Can the MCU survive without the original Avengers?

[capandkirby]

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.



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?



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.



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.

You are unbelievable!!! Production cost applies to EVERY country. Because some countries need subtitles. Others use dubbing. Each country gets a different edit because of various censorship laws. I’ll give an example: what was titled Captain America First Avenger in America, I believe was called simply First Avenger in other countries. Changing the credits to fit each country individually? Costs money. But yes, the production costs you’re thinking: re actors salaries, filming, crew, location, etc. is subtracted from all proceeds, US and U.K. alike, on the production side, not the exhibit side.

You keep bringing up Endgame and I keep saying that Endgame was a one off. You can’t use it as an example of the international versus US market because those market conditions are a) NOT the norm and b) no longer exist. In science you would say that if the result cannot be duplicated then the test is null.

And even *if* we do use Endgame as example, Disney is not a privately owned business. It is beholden to shareholders. Removing the US portion of the profit would mean a (roughly) 44% loss of revenue using the Endgame numbers. In what world do you think a shareholder would find a 44% loss of profit remotely acceptable?! You really think they’re going to be all like “almost half our revenue lost? It’s cool, let’s just make films for the international market then.” No. They are NOT.

And that’s not even considering that box office isn’t even the largest money generator. You know what is? Licensing out the character likenesses for merch. Every t-shirt with Cap’s shield, every Avengers fruit gummy, every plastic Infinity Gauntlet, the manufactures had to go through Disney and pay licensing costs. And the largest consumer market of merch? The US. So again, you really think that Disney is just going to cut that loss? When in 2018 they made 7 billion in box office (before deductions, aka gross) and 57 billion from licensing?!

I’m sorry this fact upsets you but no US market no MCU. That’s just a fact you’re going to have to learn to live with.

[HaveAtThee]

For the original question, yes they can do fine if they're fairly well made films and marketed well. The film iterations of the characters have a beginning, middle and end they don't need to freeze time and constantly regurgitate the same stories and characters as the idiotic comic industry does. Casual moviegoers aren't going to cry about not seeing Iron Man, Cap and Thor in every film. Only the hardcore ones are. Will the new characters make as much cash? Maybe not but if, let's say, an Eternals movie makes $650 million that isn't a massive failure because it didn't crack $1 billion.

[Steel Inquisitor]

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.

Stark was set up to be kicked out of the company by Stane, who went on to try to murder him because he wanted to turn the company around and he actually did this. That's just how reality goes, the state taking his fortune wouldn't make sense in the setting since Marvel/MCU is based on our reality. Who's suing Stark? The twins who hate his company for selling technology, despite the fact they have no proof Stark was responsible for that sale or that had it not been Stark's company (when Stane was running it) they'd have bought missiles from someone else anyway rather than completely ignoring the unknown party in a civil war who did purchase and shoot a missile in their house? I don't see that going well in court. It could have been accident for all they know, and they don't even care about either side of the civil war who did the deed - all they cared about was what company the missile belonged to.

Which again reflects an old-fashioned optimism.

That is wrong, how? In your first paragraph the complaint was about the government lacking mechanisms to enforce the law, but SHIELD has to go?

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

The movie may have made Killmonger a psychopath but they did give show T'Challa agree with him how he became who he was was Wakanda failing him. There is no situation where Killmonger's plan wouldn't be evil.

Stark's a Democratic centrist, Stane's the Libertarian.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Stark was set up to be kicked out of the company by Stane, who went on to try to murder him because he wanted to turn the company around and he actually did this.

The fact is that Stark still remains rich and on the up-and-up after that. Realistically, even without a villain, a company divesting itself off defense contracts after subsisting on that for so long, after the US military being its primary customer is a bit like say...imagining Hollywood that doesn't consider USA its primary market. There's no tragic price paid for a good deed which means that practically Stark has his cake and eats it too. He keeps the profits and wealth he made as an arms dealer and merchant of death but has an aura of heroism and redemption that papers over it.

So that basically makes the institution of wealth, of untaxed inherited wealth, entirely unproblematic in the MCU movies.

There is no situation where Killmonger's plan wouldn't be evil.

