James Gunn's DC Universe

[calsnowskier]

Hulk never had its own movie in this cinematic universe...

and i did not say JUST FOR KIDS... that is totally different than targeting kids... The movies are definitley family friendly for a reason... it cares more about growth than keeping its adult fans... Because fanboys are going to see the movies anyway, and parents are going to see it with their kids...

???

The Edward Norton Hulk movie was the second MCU film. The character was just recast for Avengers.

 

[DarthVedder]

Hulk never had its own movie in this cinematic universe...

and i did not say JUST FOR KIDS... that is totally different than targeting kids... The movies are definitley family friendly for a reason... it cares more about growth than keeping its adult fans... Because fanboys are going to see the movies anyway, and parents are going to see it with their kids...

The Incredible Hulk (2008) ⭐ 6.6 | Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi

1h 52m | PG-13

www.imdb.com

This is a MCU movie. They even used the abomination from that film on She Hulk.

And whatever they are doing and whoever they are targeting, their ROI is definitely lower than ever.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

???

The Edward Norton Hulk movie was the second MCU film. The character was just recast for Avengers.

ok... i forgot that... i just assumed that wasnt part of it, because looking back it has a different tone than the rest of the movies...

 

[MilkSpiller22]

The Incredible Hulk (2008) ⭐ 6.6 | Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi

1h 52m | PG-13

www.imdb.com

This is a MCU movie. They even used the abomination from that film on She Hulk.

And whatever they are doing and whoever they are targeting, their ROI is definitely lower than ever.

maybe it is because after end game, they killed the 2 most popular off... now they are rebuilding... Didnt wakanda forever do really well?? although the black panther movies have a bit of a different target than the rest of the marvel movies, even with the expectation that all fans will watch it...

 

[calsnowskier]

The Incredible Hulk (2008) ⭐ 6.6 | Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi

1h 52m | PG-13

www.imdb.com

This is a MCU movie. They even used the abomination from that film on She Hulk.

And whatever they are doing and whoever they are targeting, their ROI is definitely lower than ever.

They have done almost 30 movies in about 10 years. It is bound to get stale at some point.

 

[DarthVedder]

maybe it is because after end game, they killed the 2 most popular off... now they are rebuilding... Didnt wakanda forever do really well?? although the black panther movies have a bit of a different target than the rest of the marvel movies, even with the expectation that all fans will watch it...

Even if they are rebuilding, they still have high budgets to they need equally Box Office returns. Wakanda Forever is barely beating Thor Love and Thunder, while having a higher production and marketing budget. I don't think it's losing money (no way to really know), but it's far from the success that the first BP movie was.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Even if they are rebuilding, they still have high budgets to they need equally Box Office returns. Wakanda Forever is barely beating Thor Love and Thunder, while having a higher production and marketing budget. I don't think it's losing money (no way to really know), but it's far from the success that the first BP movie was.

well, that could also be for the obvious Covid movie culture... Movies in general have gone down drastically...

 

[DarthVedder]

well, that could also be for the obvious Covid movie culture... Movies in general have gone down drastically...

People still went in high numbers to see Top Gun, Spiderman NWH and, to a lesser extent, Dr. Strange. Avatar, while also underperforming, still had close to a 450M opening weekend world wide. There are fewer movies in theaters and WF was basically alone, with zero competition, for about a month and a half, but still underperformed.

 

[calsnowskier]

Even if they are rebuilding, they still have high budgets to they need equally Box Office returns. Wakanda Forever is barely beating Thor Love and Thunder, while having a higher production and marketing budget. I don't think it's losing money (no way to really know), but it's far from the success that the first BP movie was.

Part of the disappointing box for Wakanda is the fact that it is targeted to a minority of the population. Not that other cultures can’t watch and enjoy it, but it isn’t geared towards a larger audience.

If the argument is made that a particular sub-culture will not flock to a movie geared towards the majority sub-culture, couldnt the same argument be made that the majority sub-culture will not flock to the movie that is geared to the minority subculture?

 

[DarthVedder]

Part of the disappointing box for Wakanda is the fact that it is targeted to a minority of the population. Not that other cultures can’t watch and enjoy it, but it isn’t geared towards a larger audience.

If the argument is made that a particular sub-culture will not flock to a movie geared towards the majority sub-culture, couldnt the same argument be made that the majority sub-culture will not flock to the movie that is geared to the minority subculture?

The way it went, they spent somewhere around 450M (production and marketing) on this movie. I think they were counting on at least 1B in box office returns (lots of articles talked about it being guaranteed to make 1B). If they are targeting a minority group, the budget should have reflected that, like it did with, say, Miss Marvel or She-Hulk.

 

[calsnowskier]

The way it went, they spent somewhere around 450M (production and marketing) on this movie. I think they were counting on at least 1B in box office returns (lots of articles talked about it being guaranteed to make 1B). If they are targeting a minority group, the budget should have reflected that, like it did with, say, Miss Marvel or She-Hulk.

I am just looking at arguments made and trying to use those arguments consistently. Of course they WANT everyone to go to the movie. But if a movie with a white lead/cast alienates black audiences, wouldn’t a movie with a black lead/cast alienate white audiences?

I saw the movie, and thought it was good enough. Not Earth-shaking, but it was entertaining enough, especially given the problems they had to overcome with losing Boseman. But it was very loud with its cultural influences that made me feel a bit “outside” while watching it (Both with the African and female influences). Again, not that making a movie with those influences are bad or should not be made, but understand that it wont have the same broad appeal with many movie goers.

