Can the MCU survive without the original Avengers?

[capandkirby]

No it didn't, that 25% are only in effect for China and China only accounts for 614 million of the 1.9 billion international box office. In most other international markets like Europe the share for Disney is above 50%, so for the remaining 1.3 billion you have to use a higher percentage.

Here is a source for Germany, stating that Disney's share was raised to 53% in 2015: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...-disney-791584

In other European countries and Latin America it's similar. China is the big exception as it's not a free country and their regime wants to protect its local film industry from competition, so Hollywood studios have to make concessions to be able to release their movies there, but in democracies with free-market economy Disney, the currently biggest movie studio in the world, can more or less dictate the terms. See the above mentioned example of Germany, the considerated boycott there wasn't succesful and in the end the theaters had to agree to Disney's terms because they would shoot themselves in the foot if they didn't show the biggest movie franchise there is.



I know that and thus have already done that in my previous post. The 515 million US and the 666 million international profit is already deducted from such factors. And there is no middle man as Disney distributes its movies directly in almost all markets worldwide.



Why would Disney care about how it plays out proportionally? 666 million is better than 515 million and that is all that counts for a company that wants to make profit.

As to the 25% for China, see my answer above.



The numbers provided by Deadline prove the claim that Endgame got most of its profit in actual terms from the US market is just plain wrong.



Yeah, just like the Fast & Furious franchise that never performed great in the US and still keeps going for 20 years.

Factors you are failing to take into account:

Population. China is the second largest box office grosser of Marvel’s films. Whereas Germany, which was your example btw, so that’s why I’m focusing on it, only made $64,319,294 total box office gross for Endgame (that’s BEFORE cost of production/distribution/marketing). The top three countries for box office are as follows:

The United States (still the largest audience and also the largest return of profit at 60%) 858 million

China (25% return) 614 million

The UK (23% return) 114 million

Btw the next two would have been South Korea and Brazil.

Point being Germany being more generous on distribution fees is nice and all but they’re such a small percentage of the sales they’re hardly compensating for the larger countries who charge more.

The other thing you’re not taking into account: Endgame being the exception, not the rule.

A number of factors made Endgame the phenomenon it became. But to sum up the biggies: market conditions being favorable (economy), supply and demand (right time and place sociologically), Disney’s rise as a behemoth under Iger. ALL of these elements are now under fire and are no longer viable. Iger retired. Disney stock took a hit from Covid AND the CEO change. The shareholders freaked out (thus the Mulan move). And civil unrest (understandably) has dominated the world sociologically, changing sentiment. All this on top of Covid.

In short, it’s a different market. Disney’s first response to the changing market was not to release its film internationally (something UK distributors are pissed about btw: https://deadline.com/2020/08/uk-cine...on-1203004622/) it was to stream it. Why? Because of the larger profit potential. 80% returns. Point-blank. Period. You can say “but the international market” all you want, but that’s not what’s happening.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

In short, it’s a different market. Disney’s first response to the changing market was not to release its film internationally (something UK distributors are pissed about btw: https://deadline.com/2020/08/uk-cine...on-1203004622/) it was to stream it. Why? Because of the larger profit potential. 80% returns. Point-blank. Period. You can say “but the international market” all you want, but that’s not what’s happening.

On that note, apparently a US Federal Court annulled the Paramount Decrees (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/th...mpression=true) which kept movie studios from outright owning theater chains. So that means we can see a return to the old studio system where different studios owned national theater chains.

In practice that means that AMC, US' largest movie chain, is going to be bought by Amazon or Disney or Netflix or whoever else that wins that bidding war. It's not a matter of if, but of when.

What that means in effect who knows.

[Blind Wedjat]

We might be moving away from the intended topic at hand but I think some of you are on the money that the culture around the world (well America especially) might be different and might not reflect the MCU or superhero fiction anymore.

Perhaps that's why the Watchmen and The Boys series were both so successful and so popular. They both deconstruct the myth of superhero optimism.