That speaks more to the imagination of some. In the case of Black Panther, the other problem with Killmonger is that his experiences are tied far more to the African-American reality, coming from Oakland, growing up without a father and falling into criminalization than the character who the audience is supposed to identify with, i.e. T'Challa himself. So as a movie, Black Panther is intended to be an Afrofuturist catharsis and fantasy but it achieves that by asking an American audience to see contemporary African-Americans as villainous, dangerous, and malicious in their resentment and cry for justice...since if they are allowed to express that, it will lead to them becoming just as bad, which is a kind of chickens--t moral equivalency...and even then the optics of a white CIA agent bombing Killmonger's insurgents is pretty iffy against that.

As a movie, Thor Ragnarok is pretty interesting politically but only up to a point. Having said that, not everything in the MCU is reducible to politics and indeed at its best, MCU is better when it works in the realm of the fantasy and out-there cosmic, stuff like Guardians, Doctor Strange, or for that matter even Ant-Man.

[Steel Inquisitor]

The fact is that Stark still remains rich and on the up-and-up after that. Realistically, even without a villain, a company divesting itself off defense contracts after subsisting on that for so long, after the US military being its primary customer is a bit like say...imagining Hollywood that doesn't consider USA its primary market. There's no tragic price paid for a good deed which means that practically Stark has his cake and eats it too. He keeps the profits and wealth he made as an arms dealer and merchant of death but has an aura of heroism and redemption that papers over it.

I'd say getting undermined by his partner and nearly murdered by same business partner was a price he paid, and so was the government, who was secretly working for HYDRA, trying to take his Iron Man technology. Stark would be mind numbingly rich even if Stark Industries kicked him out, there is no law in Marvel America, or our own, which does what you want the story to do, simply because Stark's wealth is a bigger priority than what happens in his life. Which involves getting abducted by terrorists, being a high profile target for super-villain assassins and evil white businessman he had the misfortune to insult. Except he left the "Merchant of death" thing behind in the first movie, he's seen as a hero because he does heroic things - like saving the world, and is constantly insulted by other people for his mistakes in the past. No other Avengers comes close to getting the fallout of their mistakes than he does.

So that basically makes the institution of wealth, of untaxed inherited wealth, entirely unproblematic in the MCU movies.

Except every villain he's fought are evil, wealthy businessmen. Vanko was a reminder to Stark of what bad things his father did, which he knew was wrong and Vanko wanted blood, not a conversation.

That speaks more to the imagination of some.

This isn't much of a defense, and dismisses how horrifying the implications were had Killmonger succeeded. That was more about Killmonger lashing out at the world than having an actual plan and he'd let Wakanda burn once the reprisals came, the only loyalty he had was to himself.

In the case of Black Panther, the other problem with Killmonger is that his experiences are tied far more to the African-American reality, coming from Oakland, growing up without a father and falling into criminalization than the character who the audience is supposed to identify with, i.e. T'Challa himself. So as a movie, Black Panther is intended to be an Afrofuturist catharsis and fantasy but it achieves that by asking an American audience to see contemporary African-Americans as villainous, dangerous, and malicious in their resentment and cry for justice...since if they are allowed to express that, it will lead to them becoming just as bad, which is a kind of chickens--t moral equivalency...and even then the optics of a white CIA agent bombing Killmonger's insurgents is pretty iffy against that.

Killmonger was unjustly persecuted and abandoned by Wakanda and T'Chaka, the movie sympathised with him on that part. So much so T'Challa called out his father in the spiritual realm and wanted to learn from those mistakes, only he wanted to let Wakanda be more active in the world peacefully not with terrorism like Killmonger desired. The movie just condemned Killmonger for that, not African-Americans as a whole because he was a psychopathic terrorist who had slipped so far his own father rejected his methods. Wakanda is a what if an African nation wasn't oppressed by the colonial powers and lived up to its full potential, that's why it became so beloved by the Black community - it's a power fantasy they haven't had access to that white people have had forever. Ross was doing that with Wakanda's approval, and he was another reflection of Killmonger, they were both CIA agents except Ross was righting wrongs for the good guys not oppressing them while Killmonger became another oppressor. Killlmonger became sort of like the Joker in that film, I can't remember another Black villain who's been so popular with everyone. Luke Cage had
Cottonmouth?

As a movie, Thor Ragnarok is pretty interesting politically but only up to a point. Having said that, not everything in the MCU is reducible to politics and indeed at its best, MCU is better when it works in the realm of the fantasy and out-there cosmic, stuff like Guardians, Doctor Strange, or for that matter even Ant-Man.

