General Discussion Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase 5 General Discussion (Spoilers discussed for All Films -- Please Read First Post) (1 Viewer)

[Adam Lenhardt]

I’m not sure we can consider a film that had a domestic $100 million grossing opening weekend, which has grossed a cumulative hundreds of millions of dollars worldwide, to be an outright flop.

At best one might claim it underperformed, though realistically speaking, it has outperformed the two earlier films in the series.

It (slightly) outperformed the two earlier films domestically, but it significantly underperformed the two earlier films internationally.

Variety has new details about Alonso's exit and says she was indeed fired.

Inside Victoria Alonso’s Shocking Exit From Marvel Studios

At this year’s Academy Awards, Victoria Alonso was overwhelmed. The veteran Marvel Studios executive and producer of the nominated film “Argentina, 1985” was stopped on the red carpet, posin…

variety.com

The fact that the decision came from HR and legal would seem to imply some sort of misbehavior.

All of the production problems outlined though speak more to structural problems than Alonso-specific problems. It reads like the studio was still operating like a small independent production company while be asked to produce output at the scale of a major studio. Firing Alonso won't solve that. In fact, I could see their post-production woes getting worse before they get better.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Quantumania had a $200 million budget. It is currently sitting at $461 million worldwide. $205 million of that has come from North America. Given this, it seems like it will struggle to make a profit in theaters.





Credit where it is due. These charts come from Dan Murrell, a professional critic listed on Rotten Tomatoes who does a YouTube show about the box office. I wanted to specifically look at these chart but encourage anybody who is interested to watch his entire show. He has been tracking Quantumania in relation to the other MCU films since it came out and has a lot more insightful data in his show, so here is that link



Anyway, as you can see from the first chart, when you adjust the MCU domestic grosses for inflation, it currently ranks #28 out of 31 movies. It has grossed more money than Black Widow, The Incredible Hulk and Eternals. That's it. Worldwide, the situation is not much better.

I think the muted response to the film might even be worse than its financial position. If audiences aren't responding well to this film, will they be interested in further stories about Kang and his variants? That is a question that should be of significant concern to Kevin Feige and the other decision-makers at Marvel.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Anyway, as you can see from the first chart, when you adjust the MCU domestic grosses for inflation, it currently ranks #28 out of 31 movies. It has grossed more money than Black Widow, The Incredible Hulk and Eternals. That's it.

And "The Incredible Hulk" was released by Universal before the Marvel Studios brand had significant traction with audiences, and both Black Widow and Eternals had significant pandemic impacts.

 

[TravisR]

I think the biggest reason that Marvel movies are making less money is 'too much of a good thing' and that's just inevitable when they have as many movies and shows as they're doing. And then add in that nearly every franchise has shamelessly stolen Marvel's blueprint of a shared universe/TV shows/spin-offs/etc., Marvel isn't as unique as they used to be.

 

[Sam Favate]

Marvel isn't as unique as they used to be.

I also think this focus on the multiverse - something the DC Arrowverse shows did in abundance in the last decade - doesn't give the audience the stakes they need to invest in the films. If every character can just be killed off or replaced "because they're from another universe," it doesn't give the stories any real concern or investment.

 

[Joe Wong]

For me, one of the issues is they are leaving some of the sequel stories “short” and hence less satisfying.

I’ve said before that the MCU is more complex now (more characters, deeper stories) and gets even more complex with each new entry, such that they haven’t been able to do service to sequel films with the regular 2 hour runtime. For an origin film, it’s fine, but for sequels like Multiverse of Madness, Love and Thunder and Quantumania, I feel an additional 15-30 minutes would have made for better or more satisfying films. (The 2 hour runtime is one of my biggest complaints about Whedon’s Justice League.) I’m not calling for 3 hour or longer films (Snyder’s Justice League, at 4 hours, I feel, is an hour too long!), but 2 hours hasn’t felt enough for those 3 sequels I highlighted above.

Another reason, for me, is that they’re not taking the risks I feel they’ve earned (and can take) given they’re 30 films in. For example, in Quantumania, Kang should not have been defeated (or killed?) so easily. A better outcome (again, IMO) is that his plan to escape is ultimately foiled by Scott’s team, but to show how much of a big-bad threat Kang is, he should have inflicted much more pain on our heroes, either by killing Scott, or have Scott and Hope stuck in the Quantum Realm. But the need for a happy ending trounced all of that.