[capandkirby]

On that note, apparently a US Federal Court annulled the Paramount Decrees (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/th...mpression=true) which kept movie studios from outright owning theater chains. So that means we can see a return to the old studio system where different studios owned national theater chains.

In practice that means that AMC, US' largest movie chain, is going to be bought by Amazon or Disney or Netflix or whoever else that wins that bidding war. It's not a matter of if, but of when.

What that means in effect who knows.

Interesting (in that monopolies are never a good idea kind of way, I feel a little sick at this, not going to lie). We’re about to witness clash of the titans in live action.

[Ascended]

We might be moving away from the intended topic at hand but I think some of you are on the money that the culture around the world (well America especially) might be different and might not reflect the MCU or superhero fiction anymore.

Perhaps that's why the Watchmen and The Boys series were both so successful and so popular. They both deconstruct the myth of superhero optimism.

Yeah, I can't agree with that.

Are we forgetting the long, long, long list of corrupt politicians, cops, and military leaders that superheroes fight against on a regular basis? Are we forgetting the long, long, long list of heroes who spend their time running from cops, telling the government to f**k themselves, and fighting for a better, more balanced, more accepting society?

I expect that kind of thing from the general masses because they don't know any better. But here? Come on guys, you should all know better.

As far as the MCU goes, yeah there's a lot of former soldiers in the mix, and a lot of people who worked with the military industrial complex. But out of all those movies, stop and actually look at it. Iron Man spent his three movies giving the government the middle finger after that system nearly killed him. Cap fought with the military in his first film (during WWII, where that's totally acceptable because f**k nazis) and spent the other two tearing government institutions apart. Hulk was hunted by the military in his movie, after working with the military turned him into a monster. The Avengers worked *with* SHIELD in one movie, then got ripped apart over the idea of oversight, and everyone who agreed to the Accords ended up regretting it. Ant-Man is a felon, the Guardians are outlaws. Carol worked with Fury for like, one day, because their interests aligned. T'Challa, well he's a king, but anyone who speaks against Wakanda deserves a slap. And Thor, Spidey, and Strange don't deal with earthly authority at all.

Hell, even Agents of SHIELD have spent most of their seven season history operating outside the law.

So, yeah, there's connections to institutional authority there, but where exactly is this over powering, pro-institution mentality? Because I see a lot of people deciding the system doesn't work and/or getting screwed by it, and doing what they can to help people outside of those systems.

Now, yeah we are likely to see a shift going forward. But looking at the characters coming up, like She-Hulk, Ms. Marvel, Shang Chi, and Eternals, there's not a lot there that has much connection to cops or government anyway.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

So, yeah, there's connections to institutional authority there, but where exactly is this over powering, pro-institution mentality? Because I see a lot of people deciding the system doesn't work and doing what they can to help people outside of those limitations.

In the case of Iron Man, he's a character based on real-life tycoons like Steve Jobs and Elon Musk, so in the case of Iron Man, RDJ Stark, you have a propaganda for the Silicon Valley Libertarianism that's behind the hypercapitalist swindle happening right now with Bezos poised to become the first trillionaire, Elon Musk becoming and revealed to have been a major clown and charlatan all this time. In the movies, Stark is poised and presented as this lone genius, i.e. "cave with a box of scraps" when in reality neither Jobs nor Musk invented a single damn thing in their lives. Musk didn't invent the Tesla car for instance. Iron Man's Libertarianism infects the Spider-Man movies where the original working-class non-sidekick hero is now an "intern" and basically depends on a billionaire patron and is constantly seeking his advice, when the original character represented working-class ingenuity and pluck. In the case of SHIELD, the problem with Winter Soldier is that the expansion of SHIELD's influence and reach is because of HYDRA who had infiltrated it, i.e. there's a quote unquote "real SHIELD" (currently in charge of outer space) that can be redeemed and reformed. In addition to all this, there's the fact that Captain Marvel the movie was made with support and help by USAF. You also have that moment in BLACK PANTHER, where a white CIA officer pilots a plane to shoot down insurgents and revolutionaries in Wakanda.

