The MCU - Marvel Cinematic Universe

[Tallguy 3,398]

We watched it this weekend. It was cute.

 

I take it the split between Vardalos and Ian Gomez was not amicable? Or at least enough that he's not in the movie.

[Gabriel Bezerra 302]

Oh, it opens next week here... forgot about it.

[Tallguy 3,398]

 

6 hours ago, Gabriel Bezerra said:

I believe My Big Fat Greek Wedding 3 is happening.

 

Ah, I'm caught up now. I just meant a "movie like". Those out of nowhere movies that nobody believes in that don't cost anything and become huge hits. Heck, Rocky.

 

[Gabriel Bezerra 302]

Netflix kinda took hold of them... and most of it is not very good, though I think we might be getting those back in theaters slowly, but in order for them to really come back, a change in management is severely needed, just put people who actually care about movies... to run movie studios.

 

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

I'd like to take this opportunity to publicly apologize for my earlier comment that "It looks like The Marvels market is 13-year-old girls."  I was so wrong.

 

 

Quote

Other diagnostics on The Marvels: 65% male leaning, with 45% men over 25

 

 

As someone who hasn't seen this movie but falls squarely into the demographic that has (i.e. males over 25), all I can say is...I have failed you Captain Marvel. I have failed you.

 

[Edmilson 7,466]

1 hour ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

like to take this opportunity to publicly apologize for my earlier comment that "It looks like The Marvels market is 13-year-old girls."  I was so wrong.

 

Do you have a link for this article? Seems like an interesting read.

[Faleel 5,353]

7 hours ago, Edmilson said:

Do you have a link for this article? Seems like an interesting read.

Both articles are in his post.

 

Click the highlighted sections.

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

Massive respect for this. No matter what you think of this film or the state of the MCU, Iman Vellani's a delight. No blaming the fans, no recriminations, no excuses.  Passes it off to Iger as if it’s not her business, which it’s really not, and The Marvels failure isn’t on her. For her sake I wish she'd been in a better, more successful film, and I hope she gets more opportunities. 

 

[Mr. Hooper 1,792]

Pretty much everyone's saying she's the highlight of the movie. Sounds like she has the right attitude if she's going to have a future in the MCU. Make the movie, promote it, and whatever fallout there might be, just move on and don't try to lock horns with the fans.

[Edmilson 7,466]

The Marvels has failed in every way it possibly could.

 

Like It Or Not, ‘The Marvels’ Has Now Bombed In Every Way Possible

[A24 4,338]

Bombed despite Brie Larson's gorgeous assets?! Impossible!

 

[JNHFan2000 2,966]

 

I do feel that this should be mentioned. Some people might not want to hear, bit it is an achievement

[Edmilson 7,466]

Yeah, but it says more about Hollywood not giving Black women enough opportunities to direct blockbusters than anything.

[Mr. Hooper 1,792]

8 hours ago, Edmilson said:

Yeah, but it says more about Hollywood not giving Black women enough opportunities to direct blockbusters than anything.

Right. If they hire a black female to direct the next Spider-Man, well guess what, she'll have the biggest ever opening for a black female director by a country mile.

[Edmilson 7,466]

The dude behind Loki S1 and Multiverse of Madness will now write both of the upcoming Avengers movies.

 

Quote

EXCLUSIVE: Michael Waldron has been tapped to write Marvel Studios‘ Avengers: The Kang Dynasty. Waldron had already been set to write the installment that would follow Kang Dynasty and will now write both films. Waldron has become one of Marvel’s most trusted creative minds having previously created and served as showrunner of season 1 of Loki as well as writing Doctor Strange in The Multiverse of Madness and the move make sense to the studio to have him pen both films. Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige will produce.

Deadline recently broke that Destin Daniel Cretton would not be directing the film in order to focus on his other Marvel projects like the TV series Wonder Man. Avengers: Kang Dynasty is far on the theatrical release schedule, dated to kick off summer on May 1, 2026, giving Waldron more then enough time to pen a script as the director search begins. The movie will precede Avengers: Secret Wars on May 7, 2027 which will wrap up the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s Phase 6 features.

https://deadline.com/2023/11/loki-michael-waldron-marvel-studios-avengers-kang-dynasty-1235638887/

[Mr. Hooper 1,792]

On 21/11/2023 at 10:45 AM, A24 said:

Bombed despite Brie Larson's gorgeous assets?! Impossible!

 

Maybe they should've went with a different poster design...