Everything is political in media. Ant-man is very political when you think about it. It explores family dynamics, the justice system, corrupt corporations, redemption as a a criminal, parental rights of convicted felons.

[Relugus]

Stark was set up to be kicked out of the company by Stane, who went on to try to murder him because he wanted to turn the company around and he actually did this. That's just how reality goes, the state taking his fortune wouldn't make sense in the setting since Marvel/MCU is based on our reality. Who's suing Stark? The twins who hate his company for selling technology, despite the fact they have no proof Stark was responsible for that sale or that had it not been Stark's company (when Stane was running it) they'd have bought missiles from someone else anyway rather than completely ignoring the unknown party in a civil war who did purchase and shoot a missile in their house? I don't see that going well in court. It could have been accident for all they know, and they don't even care about either side of the civil war who did the deed - all they cared about was what company the missile belonged to.



That is wrong, how? In your first paragraph the complaint was about the government lacking mechanisms to enforce the law, but SHIELD has to go?



The movie may have made Killmonger a psychopath but they did give show T'Challa agree with him how he became who he was was Wakanda failing him. There is no situation where Killmonger's plan wouldn't be evil.

Stark's a Democratic centrist, Stane's the Libertarian.

In lieu of anyone else to blame whose name they could know, they directed their anger at Stark, whose name was emblazoned upon his weapons. The implication of WandaVision is that as a child, Wanda (and Pietro as well, maybe), looked to America as the hope of a better life. So the anger makes sense.

[chicago_bastard]

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.

What are you on about? In the post you replied to I specifically mentioned that China is a way more important market than France so what Sinophobic agenda do you see there? But while China is the most important single market apart from the USA it accounts for roughly 600 million and the rest of the international countries for 1.3 billion so it doesn't make the lion's share of international box office, thus you can't just shrug off the rest of the world and only look at China.

China's behaviour isn't normal at all, it's blowing my mind that you aren't able to see the difference between democratic countries and them. Basically any country is trying to protect its local movie industry from Hollywood competition, that's not exclusive to France and China, Germany and the UK do that, too. Nonetheless the share Disney gets in these two countries is notably higher than 25%. Now ask yourself to what country France is more comparable to, UK/Germany or China?

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.

Well, let's look at the performance of the last FF movies in the US. It should be enough to look at the installments of the past decade because that's when the FF franchise became really big with budgets similar to MCU movies.

It's important to note that the production budget of a movie does not include the marketing cost, so a movie has to make significantly more than just its official budget to be profitable. I'm using the figure of 60% of the box office numbers to determine the earnings.

FF6 earned 143 million in the US on a 160 million budget, thus failed to earn profit in the US alone.

FF7 earned 212 million in the US on a 190 million budget. As mentioned above this is not enough to earn profit as the marketing cost for a movie of this scale is much higher than 22 million, so FF7 failed to earn profit in the US alone.

FF8 earned 135 million in the US on a 250 million budget, making it a massive failure in the US.

What's also important to note is that the budget was raised from each movie to the next. According to reports FF 9 will have a budget of more than 300 million (source: https://medium.com/@dopewhole/fast-a...e-68fb1a6fffc5) so this trend is going to continue despite the clear failure of FF8 in the US market. If a franchise is struggling to make money you either cancel it or you lower the budget for future installments to reduce the financial risk. If the budget of the movies is heightened constantly that's a clear indicator that the movies of that franchise are profitable.

Lastly let't look at the recent spin-off: Hobbs & Shaw earned 104 million in the US on a 200 million budget, making it a massive failure in the US. Well, according to Deadline it did end up making profit: https://deadline.com/2020/04/hobbs-a...am-1202909368/

Bottom line: Movies can make profit even if they fail at the US market.

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.

This is just plain wrong. I listed the budgets of the FF movies above. Thor: Ragnarok had a budget of 180 million, Captain Marvel had a budget of 160 million. As the next installment of the FF franchise is reported to have a budget higher than 300 million it's even comparable to the MCU outliers Infinity War and Endgame.

[Steel Inquisitor]

In lieu of anyone else to blame whose name they could know, they directed their anger at Stark, whose name was emblazoned upon his weapons. The implication of WandaVision is that as a child, Wanda (and Pietro as well, maybe), looked to America as the hope of a better life. So the anger makes sense.

It makes sense, but it's completely delusional. Nobody ever points this out to them and Wanda never brings them up to anyone aside from Ultron. You'd think someone would have told them that their thinking isn't right, and they'd have tried to look into the civil war they are in when they were adults.