To the extent that the MCU criticizes institutions, it's from a libertarian and centrist perspective, where any attempts at regulation is presented as a bad thing or a negative. Villains like Killmonger and so on are framed as radical and revolutionaries, the Spider-Man movies make villains like Vulture and Mysterio to be people who get screwed over by Stark but turn as villainous and Stark still ends those movies as a valid mentor and role model, and the subtext coming from Marvel-Disney cannot help but smack of, "Walt and Stan Lee were right to screw over Iwerks and Ditko and Kirby...because they would have become supervillains anyway".

As I said the default mood of the MCU in general is optimistic. That served it well for a time. But now the time has changed. Can the MCU change with it?

[chicago_bastard]

Because to Disney and other Hollywood executives, $666mn out of $1.9bn means, "we coulda had the other $1.3bn or more than half instead of little more than a quarter". That's what it comes down to. In the case of $515mn/868mn, they are at least satisfied they got more than half.

Anyway, obviously this is something you are enormously invested in emotionally. I am satisfied that I have made my case thoroughly.

I'm not emotionally invested, I just debunk your false claims, that's all. Nobody would say 515 million is better than 666 million, that's just your desparate attempt to hold on to your theory.

Germany's population is 83mn people. Compare that to America's 330mn, leave alone China's 1.4 bn people. 53% share of Germany doesn't add up to as much as you think.

Factors you are failing to take into account:

Population. China is the second largest box office grosser of Marvel’s films. Whereas Germany, which was your example btw, so that’s why I’m focusing on it, only made $64,319,294 total box office gross for Endgame (that’s BEFORE cost of production/distribution/marketing). The top three countries for box office are as follows:

The United States (still the largest audience and also the largest return of profit at 60%) 858 million

China (25% return) 614 million

The UK (23% return) 114 million

Btw the next two would have been South Korea and Brazil.

Point being Germany being more generous on distribution fees is nice and all but they’re such a small percentage of the sales they’re hardly compensating for the larger countries who charge more.

I only used Germany as an example because I could find a source for that country quickly. My point was that a share of roughly 50% is much more common for most countries than the 25% share in China as China is a big exception. So of course Germany alone doesn't change the picture but the point was that in most countries apart from China the share is similar to Germany.

And that's why I have to ask where you got the 23% for the UK from? That sounds out of all probability unless you can provide a reliable source for that. Here is a source I managed to find: https://stephenfollows.com/how-a-cin...s-distributed/

This guy spoke to many theater owners in UK and gives a very detailed view on the situation in UK. The important points are:

For example, a distributor may receive 55% of ticket sales in weeks one and two, 50% in week three, 45% in week four, right down to a base of 30% in the final weeks.
Only the biggest movies commonly claim more than 50% of income.

Well, movies aren't getting bigger than MCU nowadays so we can assume that Disney gets a share of at least 50% in UK. It's also important to note that especially MCU blockbusters make most of their money in the first two weeks, that's why the decline of the share starting in week 3 isn't a big factor.

So I provided evidence for two of the biggest European markets where Disney gets around 50%, please don't expect me to bring up sources for every single country in the world. It's pretty obvious that the situation in other democratic countries with free-market economies is similar to Germany and the UK. If you really want to go the road that China is standard and not an exception then it's your turn to provide evidence.

A number of factors made Endgame the phenomenon it became. But to sum up the biggies: market conditions being favorable (economy), supply and demand (right time and place sociologically), Disney’s rise as a behemoth under Iger. ALL of these elements are now under fire and are no longer viable. Iger retired. Disney stock took a hit from Covid AND the CEO change. The shareholders freaked out (thus the Mulan move). And civil unrest (understandably) has dominated the world sociologically, changing sentiment. All this on top of Covid.

I'm not denying that the MCU won't ever reach the heights Endgame claimed financially nor the impact that Covid will have on the whole industry, but that will affect the US and the rest of the world likewise.

In short, it’s a different market. Disney’s first response to the changing market was not to release its film internationally (something UK distributors are pissed about btw: https://deadline.com/2020/08/uk-cine...on-1203004622/) it was to stream it. Why? Because of the larger profit potential. 80% returns. Point-blank. Period. You can say “but the international market” all you want, but that’s not what’s happening.

