It has been a dizzying few years for those of us who are not all in on the Marvel Cinematic Universe (or, as it is known to fans, journalists, industry professionals and just about everyone with a pulse, the MCU). Probably only die-hard fans are keeping up with all of the brand’s installments, spinoffs and ephemera.
The interlocking big and small-screen iterations of Marvel’s superhero characters are not, to be clear, without their charms — particularly early on, when formulas were not yet set in stone, and idiosyncratic filmmakers were able to slip something resembling a touch of personality, wit and auteurism into these pre-sold blockbusters.
However, with each passing year, the Marvel playbook of vapid wisecracks, muddled third acts, murky CGI and “multiverse” mumbo-jumbo has congealed into a lifeless exercise in corporate branding and anticipatory fan service. What is more, its product (and those of the many rival studios who have vied to create their own MCUs) has dominated the marketplace to such a degree that if you are interested in going to see a major motion picture about people whose wardrobes are not spandex-heavy, your options are increasingly limited.
Illustration: Mountain People
And now some chinks are finally showing in the armor. Variety published a well-reported chronicle of the “crisis at Marvel,” and it is not pretty: shuffling release dates and massive reshoots for recent and upcoming films, expensive miscalculations among their Disney+ series, existential questions about where to go in the next phase of the comic-book-movie dynasty. As a result, box office receipts are down, and the brand’s cultural dominance is faltering.
What went wrong? Put simply, overkill — exacerbated by COVID-19 lockdowns. Shuttered theaters meant that the money-making “cinematic” piece of MCU was on hold. Marvel stakeholder Walt Disney Co, faced with the pandemic also halting its production, cruise ships and theme parks, had to pivot and do it fast. Variety reports that a mandate was issued to boost the company’s stock price. The big idea was to give the public “an endless torrent of interconnected Marvel content for the studio’s fledgling streaming platform, Disney+.
There were two results here, neither of them positive.
First, the saturation strategy undid what separated Marvel movies from the films they were regularly trouncing at the box office: They were events. As blockbusters have continued to dominate the global box office, audiences have codified around the idea that “event movies” like these are the only things worth leaving the house and venturing to a theater for. You have to see big movies on the big screen, the conventional wisdom goes, and everything else (i.e., movies where people only talk to each other) can wait to be watched at home. It is a philosophy that has grown even more pervasive post-COVID, when the already minimal 90-day window between theatrical and home viewing shrunk considerably.
So, for Marvel to eliminate the essential bigness of their product by literally turning it into television seems a fairly spectacular case of a company shooting itself in the foot. Add in the middling quality and muted reception of most of these shows — when was the last time you heard anyone talk about Moon Knight, Hawkeye or The Falcon and the Winter Soldier — and you have got a textbook case of devaluation.
Second, in creating not only a glut of Marvel-adjacent film and television, but a deliberately interconnected one, Disney has wildly overestimated the interest and dedication of its audience.
It is one thing to build up to an Avengers movie with a handful of previous blockbusters. It is another to ask viewers of The Marvels, coming to theaters tomorrow, to consume hours of television programming (and remember minor details). That is no problem for the superfans; they will always watch everything at least twice. However, contrary to the volume of their voices in the cultural discourse, die-hards alone do not amount to billion-dollar grosses. The casual moviegoer has to be part of the equation, and to that market, these films no longer sound like fun. They sound like homework.
It would be premature to write off Marvel in particular or the superhero movie in general (though DC Studios’ current outlook is about as bleak as Marvel’s, if not bleaker). However, there certainly seems to be a sense of panic in the industry that the superhero movies that have been their bread and butter for a decade and a half are no longer a sure thing. And if there is one thing that makes studio executives nervous, it is a lack of sure things.
Yet they must bear in mind that, evidence to the contrary, audiences are not always predictable. When Star Wars broke records in 1977, big-screen sci-fi was floundering. Part of why Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man was a hit in 2002 was that there was not an abundance of superheroes at the multiplex, and this formulation does not just apply to comic book movies. How many epic historical romances were out there in 1997 when Titanic was released? Tastes change and fads pass, but the execs who write the checks get so wrapped up in replicating the last big thing that they are never on the lookout for the next big thing. They might be wise to start that search now.
Jason Bailey is a film critic and historian whose work has appeared in the New York Times, Vulture, the Playlist, Slate and Rolling Stone. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Taiwan’s semiconductor industry gives it a strategic advantage, but that advantage would be threatened as the US seeks to end Taiwan’s monopoly in the industry and as China grows more assertive, analysts said at a security dialogue last week. While the semiconductor industry is Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” its dominance has been seen by some in the US as “a monopoly,” South Korea’s Sungkyunkwan University academic Kwon Seok-joon said at an event held by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In addition, Taiwan lacks sufficient energy sources and is vulnerable to natural disasters and geopolitical threats from China, he said.
After reading the article by Hideki Nagayama [English version on same page] published in the Liberty Times (sister newspaper of the Taipei Times) on Wednesday, I decided to write this article in hopes of ever so slightly easing my depression. In August, I visited the National Museum of Ethnology in Osaka, Japan, to attend a seminar. While there, I had the chance to look at the museum’s collections. I felt extreme annoyance at seeing that the museum had classified Taiwanese indigenous peoples as part of China’s ethnic minorities. I kept thinking about how I could make this known, but after returning
What value does the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) hold in Taiwan? One might say that it is to defend — or at the very least, maintain — truly “blue” qualities. To be truly “blue” — without impurities, rejecting any “red” influence — is to uphold the ideology consistent with that on which the Republic of China (ROC) was established. The KMT would likely not object to this notion. However, if the current generation of KMT political elites do not understand what it means to be “blue” — or even light blue — their knowledge and bravery are far too lacking
Taipei’s population is estimated to drop below 2.5 million by the end of this month — the only city among the nation’s six special municipalities that has more people moving out than moving in this year. A city that is classified as a special municipality can have three deputy mayors if it has a population of more than 2.5 million people, Article 55 of the Local Government Act (地方制度法) states. To counter the capital’s shrinking population, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) held a cross-departmental population policy committee meeting on Wednesday last week to discuss possible solutions. According to Taipei City Government data, Taipei’s