For comparison, I didn’t expect that Thanos would actually be able to complete his heist and snap his fingers at the end of Infinity War. But it was more profound (and devastating) because he “won”. The upshot is that risk-taking should not just be confined to the Avengers films. Given all the recent comments from critics about “sameness”, changing the narrative trajectory (as we go into Phase 5 and then 6) would have been welcomed. Taking the bold strokes as I described above in Quantumania would not have been expected at this point in Phase 5 and I think would have made for a better response from long time fans. For casual viewers, a darker, almost cliffhanger-like finish like the one I described may be more bewildering, but hopefully this hooks them in for later entries.

 

[Jake Lipson]

The Hollywood Reporter has more about Victoria Alonso's firing. According to this, she produced and promoted Argentina, 1985 (which was released by Amazon) despite exclusivity in her contract.

Inside the Firing of Victoria Alonso: Her Oscar-Nominated Movie ‘Argentina, 1985’ at Center of Exit (Exclusive)

The longtime Marvel executive's attorney said in a statement of the firing: "Victoria, a gay Latina who had the courage to criticize Disney, was silenced."

www.hollywoodreporter.com

 

[jayembee]

I also think this focus on the multiverse - something the DC Arrowverse shows did in abundance in the last decade - doesn't give the audience the stakes they need to invest in the films. If every character can just be killed off or replaced "because they're from another universe," it doesn't give the stories any real concern or investment.

I disagree. While the potential is there for exactly that, there's really been nothing to suggest that that will actually ever happen. Yes, there are rumors of plans to have Downey back as Tony Stark, but (a) they're still just rumors, and (b) if they're true, we won't know the context until much later (eg. Downey might be playing a Skrull in the form of Tony Stark).

Marvel obviously has a plan to replace characters with new ones under the same (or similar) nom de guerre. Black Widow will be Yelena Belova, not Natasha Romanov. Hawkeye will be Kate Bishop instead of Clint Barton. Black Panther will be Shuri, not T'Challa. Ironheart (and War Machine) will replace Iron Man. She-Hulk can replace Hulk. And so on.

Given that the movies are made over the course of years, and the actors are aging, there's little purpose to try and bring back alternate universe doppelgängers when it's easier -- and less costly, given long-term contracts for actors -- to replace the characters with new characters than bring back the originals with a multiversal doppelgänger.

 

[Jake Lipson]

For the purposes of this post, I'm going to assume that the reporting in The Hollywood Reporter story I posted above is accurate. If it is not, then obviously this is moot.

I understand why Victoria Alonso would be interested in working on Argentina, 1985. But I don't understand why she would just decide to do it without mentioning it to her bosses at Disney She had to have known that her contract had an exclusivity clause. It seems much more likely to have a positive outcome if you ask permission first rather than ask for forgiveness later.

Ryan Coogler is a producer of Creed III for MGM/Amazon, which was being made at the same time as he was directing Wakanda Forever for Disney. He also worked on Judas and the Black Messiah and Space Jam: A New Legacy for WB. But a) he wasn't directing those films, b) I'm sure Disney knew about that and worked around it and c) he isn't a high-ranking executive overseeing an entire slate for Marvel like Alonso was. He probably didn't have an exclusivity stipulation in his contract.

When Disney wanted to rehire James Gunn for Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 3, he was already under contract with WB to direct The Suicide Squad. He agreed to come back but had to complete that film for WB first. Disney accepted that and was willing to wait for him

Now that Gunn is an executive over at DC, it has been reported that his deal with WB includes a similar exclusivity clause. Obviously, he is allowed to finish his work making and promoting the release of Guardians because that was a pre-existing commitment. But after that is over, he will be exclusive to Warner Bros. and won't be able to work with Marvel again. So it seems like these non-compete clauses are probably standard for high-level executives.

So why would Alonso ignore such a thing in her contract? It seems like this could have been avoided if she had asked permission to add Argentina 1985 to her plate instead of just doing it unilaterally and thinking Disney wouldn't notice or care. Then to promote the movie when she was explicitly told not to just seems like such a weird decision. This would have been so avoidable.

Of course, it is also possible that this is one of multiple issues which led to her dismissal and we just don't know everything. But at least based on what that article says, it seems like there could have been a better way to handle this in consideration of all parties involved.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Variety has a story about the Victoria Alonso/Argentina 1985 situation which includes a denial from her attorney.