As things stand at the moment Mulan will be released in China and other countries in theaters, so that's a moot point.

In territories where it doesn't debut on the streaming service, Mulan will be offered to cinemas. source: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/he...-price-1298688

[Havok83]

yeah bc its gonna lean heavily into the new properties it recently acquired

[Blind Wedjat]

Yeah, I can't agree with that.

Are we forgetting the long, long, long list of corrupt politicians, cops, and military leaders that superheroes fight against on a regular basis? Are we forgetting the long, long, long list of heroes who spend their time running from cops, telling the government to f**k themselves, and fighting for a better, more balanced, more accepting society?

I expect that kind of thing from the general masses because they don't know any better. But here? Come on guys, you should all know better.

As far as the MCU goes, yeah there's a lot of former soldiers in the mix, and a lot of people who worked with the military industrial complex. But out of all those movies, stop and actually look at it. Iron Man spent his three movies giving the government the middle finger after that system nearly killed him. Cap fought with the military in his first film (during WWII, where that's totally acceptable because f**k nazis) and spent the other two tearing government institutions apart. Hulk was hunted by the military in his movie, after working with the military turned him into a monster. The Avengers worked *with* SHIELD in one movie, then got ripped apart over the idea of oversight, and everyone who agreed to the Accords ended up regretting it. Ant-Man is a felon, the Guardians are outlaws. Carol worked with Fury for like, one day, because their interests aligned. T'Challa, well he's a king, but anyone who speaks against Wakanda deserves a slap. And Thor, Spidey, and Strange don't deal with earthly authority at all.

Hell, even Agents of SHIELD have spent most of their seven season history operating outside the law.

So, yeah, there's connections to institutional authority there, but where exactly is this over powering, pro-institution mentality? Because I see a lot of people deciding the system doesn't work and/or getting screwed by it, and doing what they can to help people outside of those systems.

Now, yeah we are likely to see a shift going forward. But looking at the characters coming up, like She-Hulk, Ms. Marvel, Shang Chi, and Eternals, there's not a lot there that has much connection to cops or government anyway.

I'm not disagreeing with you or agreeing with the notion that the MCU doesn't have a place anymore.

I'm just saying I understand the argument that the culture has changed.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Nobody would say 515 million is better than 666 million

Obviously Disney wants all the money so nobody is asking Disney to choose between the grosses because again Capitalism doesn't work that way. From a business perspective, i.e. not the individual film, but the overall series of films produced in a year in conjunction with films that are planned to be made in the future...the center for all their strategies to maximize profits will always be the domestic market.

The 666 mn is a mere multiplier of the domestic gross.

My point was that a share of roughly 50% is much more common for most countries than the 25% share in China as China is a big exception.

The point of capandkirby and me is that all countries are different and have different economies and need to be considered in context. 25% of China has a higher value than 100% of Germany (and most European countries), in terms of market share for a movie exhibition.

It's pretty obvious that the situation in other democratic countries with free-market economies is similar to Germany and the UK.

Again, the cultural exception of China is not unique to it. Other countries like France also practise it. The biggest democracy in the world is India...and that doesn't make as much money for Marvel or most Hollywood movies as China does. In a country with 1.3 bn people, in a democracy and also a free market, Avengers made $62mn. Nearly as much as Germany with $64,319,294.

[capandkirby]

I'm not emotionally invested, I just debunk your false claims, that's all. Nobody would say 515 million is better than 666 million, that's just your desparate attempt to hold on to your theory.




I only used Germany as an example because I could find a source for that country quickly. My point was that a share of roughly 50% is much more common for most countries than the 25% share in China as China is a big exception. So of course Germany alone doesn't change the picture but the point was that in most countries apart from China the share is similar to Germany.