 

[JNHFan2000 2,966]

1 hour ago, Edmilson said:

The dude behind Loki S1 and Multiverse of Madness will now write both of the upcoming Avengers movies.

 

https://deadline.com/2023/11/loki-michael-waldron-marvel-studios-avengers-kang-dynasty-1235638887/

Seriously! Get him outta there. These 2 big films should not be written by one person.

 

Bring back Markus & McFeely. They are better equipt at writing for so many characters. Waldron had his chance with MoM and blew imo

[Yavar Moradi 2,599]

Loved Loki S1 but Multiverse of Madness was maddening to me. Yeah there were some cool Raimi elements but Wanda’s development post-WandaVision was totally messed up (apparently Raimi didn’t even watch WandaVision, which I can’t even fathom) and I honestly really wanted a sequel to the original Doctor Strange film which delivered on its end credits Mordo tease.

 

Yavar

[Once 605]

29 minutes ago, Yavar Moradi said:

Loved Loki S1 but Multiverse of Madness was maddening to me. Yeah there were some cool Raimi elements but Wanda’s development post-WandaVision was totally messed up (apparently Raimi didn’t even watch WandaVision, which I can’t even fathom) and I honestly really wanted a sequel to the original Doctor Strange film which delivered on its end credits Mordo tease.

 

Yavar

If I remember correctly Multiverse of Madness started prinicple photography right after WandaVision wrapped, so I'm not sure WV was in a watchable state by the time MoM (and Raimi) was in pre-production.

[Yavar Moradi 2,599]

He could have read the script, at the very least.

 

Yavar

[Edmilson 7,466]

According to Bob Iger, the reasons for The Marvels's abysmal box office are: lack of executive oversight on set during Covid, streaming and (oh boy, this will be controversial) "positive messages for the world sometimes overwhelming storytelling".

 

https://deadline.com/2023/12/the-marvels-lacked-on-set-supervision-bob-iger-admits-1235649619/

 

"Entertain first, not messages", he said.

 

[Mr. Hooper 1,792]

2 hours ago, Edmilson said:

"Entertain first, not messages", he said.

Finally it's getting through to him.

 

But his problem now is that Disney is overrun with "creatives" who have more talent for checking social agenda boxes than creating compelling entertainment...

 

He'll have to clean house, and lure back the talented people who left.

[Yavar Moradi 2,599]

Oh yes, it’s the creatives who are the problem, not the executives. 🙄 

 

Yavar

[HunterTech 994]

Finally? A lot of this happened when he was away, so really you could more blame Chapek for allowing it (who even then tried to wiggle away from it before the whole Florida business happened anyway).

 

And then more importantly: what fucking message? That other groups of people are just as capable of making art? I suppose the remakes have had their clumsy methods of addressing supposed critiques of the original works, but ultimately it's too insubstantial to actually be the primary reason those are hollow husks of their past successes.

 

It is purely validating the grifters whose whole online business is feeding off the negativity that comes from modern media being made, so the end result is maybe one video acknowledging these comments before going back to the whining grind in the name of profit.

[JNHFan2000 2,966]

Disney films have featured these so called messages for decades. That's not the problem.

 

I agree with HunterTech that it has partially to do with the online media etc these days. And there is an argument that there is too much out there these days. And to stand out, you have to make something special.

 

Studios shot themselves in the foot because they all wanted their own streaming services. Then the pandemic happened and people got used to waiting for the films until they could watch them at home. A lot of the time in a home theatre which they themselves set up.

 

The studios need to go back to making event films. Look at the years before the pandemic. People went to the cinemas because they felt the films couldn't be missed. Heck, Endgame made more in it's first 3 days than most of the films this year.

 

So, long post, but my thoughts come down to it that I feel it's not just one thing. There are a number of reasons that films are struggling and it doesn't help to blame it all on one thing. Multiple things need to change.

[Edmilson 7,466]

I think Iger agrees that delving too much into culture wars (part of which happened under Chapek but it was initiated well before that) has only hurt Disney in the long run.

 

It made them a target for conservatives and now, after a decade of culture wars, the company is hated by half the population while the other half didn't really rally in their support, especially now that their movies aren't the can't-miss mega blockbusters of the 2010s. Iger and the others were hoping that a handful of trolls on social media wouldn't hurt their prospects at the box office, especially if they could be demoralized by being called "toxic r@cist white males" etc.

 

However, they underestimated how much their message could spread... and overrated how much the others who don't care about any of this bullshit would remain in their support when they ran out of steam. 

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

3 hours ago, Mr. Hooper said:

Finally it's getting through to him.