Victoria Alonso Attorney Blasts ‘Ridiculous’ Claim She Was Fired Over ‘Argentina, 1985,’ Says Executive Was ‘Silenced’ by Disney (EXCLUSIVE)

Victoria Alonso’s work as a producer of the Oscar-nominated feature film “Argentina, 1985” is being cited as the reason to fire the longtime Marvel Studios executive, according to three sources wit…

variety.com

This whole situation sounds so weird and messy.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Variety has a story about the Victoria Alonso/Argentina 1985 situation which includes a denial from her attorney.

Victoria Alonso Attorney Blasts ‘Ridiculous’ Claim She Was Fired Over ‘Argentina, 1985,’ Says Executive Was ‘Silenced’ by Disney (EXCLUSIVE)

Victoria Alonso’s work as a producer of the Oscar-nominated feature film “Argentina, 1985” is being cited as the reason to fire the longtime Marvel Studios executive, according to three sources wit…

variety.com

This whole situation sounds so weird and messy.

The attorney says she was fired because "she refused to do something she believed was reprehensible."

If that's true, wouldn't it make sense to share what that reprehensible thing was, rather than casting vague aspersions?

 

[Jake Lipson]

If that's true, wouldn't it make sense to share what that reprehensible thing was, rather than casting vague aspersions?

That is a good point. I guessed from the context that this was a reference to Alonso refusing to stay silent on the bill in Florida. But Disney has already come out against that, so it wouldn't make any sense to fire her for that. (I'll leave it there because we're flirting with politics here, and that's not what this forum does.) I agree that the statement from her lawyer is very vague and could have been much clearer.

Also, it is worth noting that The Hollywood Reporter (which ran the initial Argentina 1985 story) and Variety (which is now running the lawyer's refutation of that claim) are owned by the same parent company. So they have two sites which are contradicting each other.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Deadline (which is also owned by the parent company of Variety and The Hollywood Reporter) is weighing in now with their own reporting and details.

They say that "Alonso was even asked late last year by a prominent director to speak out for a Marvel film, but she stayed mute. Then the self-described “reprehensible” incident occurred, which seemed to involve a disagreement with a Disney executive, who is not Iger, we’ve learned."

Victoria Alonso Weighing Legal Action Against Disney, Marvel Over Sudden Firing; “Serious Consequences” Promises Lawyer Patty Glaser As Mouse House Points At “Indisputable Breach of Contract”

The Walt Disney Company is facing “serious consequences” and possible legal action over the pink slipping this week of Marvel VFX chief Victoria Alonso. Making it clear to Bob Iger, Kev…

deadline.com

 

[Robert Crawford]

I have no comment to the Alonzo situation as it will probably be resolved in civil court. I'm not going to play that same game of taking sides from an outside position.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Yeah - there is a lot we don't know (and probably won't know) and a lot that doesn't make sense. Either more will come out over the course of the court case or it won't.

It is an unfortunate way to leave a company where she had spent such a long part of her career though.

 

[Wayne_j]

Apparently Victoria Alonso was fired because she produced the Oscar nominated best foreign feature 'Argentina, 1985' for another studio while her contract was supposed to be exclusive to Marvel. Disney told her not to produce the other movie. In addition to that she showed up at the Oscars and promoted her documentary and not the Oscar nominated Black Panther 2.

Inside the Firing of Victoria Alonso: Her Oscar-Nominated Movie ‘Argentina, 1985’ at Center of Exit (Exclusive)

The longtime Marvel executive's attorney said in a statement of the firing: "Victoria, a gay Latina who had the courage to criticize Disney, was silenced."

www.hollywoodreporter.com

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I really reject language like “collapse” and “failure” when we’re talking about films that gross half a billion dollars in a month.

Some of this is a budgeting failure on behalf of the studio. Neither of the previous installments suggested this was a billion-dollar grossing franchise. If they budgeted the film in such a way that it needed that to succeed, that’s on them.