And that's why I have to ask where you got the 23% for the UK from? That sounds out of all probability unless you can provide a reliable source for that. Here is a source I managed to find: https://stephenfollows.com/how-a-cin...s-distributed/

This guy spoke to many theater owners in UK and gives a very detailed view on the situation in UK. The important points are:

For example, a distributor may receive 55% of ticket sales in weeks one and two, 50% in week three, 45% in week four, right down to a base of 30% in the final weeks.
Only the biggest movies commonly claim more than 50% of income.

Well, movies aren't getting bigger than MCU nowadays so we can assume that Disney gets a share of at least 50% in UK. It's also important to note that especially MCU blockbusters make most of their money in the first two weeks, that's why the decline of the share starting in week 3 isn't a big factor.

So I provided evidence for two of the biggest European markets where Disney gets around 50%, please don't expect me to bring up sources for every single country in the world. It's pretty obvious that the situation in other democratic countries with free-market economies is similar to Germany and the UK. If you really want to go the road that China is standard and not an exception then it's your turn to provide evidence.



I'm not denying that the MCU won't ever reach the heights Endgame claimed financially nor the impact that Covid will have on the whole industry, but that will affect the US and the rest of the world likewise.



As things stand at the moment Mulan will be released in China and other countries in theaters, so that's a moot point.

In territories where it doesn't debut on the streaming service, Mulan will be offered to cinemas. source: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/he...-price-1298688

I got my stats from Statista which is a paid website so unfortunately you’ll have to pay to see the chart I saw. I have a subscription because I’m a data analyst, I actually use that website. That said here’s the link, you want to join go right ahead: https://www.statista.com/ That said I don’t need to share my access with you because once again the article *YOU* linked contradicts your own argument.

The part you excerpted is one piece, it didn’t take into account this...

Excerpt: “Firstly there’s tax. Sales tax varies wildly between countries, so I used a figure of 10% for this example (in the UK it’s currently 20%).“

Higher tax rate. 20%.

Nor this.

Excerpt: “The UK has among the highest exhibitor splits in the world. This is partly due to the relatively high cost of media advertising in the UK and also due to historic deals between British cinemas and distributors.”

Marketing is, apparently, expensive in the U.K. Which, according to your own article increases the exhibitor’s cut. As such the exhibitor (aka theater) gets 43% to 49%, while the distributor gets whatever is left after other costs. So the 23% is looking fairly accurate when it all comes together.

Excerpt: “The other big deduction is the amount the cinema (a.k.a. exhibitor or movie theatre) keeps. This is a rather contentious figure as different corners of the industry disagree vehemently as to what split is normal. When I interviewed over 1,000 film professionals in 2014, the average figure according to distributors was 49% but exhibitors reported it as 43%.”

This would leave 51% to 57% for the production/distributor but you have to subtract all the production costs, taxes and everything else from that 51 to 57%. Leaving the distributor with an fractional amount.

So, once again, you are not looking at the big picture. You are conflating net and gross.

And no, I don’t need you to look up every country. But you’re the one who is claiming that the international market is going to save cinema and restore the MCU to its former glory post Covid, by itself, without the American market, and despite the American shareholders, which I know for a fact is total bs. The onus is on you to prove this point. You haven’t.

[Ascended]

In the case of Iron Man, he's a character based on real-life tycoons like Steve Jobs and Elon Musk, so in the case of Iron Man, RDJ Stark, you have a propaganda for the Silicon Valley Libertarianism that's behind the hypercapitalist swindle happening right now with Bezos poised to become the first trillionaire, Elon Musk becoming and revealed to have been a major clown and charlatan all this time. In the movies, Stark is poised and presented as this lone genius, i.e. "cave with a box of scraps" when in reality neither Jobs nor Musk invented a single damn thing in their lives.

So the comparisons to Stark only go so far as "smooth talking industrialist" and that's a line we can trace back to Ford and Hughes, at the least. Why is this even relevant? Unless the line of thinking is "smooth talking industrialists are all bad, regardless of what they personally do" then I don't see why the failings of Musk and Jobs matter one whit. And we saw Tony start to change his business practices a long time ago.