Hollywood is making a lot of movies nowadays with Asian influences (both in terms of cast and with settings) because those movies will have a broader appeal in the growing Chinese market. That makes sense. So why wouldn’t it also make sense that abandoning white or American or straight or male or (…) will affect revenue from those subcultures?

 

[DarthVedder]

I am just looking at arguments made and trying to use those arguments consistently. Of course they WANT everyone to go to the movie. But if a movie with a white lead/cast alienates black audiences, wouldn’t a movie with a black lead/cast alienate white audiences?

I saw the movie, and thought it was good enough. Not Earth-shaking, but it was entertaining enough, especially given the problems they had to overcome with losing Boseman. But it was very loud with its cultural influences that made me feel a bit “outside” while watching it (Both with the African and female influences). Again, not that making a movie with those influences are bad or should not be made, but understand that it wont have the same broad appeal with many movie goers.

Hollywood is making a lot of movies nowadays with Asian influences (both in terms of cast and with settings) because those movies will have a broader appeal in the growing Chinese market. That makes sense. So why wouldn’t it also make sense that abandoning white or American or straight or male or (…) will affect revenue from those subcultures?

The bolded part is exactly the problem they are having. There's nothing wrong with having diverse heroes and movies, but the budgets should reflect the reduced target audience. They can't spend Avengers level money on movies targeted at reduced audiences.

 

[calsnowskier]

The bolded part is exactly the problem they are having. There's nothing wrong with having diverse heroes and movies, but the budgets should reflect the reduced target audience. They can't spend Avengers level money on movies targeted at reduced audiences.

Exactly the point I was trying to make.

if you continue to segment society, than “broad appeal” will cease to exist and specialized targeting will be required and budgeting (both in production costs as well as anticipated returns) will need to be adjusted accordingly.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

The bolded part is exactly the problem they are having. There's nothing wrong with having diverse heroes and movies, but the budgets should reflect the reduced target audience. They can't spend Avengers level money on movies targeted at reduced audiences.

Exactly the point I was trying to make.

if you continue to segment society, than “broad appeal” will cease to exist and specialized targeting will be required and budgeting (both in production costs as well as anticipated returns) will need to be adjusted accordingly.

Do we know if they are losing money though. Disney, with Hulu and ESPN they can afford taking a loss. And it benefits them to create quality that is targeted to minorities. I mean if they used a lower budget and created less quality do you know the message that would be shown. And no this is not even be woke. It grows fanbase with the minorities and makes them more likely to see the other movies and shows.

A big company taking a loss on something very popular is not really a loss especially when it protects them from any political consequences

 

[The Q]

Not really... but he was given the keys of the car anyway.

Honestly, he's directed some great movies and can't do worse than DC is already doing.

It’s a really low bar besides man of steel

 

[The Q]

Hate to break it to you, but Cavill is British, not American; he just does a good American accent. James Bond is not out of the picture at all.

For Marvel, he's been rumored for Captain Britain, Cyclops, Doctor Doom, Gladiator, Hyperion, and Sentry.

For Game of Thrones, fans want him as Cregan Stark in House of the Dragon, as Aegon the Conqueror in a Conquest series, as Daemon Blackfyre in a Blackfyre Rebellion series, or as Robert Baratheon in a Robert's Rebellion series.

Hyperion would be perfect imo. I love that entire group.

 

[The Q]

Marvel Studios has never been "just for kids". Look at the two movies that started the Universe, Hulk and Iron Man, and see that all the character building for the titular heroes is based on adult struggles and themes. While their movies are family friendly, Marvel are not making cartoons, and they wouldn't be spending 200M+ plus marketing on each movie just to attract kids.

Marvel are struggling financially and creatively. They might not be losing money the way the rest of Disney is, but even Wakanda Forever, the flagship film of phase 4, will make "just" about 800M worldwide, 500M less than the first BP movie (and with more expensive tickets) and barely enough to cover their production + marketing budget. Marvel are also struggling creatively because, while they had a few bad movies before, now their batting average is much lower, and they've been releasing so much material without finding the level of cultural impact they used to enjoy. I'd say that the only movie that actually made a mark from phase 4 was the Sony movie, Spiderman No Way Home.

They’re also moving on to less known characters in comparison to iron man, hulk, capt america etc

 

[The Q]

Hulk never had its own movie in this cinematic universe...

and i did not say JUST FOR KIDS... that is totally different than targeting kids... The movies are definitley family friendly for a reason... it cares more about growth than keeping its adult fans... Because fanboys are going to see the movies anyway, and parents are going to see it with their kids...

Yes they did. The Edward Norton one

 

[The Q]

I am just looking at arguments made and trying to use those arguments consistently. Of course they WANT everyone to go to the movie. But if a movie with a white lead/cast alienates black audiences, wouldn’t a movie with a black lead/cast alienate white audiences?

I saw the movie, and thought it was good enough. Not Earth-shaking, but it was entertaining enough, especially given the problems they had to overcome with losing Boseman. But it was very loud with its cultural influences that made me feel a bit “outside” while watching it (Both with the African and female influences). Again, not that making a movie with those influences are bad or should not be made, but understand that it wont have the same broad appeal with many movie goers.

Hollywood is making a lot of movies nowadays with Asian influences (both in terms of cast and with settings) because those movies will have a broader appeal in the growing Chinese market. That makes sense. So why wouldn’t it also make sense that abandoning white or American or straight or male or (…) will affect revenue from those subcultures?

Forcing it into a black panther movie…without black panther…was a choice

 

[calsnowskier]

Forcing it into a black panther movie…without black panther…was a choice

“Forcing it into a black panther movie”…

???

Forcing what?