The other point I would make is that Marvel took a big swing in crafting a sequel that barely resembled the previous films in the franchise. The previous two Ant-Man films were defined by well-developed characters with emotionally relatable concerns in the framework of heist films. This new film, by contrast, is more of a fantasy adventure that eschews real world aesthetics and strong characterization in favor of a story that has very little by way of relatable emotional content. Or, more simply put, this film dumped all of the aspects that made people enjoy an Ant-Man adventure in the first place. The audience wanted montages with Michael Pena narrating funny stories, they wanted the chemistry and heart that Rudd and Fortson had in the father-daughter scenes. I’m not sure they were ever that interested in whether Ant-Man saves a bunch of microscopic creatures we’ve never seen or heard of before who say things like “do you have a hole?” as their primary dialogue.

The CGI isn’t the problem. The budget isn’t really the problem. The problem is that they seemed to have forgotten what people wanted out of an Ant-Man film. It’s a script problem.

 

[Joe Wong]

I really reject language like “collapse” and “failure” when we’re talking about films that gross half a billion dollars in a month.

Some of this is a budgeting failure on behalf of the studio. Neither of the previous installments suggested this was a billion-dollar grossing franchise. If they budgeted the film in such a way that it needed that to succeed, that’s on them.

The other point I would make is that Marvel took a big swing in crafting a sequel that barely resembled the previous films in the franchise. The previous two Ant-Man films were defined by well-developed characters with emotionally relatable concerns in the framework of heist films. This new film, by contrast, is more of a fantasy adventure that eschews real world aesthetics and strong characterization in favor of a story that has very little by way of relatable emotional content. Or, more simply put, this film dumped all of the aspects that made people enjoy an Ant-Man adventure in the first place. The audience wanted montages with Michael Pena narrating funny stories, they wanted the chemistry and heart that Rudd and Fortson had in the father-daughter scenes. I’m not sure they were ever that interested in whether Ant-Man saves a bunch of microscopic creatures we’ve never seen or heard of before who say things like “do you have a hole?” as their primary dialogue.

The CGI isn’t the problem. The budget isn’t really the problem. The problem is that they seemed to have forgotten what people wanted out of an Ant-Man film. It’s a script problem.

I don't mind that they tried something different (though I agree it's a sizeable leap from the 1st 2 smaller "heist" films to one with the responsibility of introducing Kang). The execution, however, was poor.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

First post updated with new release date for "Secret Invasion".

 

[Jake Lipson]

I really reject language like “collapse” and “failure” when we’re talking about films that gross half a billion dollars in a month.

A near $500 million movie can still be a financial failure if the budget was such that that total won't make money.

Ant-Man had never been in an Avengers movie before Endgame. He had a brief appearance in Civil War, mostly for the airport sequence, but was not really at the center of that film. I think that Marvel expected he would get an "Avengers bump" after being much more significant to the plot of Endgame, as most of the Phase Two films received after the success of the original Avengers. I think they were right to expect this bump. Quantumania got it on the opening weekend, which is why this movie started higher than the previous two.

But then, for the reasons you outlined, the movie just wasn't very good. That is why it collapsed in subsequent weekends.

That being said, I think the more significant issue with this particular movie is how it has been received. It isn't just that this one will lose money in the theatrical window, although that is true. But there are more severe consequences that aren't limited to just this movie.

Ant-Man and the Wasp (the previous one, without the subtitle) was a relatively self-contained movie. The only exceptions are the credits tags. But if you didn't see or didn't like that movie, it would not impede your understanding or enjoyment of Endgame at all. If that movie made less money or had tepid word of mouth, it wouldn't have been nearly as problematic because of its relatively self-contained nature. It wasn't meant to chart the creative direction of the entire MCU franchise.

Marvel (both Kevin Feige and the marketing team) have been very clear about Quantumania being the starting point to the next big storyline. This film was sold not as a fun adventure with Ant-Man and crew but as a key building block for the future. Feige was apparently so impressed with Jeff Loveness' work on this script that he got the job to write the next Avengers movie. That would make sense if this movie had been a big hit. But instead it has been received with a collective shrug. If this movie isn't connecting with audiences in a significant way, is there going to be that much interest in The Kang Dynasty and the other projects in which that character or his variants are supposed to appear? I think you are right that this is a screenwriting problem. It doesn't bode well that the same writer is now on The Avengers, which is Marvel's most important property. So the response to this film should absolutely be of significant concern to people working at Marvel right now.

I don't know Jeff Loveness. For all I know, he might be the nicest person on the planet and a wonderful human being. I don't mean anything in this post as a personal attack on him. But he wrote a bad movie and Kevin Feige greenlit that script. I sincerely hope they do better next time.