Iron Man's Libertarianism infects the Spider-Man movies where the original working-class non-sidekick hero is now an "intern" and basically depends on a billionaire patron and is constantly seeking his advice

The loss of Parker's blue collar appeal is definitely a thing, no argument there.

In the case of SHIELD, the problem with Winter Soldier is that the expansion of SHIELD's influence and reach is because of HYDRA who had infiltrated it, i.e. there's a quote unquote "real SHIELD" (currently in charge of outer space) that can be redeemed and reformed.

Once again, I find this a non-starter. The Winter Soldier film explores (insofar as the MCU explores anything) the blurred lines in the intelligence community and ends with both sides torn apart, their crimes and mistakes made public. And now Fury is presumably fixing that and making SHIELD what it was supposed to be. Is the line of thinking "all intelligence agencies are evil?" Because otherwise I don't see the problem.

In addition to all this, there's the fact that Captain Marvel the movie was made with support and help by USAF.

Just like a whole lot of films that deal with the military. They do this for the sake of authenticity. Where's the problem?

You also have that moment in BLACK PANTHER, where a white CIA officer pilots a plane to shoot down insurgents and revolutionaries in Wakanda.

Once again, so what? People who were planning to murder and kill a whole lot of people were stopped before they could commit their atrocities. The bad guys lost. Are we wishing those misguided Wakandans had gone through with Killmonger's plan to colonize the planet and repeat the mistakes that Europe made centuries ago?

To the extent that the MCU criticizes institutions, it's from a libertarian and centrist perspective, where any attempts at regulation is presented as a bad thing or a negative.

The prototypical superhero operates outside of regulation as a default. Otherwise they'd be part of the institutions and wearing badges instead of capes. And it's all well and good to disagree with a centrist or libertarian perspective, but are we at the point where we say "You're not far enough on the extreme, radicalized end of the political spectrum; therefore you're an awful, wrong person?"

Villains like Killmonger and so on are framed as radical and revolutionaries, the Spider-Man movies make villains like Vulture and Mysterio to be people who get screwed over by Stark but turn as villainous and Stark still ends those movies as a valid mentor and role model, and the subtext coming from Marvel-Disney cannot help but smack of, "Walt and Stan Lee were right to screw over Iwerks and Ditko and Kirby...because they would have become supervillains anyway"

And this is why those are great villains; we can empathize with their plight and relate to their motivations. But getting screwed over by the rich or by institutional racism is not what made those people villains. What made them villains is their own actions. Nobody made Killmonger murder his way to a throne, nobody made Mysterio lie, cheat, and kill his way to ownership of a weaponized satellite. Those poor fools got done dirty but they are accountable for their own actions, everything else is just excuses.

And a big corporation like Disney having subtext that says it's okay to screw over the competition? Obviously. They're called the evil empire for a reason. Corporate interests are often detrimental to characters like that; just look at what's happened to Superman. He is far, far removed from the champion of the people he started out as.

I don't want anyone to get me wrong here; I'm not attacking anyone or their views, and literary analysis can be played out in a lot of different ways resulting in different readings that are all equally valid. If I sound like I'm all wound up, that's just the way I type when I'm enjoying a discussion. But in discussions like this I often see comments that paint large groups of people with the same brush. All cops are bastards, all libertarians are awful, etc etc. Well, replace the words "cops" and "libertarians" with "blacks." Not such a great claim all of a sudden, right? We have legit, real problems in America and our institutions are built on faulty ground that pre-dates more enlightened ways of thinking. We need to find ways to do better. But I see people on both sides of the aisle making the same mistake; lumping groups of people together and acting like all those people are exactly the same.

I'm not calling you out here Jack, but you provided a example I wanna use. You talk about Musk and Jobs, but not every inventor or businessman is like them or made the same mistakes. If we start saying "Oh, you made a fortune on technology R&D so you must be some kind of soulless, horrible thief" without taking the individual into account, then we haven't actually learned a gods damn thing, we've merely shifted our bigotry and discrimination to a new group.

I'm not disagreeing with you or agreeing with the notion that the MCU doesn't have a place anymore.

