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.
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS