris B]

Given the success of NWH I don't think so. We still have heavy hitters like the FF and X-Men on the way. Eternals was a hiccup but Shang-Chi showed they can still turn obscure characters from the comics into big names among the general audience.

 

[psylockolussus]

There would be new highs even if none of them outgrossed Endgame, that would be just fine. If they played their cards right with the Fantastic Four, the X-Men, Deadpool, Galactus, the Silver Surfer and whoever is the neXt big bad for the neXt big event, who cares if it don't dethrone Endgame. They also still have Daredevil, Ghost Rider and a couple of obscure characters that could headline a commercially successful movie like GOTG, Eternals and Shang-Chi. Eternals didn't get good reviews but looking at the box office numbers, it still did well especially in a pandemic. 6th highest grossing film in North america this year and 400 million worldwide.

 

[psylockolussus]

I don't think that's how that works. They will become public domain by law. You can't just buy something from the public domain.

Plus even if they retain some of it, they'll still want to innovate and diversify

I don't see much issue with those ips being public domain though. Disney could still make movies for those ips, right? Even if a bunch of studios do their own take on Captain America.

 

[Weather Witch]

What has been giving me a lot of faith in the future of the MCU is that they are building on new characters, new properties, and expanding lower tier characters they introduced earlier. That tells me that they won't be banking on nostalgia alone. It feels like Feige already wants to build a more extensive MCU ahead of the Fantastic Four and X-Men's introduction because otherwise they might be beholden to those properties. I think it's a smart move and so far it's working well. That said, what I really want is new X-Men content of course.

 

[Bayne]

I don't see much issue with those ips being public domain though. Disney could still make movies for those ips, right? Even if a bunch of studios do their own take on Captain America.

It isn't an issue in terms of storytelling in its own right. But storytelling will never be the sole motivation behind corporate cinema.

Public Domain means Disney continuing to make Captain America movies is potentially risking far more direct competition than any other superhero movie has ever had. Ie, what if people like the 'off-brand' Cap better than the 'real' one - will that mean Cap becomes an unsupportable character for Disney?

More importantly, though, Public Domain means Disney has no legal monopoly on Captain America merchandise anymore. Obviously, Disney loves dominating the movie industry but their true central business is still merchandise. The really successful movies serve to drive merchandise sales even when there isn't a new movie out. And part of their merchandising success is because people are willing to pay obviously ridiculous prices because of how attached they are to Disney's characters. That business model could fall apart pretty quickly when Disney can't do anything to stop other companies from offering droves of good quality merchandise for more reasonable prices.

That doesn't mean they necessarily would abandon the character once the copyright comes out. But it's not at all out of the question, either. And if they were able to promote other, newer characters to a similar level of popularity then they very obviously would have a major incentive to put those characters front and center pushing PD characters more to the periphery, because if both a Captain America movie and a Shang-Chi movie can expect to make 800m-1b, then the merchandising monopoly clearly makes Shang-Chi the better choice financially.

Either way, it will certainly be interesting to see how they react to the situation. I don't think we've ever seen a character enter the public domain while still being this popular and this publicly identified with one specific brand.

Having said that, though, for the MCU specifically, the Cap issue isn't as big as it seems. Steve Rogers is already gone from these movies. Sam Wilson is a different character with a fundamentally different appearance and he wasn't invented until 1969 so they've got quite a while yet before he becomes public domain.

 

[metaphysician]

Yeah but if that is the case, isn't Snow White, Mickey Mouse and others public domain as well? Not trying to sound dumb but...........

Yes, just because something is public domain, doesn't mean you can't use it commercially.

Also, its actually all the more favorable than that- copyright is separate from trademark, and you can still have trademark on a specific version of a public domain character. More than that, its not the entire character that would be public domain, but only the specific earliest stories that passed the threshold; a hypothetical public domain usage could *only* use and reference those earliest stories, not anything later. This is why usage of Sherlock Holmes is so fraught, with pretty much everyone still paying for licenses from the Doyle estate so they don't have to worry about it.

Basically, the only thing that "losing Captain America" would really mean is that anyone could make reprints of those earliest comics and sell them. Pretty much anything beyond that would, in practice, still be restricted to Marvel/Disney. . . and realistically, its unlikely anyone else would *want* to make their own independent reprints, anyway.

 

[metaphysician]

Snow White the character has always been public domain. Snow White the original Disney movie isn't yet. Copyright originally lasted 20 years after creation. Then 56 years. Then the original creator's entire lifetime plus 50 years, or a flat 75 years if the work was created by a corporation. Both Mickey and Cap and Disney's Snow White (plus tons of others) would be in the public domain already if it weren't for Disney's (and other corporations') lobbying to add an extra 20 years on top of that back in the 90s. But they can't put it off forever. The fact that copyrights must be limited term is literally in the US constitution and the political climate these days seems unlikely to support even more extensions to the copyright term regardless.

Within the next 15 years, the copyrights should expire for Mickey, Cap, Superman, Batman, Bugs Bunny, Winnie the Pooh, Snow White and Pinocchio and on and on.

Slight correction: the copyrights would expire *for their earliest works*. Copyright isn't all or nothing, Action Comics #1 going public domain wouldn't put this weeks latest Superman comic in the public domain.

 

[SirStrangefolk]

I don't see much issue with those ips being public domain though. Disney could still make movies for those ips, right? Even if a bunch of studios do their own take on Captain America.

Bayne's reply already explains this better than I could.

Yes, just because something is public domain, doesn't mean you can't use it commercially.

Also, its actually all the more favorable than that- copyright is separate from trademark, and you can still have trademark on a specific version of a public domain character. More than that, its not the entire character that would be public domain, but only the specific earliest stories that passed the threshold; a hypothetical public domain usage could *only* use and reference those earliest stories, not anything later. This is why usage of Sherlock Holmes is so fraught, with pretty much everyone still paying for licenses from the Doyle estate so they don't have to worry about it.

Basically, the only thing that "losing Captain America" would really mean is that anyone could make reprints of those earliest comics and sell them. Pretty much anything beyond that would, in practice, still be restricted to Marvel/Disney. . . and realistically, its unlikely anyone else would *want* to make their own independent reprints, anyway.

But wouldn't also allow anyone to sell merch based on the 1940s Cap design? I think that's what would really eat into their profits and make them want to promote more characters that nobody else can sell any merch for.

What has been giving me a lot of faith in the future of the MCU is that they are building on new characters, new properties, and expanding lower tier characters they introduced earlier. That tells me that they won't be banking on nostalgia alone. It feels like Feige already wants to build a more extensive MCU ahead of the Fantastic Four and X-Men's introduction because otherwise they might be beholden to those properties. I think it's a smart move and so far it's working well.

Couldn't agree more

 

[psylockolussus]

I'd like to see Marvel comics create a new character that isn't a legacy character of someone that would later appear in phase seven and so on. Like when I think of newer faces of Marvel Comics, the most popular characters took someone's mantle or a carbon copy with some variations and thats just eh.

Miles Morales - Spider-Man
Kamala Khan - Ms. Marvel
Laura Kinney - the Wolverine
Amadeus Cho - Hulk

Marvel ComiXs have the resources to introduce someone new that isn't a clone or legacy character of an eXisting Marvel character, and make that character the neXt big Marvel character.