 

But his problem now is that Disney is overrun with "creatives" who have more talent for checking social agenda boxes than creating compelling entertainment...

 

He'll have to clean house, and lure back the talented people who left.

 

Nothing's gotten through to him, he's been saying this for years. Rinse & repeat.

 

It's lip service. They're not changing anything.

[Mr. Who 919]

I think removing messages from films is dumb as many or maybe even most great films in history have had some kind of message attached. However I do agree that movies that don’t integrate messages into the story in a good and organic way can become a bit distracting at times.
 

It has occasionally happened that messages I agree with take me out a movie or show as they seem added by some executive rather than being an organic part of the storytelling.

 

I think it’s insincere to say that overt messages in movies is the main problem with the lack of box office success fir recent Disney movies as it seems people just don’t care as much about new releases that Covid taught them that they can watch at home in a short while.

[Mr. Hooper 1,792]

2 hours ago, Yavar Moradi said:

Oh yes, it’s the creatives who are the problem, not the executives. 🙄 

 

Yavar

 

Oh I especially count the executives who fancy themselves creatives in there, hence the quotation marks.

 

2 hours ago, HunterTech said:

Finally?

It's been a long 2023...

 

2 hours ago, JNHFan2000 said:

The studios need to go back to making event films. Look at the years before the pandemic. People went to the cinemas because they felt the films couldn't be missed.

Post-pandemic, people turned out in droves for Top Gun: Maverick, Avatar: The Way of Water, Barbie, etc...and there was Spider-Man: No Way Home that broke 1 billion in the midst of it. So I'm not prepared to say that streaming services have sounded the death kneel for movie theatres. People will still show up if you give them something compelling.

 

2 hours ago, JNHFan2000 said:

There are a number of reasons that films are struggling and it doesn't help to blame it all on one thing. Multiple things need to change.

Yep. And whether or not Bob Iger is bowing to the angry mob with his latest comments, it should be clear by now that many of Disney's choices of late have not been connecting with audiences. The executives should sit at a table and ask "Why?", and hopefully come up with something better than blaming an "unpredictable audience". 

 

Tom Holland has said that he doesn't want to make another Spidey just for its own sake, but wants to make sure it has a good story and takes the character in a meaningful direction. Kudos to him, and that should be the thinking from the top-down.

 

2 hours ago, JNHFan2000 said:

Disney films have features these so called messages for decades. That's not the problem.

 

Yea, for decades Disney had been wittingly instilling in children the old tenet that beautiful people are virtuous and ugly people are wicked. "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" was their attempt at a mea culpa I guess...

 

8 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

 

Nothing's gotten through to him, he's been saying this for years. Rinse & repeat.

 

It's lip service. They're not changing anything.

 

I guess I'm just hopeful.

 

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

3 hours ago, Yavar Moradi said:

Oh yes, it’s the creatives who are the problem, not the executives. 🙄 

 

Yavar

 

It's both, frankly. Sometimes you take a chance on a director with little experience and it works out. Sometimes, it doesn't.

 

And the age-old lament that execs just ruin films when they get too involved really doesn't work when applied to Marvel. Their execs have always had an outsized influence, and heavy hand, for better or worse in all their productions from the start...even when they've had so-called "auteur" directors. Of course, a director can stil make or break film, but that said, most MCU flicks are crafted, to a large degree, in post. That's just how Marvel rolls.

 

 

 

[Mr. Hooper 1,792]

7 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

That's just how Marvel rolls.

And Lucasfilm...

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

 

1 hour ago, Edmilson said:

I think Iger agrees that delving too much into culture wars (part of which happened under Chapek but it was initiated well before that) has only hurt Disney in the long run.

 

It made them a target for conservatives and now, after a decade of culture wars, the company is hated by half the population while the other half didn't really rally in their support, especially now that their movies aren't the can't-miss mega blockbusters of the 2010s.

 

I don't think they care that they're the target of conservatives, and I think they welcome their anger, and the controversy (and concomitant attention) such attacks bring. And by and large, I don't think it's attacks from conservatives on social media and YouTube that's causing these films to fail.

 

 

[Edmilson 7,466]

The thing is: before the pandemic, movies needed to be events in order to get people to the theater. It wasn't enough being merely okay, it had to be like a huge event capable of making people forget about streaming, videogames, social media, etc., drive all the way to the movie theater and pay good money to watch it.

 

And post-pandemic that hasn't changed. On the contrary, it only got worse, especially now with much more streaming services. 

