Movies THE MARVELS (Dragonlord's Review; Worst MCU Second-Weekend Drop with 78%)

[KnightTemplar]

Nobody going to mention the overacting of the big bad?
I get she was trying to channel Ronan The Accuser but it was very over done

I'm not surprised. Thanos gets a lot of love, and deservedly so. But the majority of MCU Big Bads are mediocre at best. The only ones who really make the grade are Thanos(dead)Red Skull(a ghost)Norman Osborn(cured of the Green Goblin and back in the Sony-verse)and Wilson Fisk/Kingpin(but only if you include the Netflix shows).

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

I’m shocked.

 

[armbarforhire]

To be honest though was the Infinity Saga that much different? we had various stones function as plot devices but Thanos himself and his plan only really came into the story with Infinity War.

Phase 1 was about building the Avengers that was pretty clear, while it was not really Thanos related the films had a purpose.

Phase 2 is the one that was meh for having a overall story arch, mostly about developing the characters with sequels and interactions between them .

Phase 3 was about the infinity saga.


Phase 4 and 5 are about nothing, we should have gotten a new Avengers film for each phase with the new characters or something.

Waiting till the end of phase 6 to build a new team feels anti climatic, viewers had no chance to see these characters grow or build them in to stars (Cap went from meh to he is now as liked as Iron man over the phases 1-3). With the exception of Ms Marvel none of the new characters have sequels or probably will not be seen again before Avengers 5 and 6 (Moon Knight, Eternals, Werewolf by night, Shang chi, She Hulk ).

In the end the only thing people really look forward to in Avengers 6 is Tobey, Jackman and Downey Jr working together as they failed at building new characters.

 

[armbarforhire]

if they ever do a young avengers project all of the actress will be close to 30 years old by then with the exception of Iman Vellami. By comparission Scarlett was 26 when she made her MCU debut.

​

 

[Dragonlordxxxxx]

Box Office Update:

The Marvels fell 78% in its second weekend, earning $10.2 million, making it Marvel Studios' worst second-weekend drop of all time.

 

[Hog-train]

Box Office Update:

The Marvels fell 78% in its second weekend, earning $10.2 million, making it Marvel Studios' worst second-weekend drop of all time.

I'm so baffled why the Disney stockholders aren't revolting?

It seems like Disney has been making bomb after bomb but they keep doing the same thing repeatedly.

 

[5crew]

I'm so baffled why the Disney stockholders aren't revolting?

It seems like Disney has been making bomb after bomb but they keep doing the same thing repeatedly.

I'm curious about this as well.

I keep seeing articles and videos that says the films bombed, but did they really? Maybe some of these defined bombed films are not accurate, maybe they didn't actually make a loss but less profit than the studio expected/wishes?

These are the so-called bombed films, I'm no expert on how profit margin works in film industry but quick wiki shows
Little Mermaid - Budget 297m, Box office 570m
Antman - Budget 200m, Box office 476m
Indiana Jones - Budget 300m, Box office 385m

Many of the videos/articles claims the budget doesn't include marketing and other stuffs that actually balloons the cost to 2x or even 2.5x of movie budget that is shown. But what is the source to these claims and are these claims even real? Obviously studios don't get ALL of the box office money, maybe only a certain percentage that is split between them and the theaters.

Out of the 3 examples above, I think only Indiana Jones make an out right loss. The other two probably still turned a profit, maybe just tiny.

imho, movies are only a out right bomb, if box office is BELOW movie budget displayed. Which not as many of these films are in these situation.

Again, I stress I know nothing about how the profit margin works in film industry and above is just an opinion of someone that reads these "bombing" news, which I think majority of people are.

 

[HereticBD]

I'm curious about this as well.

I keep seeing articles and videos that says the films bombed, but did they really? Maybe some of these defined bombed films are not accurate, maybe they didn't actually make a loss but less profit than the studio expected/wishes?

These are the so-called bombed films, I'm no expert on how profit margin works in film industry but quick wiki shows
Little Mermaid - Budget 297m, Box office 570m
Antman - Budget 200m, Box office 476m
Indiana Jones - Budget 300m, Box office 385m

Many of the videos/articles claims the budget doesn't include marketing and other stuffs that actually balloons the cost to 2x or even 2.5x of movie budget that is shown. But what is the source to these claims and are these claims even real? Obviously studios don't get ALL of the box office money, maybe only a certain percentage that is split between them and the theaters.

Out of the 3 examples above, I think only Indiana Jones make an out right loss. The other two probably still turned a profit, maybe just tiny.

imho, movies are only a out right bomb, if box office is BELOW movie budget displayed. Which not as many of these films are in these situation.