I'm just saying I understand the argument that the culture has changed.

Oh, I know. I'm not calling you out or anything I'm just picking up the ball and running with it. And you're right, the national conversation has shifted and the MCU will have to adapt to that.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Why is this even relevant? Unless the line of thinking is "smooth talking industrialists are all bad, regardless of what they personally do" then I don't see why the failings of Musk and Jobs matter one whit. And we saw Tony start to change his business practices a long time ago.

We saw Stark change his business practices without facing any realistic consequences or making real sacrifices to do so. Basically if a real businessman has an ethical change of heart like Stark does, he would be kicked out of his company, face a bunch of liability lawsuits, while other interests would tear him down. Stark basically decides he won't develop weapons anymore and still has enormous wealth in the sequels that come afterwards, without complications of any kind. That basically suggests wealth as being unproblematic and untied to any actual economic forces, and that Stark's wealth is purely his to do as he pleases.

And now Fury is presumably fixing that and making SHIELD what it was supposed to be.

Which again reflects an old-fashioned optimism.

Once again, so what? People who were planning to murder and kill a whole lot of people were stopped before they could commit their atrocities. The bad guys lost. Are we wishing those misguided Wakandans had gone through with Killmonger's plan to colonize the planet and repeat the mistakes that Europe made centuries ago?

That's the problem, the situation is contrived to specifically make that a right action.

I don't want anyone to get me wrong here; I'm not attacking anyone or their views, and literary analysis can be played out in a lot of different ways resulting in different readings that are all equally valid. If I sound like I'm all wound up, that's just the way I type when I'm enjoying a discussion.

No I get it. You are being quite fair.

Oh, I know. I'm not calling you out or anything I'm just picking up the ball and running with it. And you're right, the national conversation has shifted and the MCU will have to adapt to that.

Cool.

[chicago_bastard]

This would leave 51% to 57% for the production/distributor but you have to subtract all the production costs, taxes and everything else from that 51 to 57%. Leaving the distributor with an fractional amount.

You are comparing apples and oranges when you want to subtract production costs of the UK box office but don't do the same for the US box office.

And no, I don’t need you to look up every country. But you’re the one who is claiming that the international market is going to save cinema and restore the MCU to its former glory post Covid, by itself, without the American market, and despite the American shareholders, which I know for a fact is total bs.

That's an exaggeration as I certainly didn't state any of that.

But can you enlighten me why Universal keeps producing films for a franchise (Fast & Furious) that constantly fails at the US box office but is a major success overseas? According to you they don't make any profit with these movies so are they throwing money deliberately out of the window just for fun or what is going on?

The onus is on you to prove this point. You haven’t.

Actually I have when I cited the numbers provided by Deadline. It's pretty simple math and I can't believe I have to repeat it but here we go:

Deadline, one of the three major magazines covering the movie industry and therefore cited by pretty much everyone, is giving a number of 1,181,000,000 for Endgame's global theater income out of its 2,798,000,000 box office. So the share for cinemas is already subtracted from this number.

60% of Endgame's US box office amounts to 515,023,800.

Now we subtract that sum from the 1,181,000,000 number and get 665,976,200 as international income for Endgame.

The international income of 665,976,200 is therefore bigger than the US income of 515,023,800.

Again, the cultural exception of China is not unique to it. Other countries like France also practise it. The biggest democracy in the world is India...and that doesn't make as much money for Marvel or most Hollywood movies as China does. In a country with 1.3 bn people, in a democracy and also a free market, Avengers made $62mn. Nearly as much as Germany with $64,319,294.

I was talking about the share so bringing up the comparably low box office in India doesn't really fit the argument as it only shows that the MCU and Hollywood movies in general don't succeed there like in other parts of the world but that isn't due to the share. I'm aware of the special relation the French government has to foreign products of culture but I'm still certain the share Disney gets there is notably higher than 25% because the country is very different from China.

