Box office prospects for Captain Marvel movie looking lower than before
Cosmic Book News took a look at recent info strongly signaling the financial prospects for the new Captain Marvel film starring Brie Larson could be worse than previously anticipated, confirming her politicization of the production is discouraging potential filmgoers:
This could hint at the downfall of the once highly regarded Disney corporation, and could be the first real failure in the Marvel film franchise, at least a decade after their official production outfit first began. It would seem as though, in the months following the demise of Stan Lee, they see fit to go all out with bad ideas, social justice-related and otherwise, and that's bound to precipitate the collapse of Marvel as a film franchise as much as a comics franchise.
...the bad news for Kevin Feige and Captain Marvel is that those projections have now dropped upwards of $80 million (note: article has been updated to reflect million and not percent), as it is reported the flick may only open around $100 million.Let me see if I have this right. They need a crowdfunding campaign to encourage girls to see the film? They don't know how to rely on standard procedure in film promotion and advertising for anybody? How strange. But of course, there's also Larson's own bungling to consider:
The latest projections come from Deadline, with the site offering Captain Marvel will now open in line with other Marvel origin films, but won't come anywhere near Black Panther's $202 million. Interestingly enough, further evidence Captain Marvel is not as highly regarded among fans comes from the fact that Black Panther supporters have not supported the Captain Marvel gofundme to get girls to go see the movie.
There is also a huge problem with Brie Larson who has been spinning Captain Marvel as a feminist movie, essentially isolating the audience, and she even recently came out against white males for some reason. I'm actually surprised and disappointed in Kevin Feige that he is allowing Larson to destroy the MCU audience, and that Disney and CEO Bob Iger haven't learned anything from Star Wars. It's never a good thing to split the audience or insult them. Do they not want white males to go see the movie?You could even ask whether they want white females to see the movie, and if the details emerging say anything, Larson's approach is proving embarrassingly bad for the ladies too. If you really want a movie to succeed, not lose money and potentially wash up a career, you can't go alienating anyone. Yet, that's exactly what Larson's been doing. But, should we be surprised if Feige and Iger are doing this? If their politics are what they could be, it may not be too surprising if they've suddenly decided to let them get the better of their business approach. "Go with the flow" seems to be main driving factor in some leftist circles these days.
As I have been tweeting and responding to fans, the storyline surrounding the character is also cause for concern - something Avengers: Endgame directors Joe and Anthony Russo have recently responded to - as the character's movie is not even out and already she is said to be this overpowerful character, the new face of the MCU, reason for the formation of the Avengers, new leader of the Avengers, etc. The same arguments apply to any male character as well, as Feige is retconning Captain Marvel as a be all end all character in the MCU, which is coming off as more and more ridiculous, especially as Larson does more and more interviews (with non-white males, because why - white males are bad?? Larson does realize her bosses are white males, right? Guess that didn't come into question when she signed her $5 million deal for Captain Marvel and her 7-picture MCU deal, right? Is Larson buying any young underprivileged girls tickets with that multi-million dollar contract??).This too is something I'd noticed - touting Carol Danvers as potentially even more powerful than Thor, or maybe even Galactus! Even heroes with formidable powers usually exert a certain amount of cerebral intelligence to get the job done, mainly because we usually expect the villains, even if not superpowered per se, to be formidable in intellect themselves, and using their twisted intellect to scheme against the heroes in terrible ways and use it for creating weapons to menace the heroes (I recall reading some Adam Strange stories where Alva Xar was presented as a villain on Rann with a brain to rival that of the Earth-born hero). To make the leading lady sound near invulnerable seriously undermines whatever excitement they were hoping to convey. And Larson's insistence on insulting white men does the production no favors either. Why, Feige and Iger's failure to get her to stop only makes them look worse too. Why, what if she doesn't even use her wages to pay for kids to see the film?
This could hint at the downfall of the once highly regarded Disney corporation, and could be the first real failure in the Marvel film franchise, at least a decade after their official production outfit first began. It would seem as though, in the months following the demise of Stan Lee, they see fit to go all out with bad ideas, social justice-related and otherwise, and that's bound to precipitate the collapse of Marvel as a film franchise as much as a comics franchise.