Again, I stress I know nothing about how the profit margin works in film industry and above is just an opinion of someone that reads these "bombing" news, which I think majority of people are.

These studios aren't looking to merely break even, or have a modest return to blockbuster films they invest hundreds of millions of dollars into. If they spend $200 million on a project and it only brings back $220 million, that's a big failure to them. Think of it like that scene in "Casino" where Deniro is talking about that Chinese gambler who always plays big, and looks at winning ten thousand dollars on a modest bet, as if he lost a hundred thousand dollars. That's how Hollywood thinks.

 

[Hog-train]

I'm curious about this as well.

I keep seeing articles and videos that says the films bombed, but did they really? Maybe some of these defined bombed films are not accurate, maybe they didn't actually make a loss but less profit than the studio expected/wishes?

These are the so-called bombed films, I'm no expert on how profit margin works in film industry but quick wiki shows
Little Mermaid - Budget 297m, Box office 570m
Antman - Budget 200m, Box office 476m
Indiana Jones - Budget 300m, Box office 385m

Many of the videos/articles claims the budget doesn't include marketing and other stuffs that actually balloons the cost to 2x or even 2.5x of movie budget that is shown. But what is the source to these claims and are these claims even real? Obviously studios don't get ALL of the box office money, maybe only a certain percentage that is split between them and the theaters.

Out of the 3 examples above, I think only Indiana Jones make an out right loss. The other two probably still turned a profit, maybe just tiny.

imho, movies are only a out right bomb, if box office is BELOW movie budget displayed. Which not as many of these films are in these situation.

Again, I stress I know nothing about how the profit margin works in film industry and above is just an opinion of someone that reads these "bombing" news, which I think majority of people are.

Yea I was thinking the same thing. Maybe they're just not smashing it out of the park as when they were doing the main Avengers movies.

All these stupid Youtube channels come out every single day "Major Bomb!" blah blah blah. Sometimes I notice they just completely make shit up.

Maybe it's giving a false impression on how much Disney is *supposedly* losing. IDK though - maybe they are truly losing dough.

 

[5crew]

These studios aren't looking to merely break even, or have a modest return to blockbuster films they invest hundreds of millions of dollars into. If they spend $200 million on a project and it only brings back $220 million, that's a big failure to them. Think of it like that scene in "Casino" where Deniro is talking about that Chinese gambler who always plays big, and looks at winning ten thousand dollars on a modest bet, as if he lost a hundred thousand dollars. That's how Hollywood thinks.

Exactly, they made tiny profits out of these investments, they didn't make a out right loss. It's disappointing for Disney and the investors but the term "bombed" make it sounds like these films incurred monetary loss for Disney.

 

[5crew]

Yea I was thinking the same thing. Maybe they're just not smashing it out of the park as when they were doing the main Avengers movies.

All these stupid Youtube channels come out every single day "Major Bomb!" blah blah blah. Sometimes I notice they just completely make shit up.

Maybe it's giving a false impression on how much Disney is *supposedly* losing. IDK though - maybe they are truly losing dough.

Youtubers gonna Youtube. Most are in for the clicks, most are just echo-chambers repeating the same thing thousands of others are doing to their own group of "fans". I'll assume not many fact checks or in the know how studios like Disney works. It's always "cool" to be against the big cooperation.

But that's just my opinion man. I'm clueless as well.

 

[HereticBD]

Exactly, they made tiny profits out of these investments, they didn't make a out right loss. It's disappointing for Disney and the investors but the term "bombed" make it sounds like these films incurred monetary loss for Disney.

Nah. Blockbusters have to make blockbuster returns. If they just barely scrape by and break even, it's a bomb. Not a "Delgo" like nuclear bomb, but a bomb nonetheless.

 

[herpd807]

I'm so baffled why the Disney stockholders aren't revolting?

It seems like Disney has been making bomb after bomb but they keep doing the same thing repeatedly.

To my knowledge they have been. The last shareholders meeting had Iger promise to pivot and stop fighting with DeSantis.

 

[BisexualMMA]

The Marvels is getting murdered worse than Will Smith's ass.

 

[moreorless87]

literally no one in here is doing that lol

Basically a load of cultural war loons screaming at the wind in this thread and most others now, Sherdog continuing its descent into the pit.

 

[KnightTemplar]

Exactly, they made tiny profits out of these investments, they didn't make a out right loss. It's disappointing for Disney and the investors but the term "bombed" make it sounds like these films incurred monetary loss for Disney.

The Marvels has the worst drop-off in comic book movie history. With a budget of at least $270 Million, there's no way this isn't a massive bomb for Disney. It would take a miracle for it to break even, never mind turn a profit, however small.