If Disney doesn't agree with the 25% share in China, Chinese theaters just won't show any Disney movies, end of story. So Disney has only the choice to make the concession of a 25% share or gain nothing at all from the Chinese market. France though is a different story. First it isn't as big and important as China and second it's a democracy with a free market-economy and a free society. Because it isn't a big market like China in negotiations about the share Disney could threaten to just pull out their movies from a release in that country if French theaters don't want to compromise. And with France being a democracy with a free society they would have to compromise to some extent because the French population wouldn't be okay with not being able to see the biggest Hollywood movies and a government being responsible for that would likely face worse election results. China doesn't have that problem because they have no elections and moreover no freedom of speach, so anybody speaking up against the regime banning Hollywood movies would likely end in jail. That's why France and China aren't comparable.

There may be some other totalitarian countries but among the important markets for MCU movies which are basically Europe, Latin America and Asian countries like South Korea and Japan the majority are democracies with free market-economy with only China being a notable exception. And in free market-economies supply and demand tend to regulate these matters and the demand for MCU movies has been high, therefore Disney was in a good position to make favorable deals with the theaters in these countries.

To get back to the the primary issue I just don't see the political climate in the USA having such a big impact on the success of comic book movies. We have to consider that comic book movies didn't become big with the MCU, there was already the successful Spider-Man trilogy between 2002 and 2007. So comic book movies were successful in a timespan of roughly 20 years under three very different presidencies and some major social climate changes like post 9/11 / war on terror / war in Iraq / financial crisis in 2008. Sometime the interest in comic book movies will fade like it did for other successful genres like western movies but I don't think the political climate will play a major role in that, more that audiences get bored with seeing the same old stories again and demand something new.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

But can you enlighten me why Universal keeps producing films for a franchise (Fast & Furious) that constantly fails at the US box office but is a major success overseas?

Firstly it doesn't constantly fail at the US Box Office. Until F8, every movie in that series recoup costs of production and made a sizable profit on its domestic grosses. Your cherry picked example is not representative. In any case the Fast and Furious as a franchise differs from the MCU because it's an entirely original property owned by Universal and original to the movies, and likewise until Dwayne Johnson made himself a big deal in the later movies, there weren't many big stars on those movies aside from Vin Diesel himself, and even Diesel is more of a middle-tier star (he's not Tom Cruise big). That reduces significantly the number of additional costs and royalties that Universal have to shell out when making deductions. So they keep most of the profits of these movies to themselves. Marketing costs for the FF movies are lower than the MCU, and they are made on a much smaller budget than the MCU movies. In general the lower the budget, the lower the costs and deductions, the greater percentage of the profits you keep for yourself.

I'm aware of the special relation the French government has to foreign products of culture but I'm still certain the share Disney gets there is notably higher than 25% because the country is very different from China.

How can you claim to be certain about this? And again what's with your Sinophobic agenda and bias. You keep downplaying and diminishing the importance of China as a market contrary to all evidence of its importance and blather on about "Free Market" principles when in fact in terms of international productions, it's behavior is totally normal and consistent with other nations.

If Disney doesn't agree with the 25% share in China, Chinese theaters just won't show any Disney movies, end of story. So Disney has only the choice to make the concession of a 25% share or gain nothing at all from the Chinese market.

Well to be clear, for Disney the issue is more that China would close the Disneyworld and theme parks they have there. For Disney, the money is in their Theme Parks and Resorts, the movies don't remotely count for a share in overall Disney revenue compared to that. Between compromising over a theme park and a movie, Disney will put the movies on the chopping block.

We have to consider that comic book movies didn't become big with the MCU, there was already the successful Spider-Man trilogy between 2002 and 2007.

Yeah but the sequels of Raimi's film didn't earn as much as the first one did. And none of the other superhero movies in that time were as successful. X-Men did well but didn't earn Spider-Man-level money. The Punisher failed, as did Ang Lee's Hulk, the Affleck Daredevil, the Tim Story Fantastic Four.

Sometime the interest in comic book movies will fade like it did for other successful genres like western movies but I don't think the political climate will play a major role in that, more that audiences get bored with seeing the same old stories again and demand something new.

That's not mutually exclusive.