The Marvels (2023) (1 Viewer)

[Jake Lipson]

The reasons why fewer people went to the opening weekend should be less related to quality (since most people haven’t seen it yet). Maybe a portion who were intending to see it on opening weekend (eg. on Sunday) changed their minds from reviews or word of mouth. But other reasons could be lack of interest (eg. title-related), lack of recognition (D+ heroes), poor marketing, etc., which is what I was offering.

This is where rationale for box office becomes a bit of a guessing game and there is not one answer. It's probably a little bit of everything you mentioned and any number of other reasons.

I fully intended to see No Time to Die on opening weekend a couple years ago. I bought my ticket in advance and everything. Then I had to refund that purchase because something came up that doesn't have anything to do with the movie at all. But it stopped me from going on opening weekend. I ended up going during the second weekend instead. By that time, the film was already removed from the premium screen. So I paid less money to see it on the second weekend on a standard screen than I would have if I had been able to keep my original premium ticket.

Reviews and word of mouth don't take until Sunday to have an impact, though. I'm sure that's why Disney embargoed the reviews until the day before the movie opened. They expected that most reviews weren't going to be favorable, and they were right.

Like you, I usually make a point to go to Thursday night screenings of MCU movies so that I can be part of the discussion here and elsewhere. That also includes talking to my friends who are more casual moviegoers who want to know if they should go see this one or not. I'm often texting them as soon as I get out of the theater. Particularly in the age of cell phones and social media, word of mouth pretty much hits immediately. So I do think word of mouth hurt the opening last week, too. But we are really seeing the impact of it this weekend. It's only going to get worse from here as more big films arrive on Tuesday for the Thanksgiving stretch.

The following interview is encouraging for Carol going forward.

It is.

But I think Marvel is going to be reassessing a lot after The Marvels -- and they should. They need to figure out why this movie didn't work and make sure their upcoming films are better. So technically we don't know if the "something" Larson referred to is going to change following these results. I think removing Carol altogether would be a mistake, but studio executives have been known to take the wrong lessons from things.

For example, the success of Barbie should be taken as "We should invest in more distinctive films made by talented women," such as but by no means limited to Greta Gerwig. But I'm sure at least some will think it means "We should make more movies based on toys."

 

[Malcolm R]

There have been a lot of movies based on toys over the years. Most have not been successful, so hopefully there will be some tempered ambitions just because Barbie hit it big.

 

[jayembee]

OK, so my wife and I finally had an opportunity to see The Marvels. We both enjoyed the hell out of it. Was it top rank Marvel? No, not even close. Was it bottom rank Marvel? Also, not even close. It was a lot of fun, and we had a great time. The auditorium were saw it in was one of the theater's smaller rooms. We were thinking, given all the drubbing the film's been getting that we might have had a private showing. But most of the seats were filled, and there was plenty of laughter throughout the film, so I think most (at least) of the audience enjoyed it.

The world-ending stakes weren't edge-of-the-seat anguish, like Thanos snapping his fingers at the end of Infinity War, but not every Marvel film has to play at that level. This film shined in its focus on family: (a) the Khans and (b) the Rambeaus (including the absent Maria, and Aunt Carol). All of the major hero character actors brought their A-game. And I, for one (well, for two...including my wife) loved the musical business on Aladna, precisely because it was something no previous Marvel film had done. Well, OK, I suppose one might point out the Bollywood scene in Eternals, but the contexts are not at all the same. But that sequence begs the question: is Carol Danvers now a Disney Princess?

Quite frankly, the only thing I had a problem with was Marvel's feeling that they had to include a "Previously on..." montage at the beginning of the film.

 

[Joe Wong]

OK, so my wife and I finally had an opportunity to see The Marvels. We both enjoyed the hell out of it. Was it top rank Marvel? No, not even close. Was it bottom rank Marvel? Also, not even close. It was a lot of fun, and we had a great time. The auditorium were saw it in was one of the theater's smaller rooms. We were thinking, given all the drubbing the film's been getting that we might have had a private showing. But most of the seats were filled, and there was plenty of laughter throughout the film, so I think most (at least) of the audience enjoyed it.

The world-ending stakes weren't edge-of-the-seat anguish, like Thanos snapping his fingers at the end of Infinity War, but not every Marvel film has to play at that level. This film shined in its focus on family: (a) the Khans and (b) the Rambeaus (including the absent Maria, and Aunt Carol). All of the major hero character actors brought their A-game. And I, for one (well, for two...including my wife) loved the musical business on Aladna, precisely because it was something no previous Marvel film had done. Well, OK, I suppose one might point out the Bollywood scene in Eternals, but the contexts are not at all the same. But that sequence begs the question: is Carol Danvers now a Disney Princess?

Quite frankly, the only thing I had a problem with was Marvel's feeling that they had to include a "Previously on..." montage at the beginning of the film.

