DC/WB Films/Worlds (No Spoilers)

[Holt]

Wonder Woman did 822 million. Captain Marvel broke a billion. Female superhero movies will keep getting made; if anything, this is likely gonna have a more negative impact on WB taking a chance on lower tier properties without a lot of name recognition like BOP.

[LordUltimus]

Wonder Woman did 822 million. Captain Marvel broke a billion. Female superhero movies will keep getting made; if anything, this is likely gonna have a more negative impact on WB taking a chance on lower tier properties without a lot of name recognition like BOP.

Yeah, I think Harley might get a sequel before BOP do, if that makes any sense.

[Johnny]

It's good to keep in mind that WW benefited from being introduced in BvS, while CM was sandwiched between two Avengers movies. Those movies were very strategically positioned the way they were. Says a lot especially with CM that despite how successful the MCU was at the time, they still did not choose to "risk" introducing the character unless it was at the most appropriate time. There were more factors as to why female-led movies like those made the money they did and not only because they were crowd pleasers. Hollywood of course would not stop making female-led movies, especially in the superhero genre, but I think they would be more careful as to how or when they decide to put them out from now on, especially with examples like Ghostbusters or Charlie's Angels bombing.

It's one of the reasons I don't feel very confident about Black Widow coming out at least 5 years too late and after the character's death in the previous movie she appeared in. Kind of gives me Solo vibes, why go see a prequel story when the audience already knows the ultimate fate of the character. Maybe the fact that it's reportedly cheaper would make up for it even if it ends up having lower box office results, but I think so far that's the one MCU movie that seems rather strangely positioned.

[phantom1592]

It's good to keep in mind that WW benefited from being introduced in BvS, while CM was sandwiched between two Avengers movies. Those movies were very strategically positioned the way they were. Says a lot especially with CM that despite how successful the MCU was at the time, they still did not choose to "risk" introducing the character unless it was at the most appropriate time. There were more factors as to why female-led movies like those made the money they did and not only because they were crowd pleasers. Hollywood of course would not stop making female-led movies, especially in the superhero genre, but I think they would be more careful as to how or when they decide to put them out from now on, especially with examples like Ghostbusters or Charlie's Angels bombing.

It's one of the reasons I don't feel very confident about Black Widow coming out at least 5 years too late and after the character's death in the previous movie she appeared in. Kind of gives me Solo vibes, why go see a prequel story when the audience already knows the ultimate fate of the character. Maybe the fact that it's reportedly cheaper would make up for it even if it ends up having lower box office results, but I think so far that's the one MCU movie that seems rather strangely positioned.

Yep. gotta agree there. There is a large contingent of Marvel viewers who were afraid of missing ANYTHING that may have to do with the 'meta-plot' of the Infinity War. Even if there wasn't any particular connective tissue there... there COULD be and that was a driving force for marvel ever since 'the Avengers initiative' was hinted. I know a lot of people who had absolutely NO interest in Guradians of the Galaxy, Ant man, Doctor Strange... and yeah, Captain Marvel, but were afraid they'd miss some call back or easter egg for the 'BIG MOVIE' coming up. I think Black Widow will be an interesting experiment. There was a time she should have had her own movie... but that time is past. It's a prequel... she's dead... Red Sparrow has already told the sexy Russian sleeper agent story... A lot of people are just tired of Scarlett Johansen. I really don't know ANYONE who's actually excited about this NOW...

I'm curious to see how it does without the meta-plot driving the sales.

[Frontier]

Yeah, I think Harley might get a sequel before BOP do, if that makes any sense.

I'll laugh if the next Harley movie is Gotham City Sirens .

[Skullkid]

It's always strange that people always say Captain Marvel only did because of Avengers despite the fact the Ant-Man movies didn't do as well and they both came directly after Avengers movies, and Ant-Man ended up being 100 times more important to the plot of Endgame.
At a certain point it looks like an excuse after people spent months going on about it'd be Marvel's first flop.

[Johnny]

Captain Marvel was never going be a flop, it was the first female-led MCU movie and the 21st movie in the franchise, but it certainly got a huge boost because of how it was positioned. Ant-Man are heist movies that take place mostly in their own little corner. Captain Marvel was about the origins of the MCU and Nick Fury, even the Avengers were named after her callsign. There's a clear difference between how those movies were written and promoted.

[Skullkid]

I question how Captain Marvel was about the origins of the MCU, Captain America already existed before her, Star-Lord was already kidnapped, Thor's thousands of years old, even Ant-Man(Hank) already existed by the time she showed up.
It just doesn't make sense that somehow Captain Marvel did so well just because we find out at the tail end what her call sign was, but Ant-Man which ended on a cliffhanger directly because of IW didn't do as well.

[Johnny]

Like I said, one was their first movie about a female character who was involved with Nick Fury before he ever became the Nick Fury we know him today, involved in an alien conspiracy and positioned to be a huge player in the future for years to come. The other was a movie about a thief who shrinks. I don't understand what your argument is, I never suggested CM was only successful because of Avengers.

[Skullkid]

I don't get what your argument is supposed to be.
One involves an already known and liked character, with clear set up for future movies after while explicitly dealing fallout from stuff like CW the other is about an unknown that takes place too far in the past to be relevant in the immediate future but did well because it featured a returning support character?

[Johnny]

For the third time, first female-led movie, promoted as the most powerful hero in the MCU, positioned between two Avengers movies, dealing with past events as well as origins of a character who's been there since day one. Marvel has been touting her as the next leader of the MCU from the get go. Comparing her to Ant-Man of all characters just because he's been in other movies other than his own is not the same thing. My entire point whether it's CM, WW or BW, was that promotion and positioning can be just as important as the quality of the movie. People seem to agree that Birds of Prey could've benefited financially from a better slot or different marketing, despite that it was a quality movie.

[Skullkid]

You keep saying it, yet it continues to be inadequate.

[Johnny]

Ironic given that you've yet to say something adequate, and I'm still not sure just what exactly are you even arguing about given that noone tried to discredit Captain Marvel as a movie itself. Either way, I'll leave you it.

[Sutekh]

I way more wanted to see Ant-Man & the Wasp over Captain Marvel, and yet saw both. Had I had a limited budget and been able to afford only one at the theaters and had to catch the other when it came out online, it would have been Ant-Man and the Wasp at the theaters, for all sorts of reasons, one of the shallower ones being that I am old enough that Michelle Pfieffer, yowza!

[Osiris-Rex]

I'll laugh if the next Harley movie is Gotham City Sirens .

Wasn't that pretty much the plan even before Birds of Prey hit theaters? It would be Birds of Prey. Gotham City Sirens. And the 3rd movie would be Birds of Prey vs Gotham City Sirens.