 

However, most current day Disney offerings don't qualify as events as much as their 2010s output did. Top Gun: Maverick, Avatar 2 (which btw is a Disney movie), Barbie and Oppenheimer were events. Quantumania, The Marvels and literally everything DC released were not.

 

And that's because they didn't feel like unmissable events, rather like another generic Marvel/DC CGI-fest not too different from the hundreds we had over the last 20 years. Maverick, Way of Water and Barbie, on the other hand, felt like something people were compelled to forget about streaming for a while and actually go to the theater to see.

 

I don't know how Marvel can get out of this situation. They couldn't make the newer heroes become as beloved as the old ones nor hype Kang as a new Thanos-like villain (and Jonathan Majors' problem only got things worse).

 

They'll bet everything on Fox and Sony characters to turn their movies into events again. "If you thought Iron Man, Captain America and Thor getting together after their solo movies was awesome, wait until you see what happens when heroes from old movies come back for their glorious return!". It worked for Spiderman, not so much for The Flash. And if Deadpool 3, with its Fox reunion, fails, then yeah, Marvel will be fucked.

[HunterTech 994]

Over reliance on formula combined with over saturation seems like the more straightforward answer to a lot of Disney's current failings (especially with Wish's main critiques being that it's the definition of watered down), yet we never seem to want to leave it at that. Which makes Iger's words all the more rich, since he fully admits in the same article that there have been too many sequels on their end, yet refuses to fully back down on that front because that doesn't net you easy theme park advertisements.

[Mr. Hooper 1,792]

1 hour ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

And by and large, I don't think it's attacks from conservatives on social media and YouTube that's causing these films to fail.

 

6 minutes ago, HunterTech said:

Over reliance on formula combined with over saturation seems like the more straightforward answer to a lot of Disney's current failings

Absolutely, but the negative publicity from Disney's involvement in the "culture wars" hasn't helped. Aside from the right-wing trolls, I'd say it's left a bad taste in the average consumer's mouth. Enough to boycott Disney? Probably not, but the brand doesn't shine today like it did.

 

Disney's always been very protective of their image, so it's surprising to me that they don't seem to care—unless they just think they're too big to fail.

[Groovygoth666 670]

For Disney this seems to happen every 10 years or so since Walts death, with the drawn out production of films that failed at the box office through the late 70s and 80s bringing in Michael Eisner and Jeffrey Katzenburg which leads to the Renaissance of the 90's, then the middling releases of the 00s sees Eisner ousted with Iger taking his place and the films rising again at the box office in the 10s with the films of the 20s leading back in to a slump. It's just a cycle the studio goes through. 

 

Marvel is a bit different though, it's still a relatively young studio, there are just so many reasons why most of the post Endgame films failed to connect with audiences, that inserting any kind of message (while maybe a priority for some writers) wasn't the biggest. Word of mouth can still make or break a film and things like social media and YouTube have made plenty of voices louder. 

 

Personally I think (especially in Marvels case) writing isn't a priority with these films anymore, coupled with ever growing budgets extending production and a mentality of "we'll fix it in post" the end product can be a cobbled mess of ideas and quality. 

 

Of course streaming is also a factor, it's something that the studios will have to figure out how to compete with, just like the early days of television where it lead to the rise of the Epic films and Musicals of the late 40s and 50s before seeing the same slump at the box office like today, but then saw the rise of New Hollywood through the 60s and 70s. 

 

I think Lucas said it best "it's like poetry, it rhymes", with the Epics, Westerns and Musicals that dominated and then fell out of fashion we'll see something new rise (probably video game adaptations) superhero films will still be around, just not at the same heights as the last 15 years. 

[HunterTech 994]

2 hours ago, Mr. Hooper said:

 

Absolutely, but the negative publicity from Disney's involvement in the "culture wars" hasn't helped. Aside from the right-wing trolls, I'd say it's left a bad taste in the average consumer's mouth. Enough to boycott Disney? Probably not, but the brand doesn't shine today like it did.

 

Disney's always been very protective of their image, so it's surprising to me that they don't seem to care—unless they just think they're too big to fail.

 

Escape From Tomorrow is a pretty direct example of how Disney has treated these situations before, since they simply let the film be, as opposed to suing it into oblivion like people had thought they were going to do for portraying the parks in a negative light.

 

For all the views these anti-Disney videos get, you end up wondering how much reach they actually have, since that Little Mermaid remake still made a profit in spite of the notable opposition some had over the casting of the lead. Brand recognition likely saved it, but then shouldn't we be saying that about Phase 4-5 MCU as well?