I really liked the Aladna sequence as well - beautiful, bright, a breath of fresh air. Something “different”. I wanted to know more. Especially given Carol’s history there. And Prince Yan. An intriguing character, but unfortunately underused. I would have loved a a 30-40 minute segment, including more on their culture, the build up to the attack, and the aftermath. But to keep the film under 2 hours, we only spend like 10 minutes there. (Compare with Shang-Chi’s time in Ta Lo - which occupied about a 3rd of the runtime.)

Many may have found the singing “wild” or “weird” and didn’t like it, but like I said previously, this is an alien population. Anything goes.

 

[Malcolm R]

Bob Iger seems to agree that the company has sacrificed quality in favor of quantity in the Marvel universe. Though he also says there was not sufficient "executive supervision" on the set of The Marvels as another possible reason for its weakness.

Disney CEO reveals why he thinks 'The Marvels' bombed at the box office

Bob Iger, speaking at the DealBook Summit in New York, said the media giant prioritized quantity over quality — and the Marvel franchise "suffered greatly."

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Jake Lipson]

"Executive supervision?" Seriously? That honestly doesn't sound like the right takeaway there. Lots of films were shot during intense COVID. But he only mentions The Marvels as needing this kind of supervision on set. That's not a good look.

Would Iger be willing to make that statement about Quantumania (directed by a white male who had already made two films for Marvel) or is it only the film that a black woman directed that needs supervision? Because from where I'm sitting Quantumania is as bad as Marvels and also lost lots of money for Disney. But I suppose that one gets less scrutiny because The Marvels is doing worse.

I don't like The Marvels but I'm not convinced that more "executive supervision" on the set would have improved it.

 

[dpippel]

I don't like The Marvels but I'm not convinced that more "executive supervision" on the set would have improved it.

Figures that Iger would say something like this. Too much "executive supervision" is a big part of what's wrong with the film industry today.

 

[Joe Wong]

"Executive supervision?" Seriously? That honestly doesn't sound like the right takeaway there. Lots of films were shot during intense COVID. But he only mentions The Marvels as needing this kind of supervision. That's not a good look.

Would Iger be willing to make that statement about Quantumania (directed by a white male who had already made two films for Marvel) or is it only the film that a black woman directed that needs supervision? Because from where I'm sitting Quantumania is as bad as Marvels and also lost lots of money for Disney. But I suppose that one gets less scrutiny because The Marvels is doing worse.

I don't like The Marvels but I'm not convinced that more "executive supervision" on the set would have improved it.

Yeah, some anecdotal responses on social media implying Iger was taking a dig at Nia DaCosta.

 

[Jake Lipson]

If Disney executives believed Nia DaCosta was unable to execute the film properly, then they should have hired someone else to make it in the first place.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Too much "executive supervision" is a big part of what's wrong with the film industry today.

To be completely fair, Marvel has always made executive supervision part of the way they make movies. The MCU is Kevin Feige's sandbox. Filmmakers have certainly brought their own voices to it. But it is all supposed to be part of the larger construct of which Feige is the top architect. That's part of the job of working in a connected universe.

The way he said it, and applying it specifically to this one film with this specific director, just seems out of touch to me.

 

[dpippel]

To be completely fair, Marvel has always made executive supervision part of the way they make movies. The MCU is Kevin Feige's sandbox. Filmmakers have certainly brought their own voices to it. But it is all supposed to be part of the larger construct of which Feige is the top architect. That's part of the job of working in a connected universe.

The way he said it, and applying it specifically to this one film with this specific director, just seems out of touch to me.

Yes, I agree. My comment wasn't directed specifically at Marvel, which by default has to manage a lot of moving parts. Same thing with Star Wars. BUT, Disney has put itself in the predicament it's currently in regarding these two properties. The company got greedy, decided to spread itself too thin, spent too much money, and it got away from them. Those were executive decisions that could have used a little more supervision.

 

[Joe Wong]

Yes, I agree. My comment wasn't directed specifically at Marvel, which by default has to manage a lot of moving parts. Same thing with Star Wars. BUT, Disney has put itself in the predicament it's currently in regarding these two properties. The company got greedy, decided to spread itself too thin, spent too much money, and it got away from them. Those were executive decisions that could have used a little more supervision.

The over-exposure of MCU content after Endgame (exacerbated by the directive to produce content for D+) reminds me of the Who Wants To Be A Millionaire debacle when ABC put it on at prime time every night back around 2000 or 2001. It diluted the brand and its popularity waned pretty quickly.

EDIT: Personally, as a fan of the MCU, I didn't mind the idea of more content, but the execution of said content has been mixed, at best. And further, the general audience has been finding it difficult to keep up. Hence the discontent.

 

[Sam Favate]

Feige is pretty much indispensable at Marvel, so I can’t imagine Iger is suggesting an executive shake-up at the company (although stupider things have happened). When Albert R. Broccoli was alive, it was said that the Bond movies weren’t directed as much as they were produced. I think the same is true of Marvel, to a lesser degree.