[chicago_bastard]

You are unbelievable!!! Production cost applies to EVERY country. Because some countries need subtitles. Others use dubbing. Each country gets a different edit because of various censorship laws. I’ll give an example: what was titled Captain America First Avenger in America, I believe was called simply First Avenger in other countries. Changing the credits to fit each country individually? Costs money. But yes, the production costs you’re thinking: re actors salaries, filming, crew, location, etc. is subtracted from all proceeds, US and U.K. alike, on the production side, not the exhibit side.

You keep bringing up Endgame and I keep saying that Endgame was a one off. You can’t use it as an example of the international versus US market because those market conditions are a) NOT the norm and b) no longer exist. In science you would say that if the result cannot be duplicated then the test is null.

And even *if* we do use Endgame as example, Disney is not a privately owned business. It is beholden to shareholders. Removing the US portion of the profit would mean a (roughly) 44% loss of revenue using the Endgame numbers. In what world do you think a shareholder would find a 44% loss of profit remotely acceptable?! You really think they’re going to be all like “almost half our revenue lost? It’s cool, let’s just make films for the international market then.” No. They are NOT.

And that’s not even considering that box office isn’t even the largest money generator. You know what is? Licensing out the character likenesses for merch. Every t-shirt with Cap’s shield, every Avengers fruit gummy, every plastic Infinity Gauntlet, the manufactures had to go through Disney and pay licensing costs. And the largest consumer market of merch? The US. So again, you really think that Disney is just going to cut that loss? When in 2018 they made 7 billion in box office (before deductions, aka gross) and 57 billion from licensing?!

I’m sorry this fact upsets you but no US market no MCU. That’s just a fact you’re going to have to learn to live with.

I don't know why you keep thinking I plead such extreme positions like the US being irrelevant or even that Disney is planning to abandon the US market (I mean really, how did you even get that idea?) so I want to make clear that of course the USA are the most important market in the world. But when most movies of a franchise constantly make well over 60% of their box office overseas (Black Panther being a notable exception because its subject made it a US phenomenon) then the importance of international markets can't be denied, that's all I'm saying. I don't know why you feel the need to use a straw man argument like subtracting the complete US revenue as we both know it'll never happen that a MCU movie doesn't make any money at all in the US.

I mean I just gave a break down for the Fast & Furious franchise above, but we don't even need to look at other franchises, Ant-Man and the Wasp is considered a (moderate) success, yet it only made 217 million at the domestic box office on a budget of more than 160 million, so it's obvious that the US result alone didn't make it profitable. Still Disney already announced a third installment for the Ant-Man franchise so the claim that Disney would stop making MCU movies on the day they don't make profit by the US alone is already debunked by that.

[Will Evans]

For the original question, yes they can do fine if they're fairly well made films and marketed well. The film iterations of the characters have a beginning, middle and end they don't need to freeze time and constantly regurgitate the same stories and characters as the idiotic comic industry does. Casual moviegoers aren't going to cry about not seeing Iron Man, Cap and Thor in every film. Only the hardcore ones are. Will the new characters make as much cash? Maybe not but if, let's say, an Eternals movie makes $650 million that isn't a massive failure because it didn't crack $1 billion.

Exactly with the beginning, middle and end.
I’m surprised more comic fans who watch the films don’t realize this.

[Ascended]

We saw Stark change his business practices without facing any realistic consequences or making real sacrifices to do so.

It's true, after the first film Tony's wealth doesn't seem to be in danger at all. But the MCU often ignores consequences, and I think we're meant to think that Stark Industries basically shifted from a weapons developer to a support system for Iron Man. We see the company invest heavily in clean energy, and they still take some government contracts it seems, since they made the engines for those next gen helicarriers.

In the real world the entire company would have crashed, but the real world doesn't have superheroes in it either.

Which again reflects an old-fashioned optimism.

It's odd to be calling a world wide spy network that, far as I can tell, nobody knows exists at all.....optimistic. And all we know of it right now is that it's Fury, the Skrulls, and space. I wouldn't be too sure that it'll work out well.

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

Okay, so what would have been a better approach? It could have worked if those Wakandans, upon seeing T'Challa alive, had abandoned Killmonger's mission. But then we wouldn't have had the little proxy civil war and the spiritual battle between the old ways (Wakandan isolation and Killmonger's colonial invasion) and the new ways (the open lines of communication and assistance T'Challa represents).