[mstrox 6,651]

I think Disney’s biggest problem is Disney+.  Why would you spend $50 for your family to go to a movie when you know it’ll be delivered to your house on a giant TV in six months or so?

[Groovygoth666 670]

5 hours ago, HunterTech said:

 

Escape From Tomorrow is a pretty direct example of how Disney has treated these situations before, since they simply let the film be, as opposed to suing it into oblivion like people had thought they were going to do for portraying the parks in a negative light.

Yet The Sweatbox gets take down notices immediately. Escape From Tomorrow is a copyright nightmare and all the legality around it is questionable at best. Disney letting it be and not drawing attention to it with a lawsuit has arguably worked in their favour as the film kinda just came and went. 

 

5 hours ago, HunterTech said:

For all the views these anti-Disney videos get, you end up wondering how much reach they actually have, since that Little Mermaid remake still made a profit in spite of the notable opposition some had over the casting of the lead. Brand recognition likely saved it, but then shouldn't we be saying that about Phase 4-5 MCU as well?

But Little Mermaid didn't make a profit. On a reported budget of $297 million and total box office of $569 million it didn't break even, don't forget that marketing is usually the same as half the budget and a film needs to make double it's budget back before being considered profitable. So Little Mermaid needed to make over $700 million + to become profitable. It's also important to remember that The Lion King remake had a budget up to $260 million and total box office of $1.663 billion, Aladdins budget of $183 million and box office of $1. 054 billion. Disney was absolutely expecting a similar return for Little Mermaid, when considering that Lady and the Tramp, Pinocchio and Peter Pan and Wendy went straight to Disney+, with them being live action remakes that the powers that be clearly didn't believe had the nostalgia appeal that the other films had (possibly because the others were appealing to kids of the 90's that grew up during the Disney Renaissance) Little Mermaid was ultimately a failure. 

 

As far as anti Disney videos there is an audience, with many coming into prominence in the last few years.

 

With Marvels phases 4 & 5 the box office shows a mixed bag. People turned up for the two Spider-Man sequels, GOTGV3, Wakanda Forever and DS-ITMOM, but in some cases they brought in less than their previous entries which would certainly suggest those films were coasting on brand recognition. But the others didn't have anywhere near an impact with audiences, regardless of being an MCU movie. 

[HunterTech 994]

I only said it made a profit in the sense that Disney would consider it one of their best successes in a pretty abysmal year .

 

I never denied there was an audience in the reactionary stuff, but I do question how much it actually affects the average person's decision to go and watch a thing. The online sphere is a decidedly very different creature than what the folks around you might talk about.

 

There's an established connection with those particular ones you singled out (Spider-Man especially), so their success isn't particularly surprising. With the rest, it really does seem like Marvel largely didn't follow through on the potential strengths of their new characters, and thus relegated them to repeating what came before on the false belief it was a one size fits all sort of deal.

[GerateWohl 4,370]

There are several issues in the MCU. But I don't believe, that quantity is one of them. Rather quality.

 

First, the movies used to take their main characters serious. Iron Man or Thor or Captain Amerca would also have worked as an interesting movie if you substracted the superpower stuff.

The new ones rely on that stuff.

But also superpowers hardly matter anymore. In the beginning a superpower was special and often more a curse than a gift. Now you just drink a drink, war a ring, get hit by a flash and have superpowers. No problem. And with the superficial superpowers the character arcs become more and more superficial. Heros just need to be charming and funny and have their little daily problems. One of the worst example her: She-Hulk.

[HunterTech 994]

39 minutes ago, GerateWohl said:

Heros just need to be charming and funny and have their little daily problems.

 

This I think is the core issue at hand, since the huge success of The Avengers made it so that most of what followed afterwards was a variant on this particular archetype. They certainly had a better time of balancing it for Phases 2 and 3, but it was within those and especially afterwards that they really leaned on this feel as a result of knowing it carried them to great victory before. And it certainly did for a good long while, but the well has run dry with how much they seem to think it's all these films need anymore.

 

I don't agree on the other points, given the amount of successful past films that were wholly reliant on the powers carrying the conflict. It wouldn't be Superman without Clark realizing that he can't save everyone with his powers (completely forgetting the ending). Also, I'm used to a lot of wacky origin stories with classic superheroes, so it's just a matter of if you find a whole universe of them believable. (Though I suppose it does highlight how semi-grounded the early MCU felt, given the different visions from the directors were more apparent in Phase 1).