Labels: marvel comics, politics, women of marvel
Opening around 100 million is actually pretty good. Wonder Woman opened at 103 million and is generally considered a success; Dr Strange opened at 85 million. Black Panther upped the ante, but not all movies can expect to be that phenomenally successful.
Posted by
Anonymous |
2:20 PM
Well, as an anonymous user said, 100 million might work depending on the film's budget. That being said, though... Solo did make roughly that amount of money, and that was considered a bomb, so it's a wait and see approach (and based on the article, it doesn't sound like it's enough to make back what they spent on the movie, unlike with Wonder Woman, Dr. Strange, or Black Panther).
As far as Iger, this was the same guy who constantly tried to promote Gay Days at Disney World and even tried to post a website advertising it and promoting bonuses for gay workers (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1185760/posts ), forced Path to 9/11 to cut a scene out that placed blame on Clinton thanks to Clinton-orchestrated protests against the film (and to add insult to injury, proceeded to bury any chance at a DVD release either by Disney directly, or by selling the rights to Lionsgate, all to ensure Hillary could become president), interfered with ESPN's attempts at firing Jemele Hill by claiming she was an "angry black woman" (really...) (https://dailycaller.com/2017/10/13/bob-igers-bigotry/ ), constantly pushed anti-Christian, anti-Conservative programming when even the other shareholders objected (oh, and also dropped the F-bomb on one of the people complaining about him) (http://www.christianpress.com/index.php/us/476-disney-criticized-for-anti-christian-anti-conservative-bias-at-shareholder-meeting
; https://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/03/09/disney-boss-says-no-political-bias-at-abc-news-and-espn-complaints-completely-exaggerated/ ; http://www.nationalcenter.org/PR-Disney_Iger_Shareholder031009.html ; http://www.christiancinema.com/catalog/newsdesk_info.php?newsdesk_id=2045 )
, and pretty much was largely responsible for the SJW mess at Disney. If I must be honest, Iger's even worse for Disney than Eisner EVER was. At least Eisner knew the bottom line and knew there were limits as to what leftist politics he should publicly embrace, and more importantly, at least Eisner TRIED to keep Disney tethered to its founders roots, which is far more than can be said about Iger. He's the worst Disney CEO ever. He won't be missed, though it is a shame that he's probably going to be dragging Disney down with him. Really liked that company, before Katzenberg, Iger, and to a certain extent Eisner started pushing leftism in it around the 1990s and 2000s.
Posted by
eotness |
9:56 AM
Solo opened at $85,000 in its first weekend and grossed $393 000 worldwide.
Wonder Woman opened at $103 000 and grossed $822 000 worldwide.
Dr Strange opened at %85 000 and grossed $678 000 worldwide.
Solo was about breakeven overall; not a success, but a bomb only in comparison to its expectations as a Star Wars movie. Wonder Woman and Dr Strange were successes.
Path to 9/11 would have mader Disney liable to several massive defamation lawsuits if released as written.
Posted by
Anonymous |
12:12 PM
Yeah, sorry but Disney treated Solo as a bomb, period. In fact, going by recent sales (https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2019/01/star-wars-revenue-takes-hit-across-video-games-merchandise-comic-books/75132/ ), even their standard Disney products are underperforming as well, not just Star Wars. And as far as Path to 9/11 and defamation lawsuits, I don't buy it. If they can get away with Fahrenheit 9/11 being sold (and that so-called "documentary" comes far closer to actually REQUIRING a defamation lawsuit no matter how you slice it), they most certainly could release it on DVD if they so desired. And besides, you're forgetting that Lionsgate requested the rights to the film. If they sold it to Lionsgate, they wouldn't have to worry about defamation lawsuits since it won't be their problem anymore. That's what I would have done, and if Hillary complained, I'd bluntly tell her "put up or shut up", reminding her that this is a capitalist society and I desire to give a product for the people to want.
Posted by
eotness |
2:25 PM