 

[Starman]

I'm curious about this as well.

I keep seeing articles and videos that says the films bombed, but did they really? Maybe some of these defined bombed films are not accurate, maybe they didn't actually make a loss but less profit than the studio expected/wishes?

These are the so-called bombed films, I'm no expert on how profit margin works in film industry but quick wiki shows
Little Mermaid - Budget 297m, Box office 570m
Antman - Budget 200m, Box office 476m
Indiana Jones - Budget 300m, Box office 385m

Many of the videos/articles claims the budget doesn't include marketing and other stuffs that actually balloons the cost to 2x or even 2.5x of movie budget that is shown. But what is the source to these claims and are these claims even real? Obviously studios don't get ALL of the box office money, maybe only a certain percentage that is split between them and the theaters.

Out of the 3 examples above, I think only Indiana Jones make an out right loss. The other two probably still turned a profit, maybe just tiny.

imho, movies are only a out right bomb, if box office is BELOW movie budget displayed. Which not as many of these films are in these situation.

Again, I stress I know nothing about how the profit margin works in film industry and above is just an opinion of someone that reads these "bombing" news, which I think majority of people are.

The rule of thumb has always been that you double the production budget to calculate advertising. You can’t prove a rule of thumb because it’s based on averages, and because film studios don’t normally publish the information in the trades.

But if you want to pretend a company doesn‘t heavily market big budget films, that’s okay. Even assuming the marketing is zero, a film still needs to earn double its production budget to break even, because cinemas take about half of the ticket sale revenue. (Foreign distributors and cinemas take an even bigger slice.)

All three films you listed bombed badly. Disney’s lost over a billion dollars over its last 10 films. Even the trades have admitted this.

As for investors rebelling, they are. Do a Google search about Nelson Peltz and Trian. Bob Iger has his feet to the fire, and it’s likely going to get a a lot worse.

 

[moreorless87]

I'm curious about this as well.

I keep seeing articles and videos that says the films bombed, but did they really? Maybe some of these defined bombed films are not accurate, maybe they didn't actually make a loss but less profit than the studio expected/wishes?

These are the so-called bombed films, I'm no expert on how profit margin works in film industry but quick wiki shows
Little Mermaid - Budget 297m, Box office 570m
Antman - Budget 200m, Box office 476m
Indiana Jones - Budget 300m, Box office 385m

Many of the videos/articles claims the budget doesn't include marketing and other stuffs that actually balloons the cost to 2x or even 2.5x of movie budget that is shown. But what is the source to these claims and are these claims even real? Obviously studios don't get ALL of the box office money, maybe only a certain percentage that is split between them and the theaters.

Out of the 3 examples above, I think only Indiana Jones make an out right loss. The other two probably still turned a profit, maybe just tiny.

imho, movies are only a out right bomb, if box office is BELOW movie budget displayed. Which not as many of these films are in these situation.

Again, I stress I know nothing about how the profit margin works in film industry and above is just an opinion of someone that reads these "bombing" news, which I think majority of people are.

Hollywood accounting is a thing, a tednancy to try and inflate the costs as much as possible to avoid paying tax or a percentage to those involved.

I'm guessing if Disney is losing money its probably on Disney+, streaming as a whole thus far has really been all about trying to build market share, its not come close to covering its costs.

 

[SakurabasEar]

I mean, there has been nonstop super hero movies for like 15 years now. Its getting old, and to think a superhero movie loaded with heroines was going to be successful is especially laughable

 

[Fluffernutter]

I'm curious about this as well.

I keep seeing articles and videos that says the films bombed, but did they really? Maybe some of these defined bombed films are not accurate, maybe they didn't actually make a loss but less profit than the studio expected/wishes?

These are the so-called bombed films, I'm no expert on how profit margin works in film industry but quick wiki shows
Little Mermaid - Budget 297m, Box office 570m
Antman - Budget 200m, Box office 476m
Indiana Jones - Budget 300m, Box office 385m

Many of the videos/articles claims the budget doesn't include marketing and other stuffs that actually balloons the cost to 2x or even 2.5x of movie budget that is shown. But what is the source to these claims and are these claims even real? Obviously studios don't get ALL of the box office money, maybe only a certain percentage that is split between them and the theaters.

Out of the 3 examples above, I think only Indiana Jones make an out right loss. The other two probably still turned a profit, maybe just tiny.

imho, movies are only a out right bomb, if box office is BELOW movie budget displayed. Which not as many of these films are in these situation.

Again, I stress I know nothing about how the profit margin works in film industry and above is just an opinion of someone that reads these "bombing" news, which I think majority of people are.

Hollywood accounting - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org