[Groovygoth666 670]

12 minutes ago, HunterTech said:

I only said it made a profit in the sense that Disney would consider it one of their best successes im a pretty abysmal year 

 

But that's the thing, Disney was very quiet on Little Mermaids box office, they did tout it as highly viewed on Disney+ when it dropped there though. To me its just PR spin, the numbers don't lie. 

 

22 minutes ago, HunterTech said:

I never denied there was an audience in the reactionary stuff, but I do question how much it actually affects the average person's decision to go and watch a thing. The online sphere is a decidedly very different creature than what the folks around you might talk about.

Absolutely, you're right and I agree with you it's very difficult to determine how much they have as an influence, but at the same time it's also hard to ignore their rise and these films box office declining. Causation is not correlation though and ultimately like you say I also wonder how much influence they have on the average movie goer. 

 

37 minutes ago, HunterTech said:

There's an established connection with those particular ones you singled out (Spider-Man especially), so their success isn't particularly surprising. With the rest, it really does seem like Marvel largely didn't follow through on the potential strengths of their new characters, and thus relegated them to repeating what came before on the false belief it was a one size fits all sort of deal.

Exactly, the established characters definitely had an advantage, I have mentioned earlier in the thread that Marvel seemingly wanted to fast track the newer characters at the expense of time taken to develop them over multiple movies like the originals as replacements without the same effort. So they can come off as not only poorly written/developed but since some are just the same as older characters Marvel hope they can get the same kind of attachment from audiences with minimal effort. 

[GerateWohl 4,370]

2 hours ago, Groovygoth666 said:

Exactly, the established characters definitely had an advantage, I have mentioned earlier in the thread that Marvel seemingly wanted to fast track the newer characters at the expense of time taken to develop them over multiple movies like the originals as replacements without the same effort. So they can come off as not only poorly written/developed but since some are just the same as older characters Marvel hope they can get the same kind of attachment from audiences with minimal effort. 

This.

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

 

2 hours ago, Groovygoth666 said:

Marvel seemingly wanted to fast track the newer characters at the expense of time taken to develop them over multiple movies like the originals as replacements without the same effort.

 

Pretty much. Ironically, today the MCU is trying to do what DC tried to do...copy the MCU formula via the fast lane. But now Marvel just looks like a legacy band lazily covering their own songs.

 

 

[crocodile 8,017]

One thing I don't understand is why they are so obsessed with teasing Singerverse X-Men. It would be a perfect opportunity to start from scratch, do the franchise properly, and have a big title up their sleeve. But why reheat something that wasn't all that great, to begin with?

 

Karol

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

8 hours ago, Mr. Hooper said:

Absolutely, but the negative publicity from Disney's involvement in the "culture wars" hasn't helped. Aside from the right-wing trolls, I'd say it's left a bad taste in the average consumer's mouth.

 

Right. To the extent Disney is losing customers over the so-called "woke agenda" in their films and shows, I think it's less because they saw a YouTube video and more because (to the extent it's there) it's turning off average audiences, who are perceiving it in the content they're watching. How much their perception is influenced by negative coverage of Disney & the culture wars, I can't say. But I do see this push-back creeping more into the "mainstream", it's no longer merely the province of right wing YouTubers.

 

It's not the main reason Disney's (and others) franchises are faltering, I agree with a lot of the reasons offered up here. But I do think it may be part of it. Of course, if the quality of the product was better, and the "message" delivered with more subtlety (Disney used to be good at this), it wouldn't be as much of a problem.

 

[GerateWohl 4,370]

A wobei agenda isn't necessarily the problem and would be embraced by many people. But in combination with the mentioned fastlane issue and the general loss of quality it appears like the previous substance has been replaced by an empty woke hull, and that annoys even the well minded audience. 

[Groovygoth666 670]

58 minutes ago, crocodile said:

One thing I don't understand is why they are so obsessed with teasing Singerverse X-Men. It would be a perfect opportunity to start from scratch, do the franchise properly, and have a big title up their sleeve. But why reheat something that wasn't all that great, to begin with?

 

Karol

It could be over compensating because No Way Home was one of their biggest films post Endgame. Execs probably looked at it and went "that had people from older franchises and made tons of money, so let's do it again" not realising that was only part of why it made money. And I think Deadpool 3 should be the end of the Singerverse then start from scratch and do something different. But the MCU is in dire straits right now and so they'll rely on nostalgia to try and get audience's back. 

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

Sort of ironic that Disney is counting on Sony's Spider-Man and FOX's X-Men to save them.