If anything in The Marvels needed more supervision, it was the script. But for Iger to suggest the Marvel execs should have been more engaged is absurd. Let’s not forget that it was Iger himself who fought the writers and actors who were on strike. Conciliatory words from him could have sent them back to work sooner. But as it is, The Marvels was released with very little press, and none at all by the major stars of the film. That certainly hurt its performance, so Iger bears some responsibility here.

It was also Iger, when he was CEO in 2019, who launched Disney+ and wanted a lot of Marvel and Lucasfilm content. His successor had a big hand in this as well, but Iger got the ball rolling. So, the quantity of shows and movies that “diluted” the brand started on his watch.

 

[jayembee]

Yeah, some anecdotal responses on social media implying Iger was taking a dig at Nia DaCosta.

The headline I read used the phrase "threw [her] under the bus".

 

[jayembee]

If Disney executives believed Nia DaCosta was unable to execute the film properly, then they should have hired someone else to make it in the first place.

More like Feige thought she'd be fine, and Disney execs did some Monday morning quarterbacking.

Feige is pretty much indispensable at Marvel, so I can’t imagine Iger is suggesting an executive shake-up at the company (although stupider things have happened). When Albert R. Broccoli was alive, it was said that the Bond movies weren’t directed as much as they were produced. I think the same is true of Marvel, to a lesser degree.

I agree that they're over-"produced". And a good deal of that is the result of them trying to force everything into an über-arc insteading of just doing what's best for the film at hand. I've said this before, but I'll say it again. They pulled off an amazing thing with the Infinity Saga. But once that was done, they should've just made films with new heroes, as well as returning heroes, that just did their own thing. While the comics universe was all interconnected, and there were company-wide crossover arcs every now and then -- as well as random crossovers here and there -- there wasn't any push to make every title every month fit into some continuous Omni-Epic.

Phase 4 started off this way. There wasn't really any interconnection among Black Widow, Shang-Chi, Eternals, -- and even Love and Thunder and Wakanda Forever -- but then they dove right into the Multiverse Saga. Thanos was introduced in bits and pieces, but it feels like Marvel is trying to rush the Multiverse story in the same manner that DC was trying to rush Snyder's Justice League arc. With similar results.

 

[Jake Lipson]

The Marvels feels stitched together. It feels like it needed more work at the script stage.

Obviously, I can't speak to what happened on the set because I wasn't there. What we do know is that it was delayed several times for additional work. At one point, it was scheduled to open in February but needed more work. So Marvels switched release dates with Quantumania and it was supposed to come out in July. Then, it was moved again to November because it still needed more time.

Reshoots are part of the process and should not be looked upon as a problem automatically. In the future, though, I think they should make sure the script is in great shape before they start shooting. If you have a great script in the beginning, it should make the shoot easier. The attitude that they'll just figure out the movie in the editing room later isn't a good idea. Reshoots should be used to enhance what they already filmed in principal photography. If they have to fundamentally reshape the movie in reshoots, that could be indicative of a problem.

 

[jayembee]

The Box Office Success Double Standard of 'Aquaman 2' and 'The Marvels' Is Ridiculous

Box office projections set Aquaman 2 as having a "successful" opening weekend, making between $50-$60 million.

www.themarysue.com

 

[Joe Wong]

A double standard, indeed.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I think Disney and Marvel made that double standard for themselves because of their past success.

I don't think anybody is saying that a $50-$60 million opening would make Aquaman profitable at its budget point. I think it would be considered better than expected because DC has been in the basement lately. But that doesn't mean it would easily make a profit with that opening.

The failure The Marvels and Quantumania are much more notable because Marvel has never had films that have struggled to this degree. They are held to a higher standard because their successes have been so much higher.

WB also has a plan for how to move forward. Everybody knows they're rebooting, including the audience. So they obviously have lower expectations for the last film from the previous regime. They're putting it out -- they probably spent too much money to scrap it -- but if it does terrible business and they lose money, it shouldn't really change the new plan going forward because of the incoming reboot. They'll just make what they can from it and move on.

On the other hand, Quantumania and The Marvels were expected to be big pieces of the ongoing narrative. Quantumania was essentially a big coming out party for the franchise's next big villain, but the audience at large didn't seem particularly interested. Now they have to decide if they still want to bet the next phase of films on Kang, and if they don't, they'll need to change their plans.

Similarly, Disney probably expected Captain Marvel to continue on as one of the newer faces of the MCU. The success of her first film certainly set her up for that. But the response to her sequel throws that into question. The Marvels was also a significant crossover between the films and Disney+ series, and certainly sets up things for the future, particularly in its final two scenes. They intended to use these projects as building blocks, not as the last grasp of a universe before it is rebooting anyway. All that puts Disney in a far tougher spot right now with Quantumania and Marvels than WB would be in if Aquaman loses money.

 

[jayembee]

I don't think anybody is saying that a $50-$60 million opening would make Aquaman profitable at its budget point. I think it would be considered better than expected because DC has been in the basement lately. But that doesn't mean it would easily make a profit with that opening.

On the other hand, the first Aquaman is still the top money-making DC film ever -- god only knows why -- so there must be some expectation that this one should do well, and not just okay.