No I get it. You are being quite fair.

Cool. I'm an educated guy, but I'm also a idiot, so sometimes what I mean to say and what I type end up being different things.

See, what bothers me is that people seem to be confusing stereotypes with archetypes. Tony Stark is one of those "smooth talking industrialist" archetypes, but the archetype doesn't necessarily come with all the flaws and failings that the stereotype carries. Stark has lots and lots of character flaws, and several of those flaws are shared by the larger archetype, but it's a fallacy to stick all the negative labels on him (or other characters) simply because the stereotype carries them.

And we're also trying to wrap real world ethical and moral discussions around characters who exist in a binary; in comics you're either a good guy or a bad guy, there is very little in-between most of the time. The superhero narrative structure really isn't built to accommodate the layered considerations we're trying to attach to it. Comics are political and reflections of social issues, but it's usually not a direct translation and probably shouldn't be. For example; Superman can throw a corrupt politician through a wall in a comic and that's fine, because the moral authority of the hero is assumed, but real world considerations of excessive force, evidence chains, etc., turn Superman from a progressive champion of the oppressed bullying the bullies, into a violent criminal and radical who would be demonized by those very same progressive values he embodies. I like my comics when they make commentary on real world issues, but one foot has to remain in the realm of escapist fantasy too, or the entire superhero construct falls apart and heroes are revealed as the lawless, social terrorists they are.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

It's true, after the first film Tony's wealth doesn't seem to be in danger at all. But the MCU often ignores consequences, and I think we're meant to think that Stark Industries basically shifted from a weapons developer to a support system for Iron Man. We see the company invest heavily in clean energy, and they still take some government contracts it seems, since they made the engines for those next gen helicarriers.

In the real world the entire company would have crashed, but the real world doesn't have superheroes in it either.

That's the thing right, the story of the MCU depends on Tony Stark being this figure of optimism, the man with the plan and who always finds a way out...i.e. "the billionaires will save us" when in reality they specifically are not doing that at all. In fact, rather the opposite. The movies operated on a bunch of assumptions about the idea of simple reform and change without sacrifice. ta

Okay, so what would have been a better approach?

Well, based on the plot and schema that the movie used (which by itself should not be considered the best and most effective story to tell), I'd have Killmonger be the one to end Wakandan isolation and reveal it to the world, HOX/POX Krakoa style, i.e. Killmonger gives a speech that tells the world that Wakanda is the government that exists to defend the rights of black people, and that they will offer trade and perks (i.e. Wakandan tech) but in exchange, the world will have to reform and change their laws. That would include demands like say, the African sculptures in European museums would have to be returned and so on. "While you slept, the world changed" and so on. (BTW, Michael B. Jordan said that Magneto from the X-Men films was one of his main inspirations for Killmonger). We need to see a glimpse of whether his ideas for redistribution of power could have worked, only for him to reject it because it's not enough or it comes with reaction and doubt, and then he escalates. There needs to be some middle ground between taking over Wakanda and then immediately launching a global invasion to take over the world. Without that, the entire message and call for redistribution and accountability that Killmonger calls for becomes a kind of grubby resentful bloodlust. T'Challa's centrist approach which the movie validates is especially out of touch after BLM and the wave of toppled statues of noble racists across the world.

But again that's not the only plot the movie could have used. Not sure I know which one to propose but you have to wonder about the optics that the first outing for the major black superhero they decide to make it devolve into "black on black violence" where the victim is the only African-American character in the story. Anyway, I am not saying Black Panther isn't a worthy movie to make and that it's success isn't a big deal, because it is. The truth is that it's not free of problems.

And we're also trying to wrap real world ethical and moral discussions around characters who exist in a binary; in comics you're either a good guy or a bad guy, there is very little in-between most of the time. The superhero narrative structure really isn't built to accommodate the layered considerations we're trying to attach to it.

Which raises issues as to whether the genre can maintain its popularity in a period where so much is gray and murky.

[MichaelC]

Well comics at their core are hard rightwing Libertarian. In comics, nothing is solved by attempts at systemic solutions, and indeed such attempts always lead to dystopia. In comics, the best choice is always to plunk down near anarchic freedom, allowing people of good will to use that unlimited freedom to express their desire for justice and charity without limits. That's a hard rightwing libertarian position, and it is not remotely unique to Iron Man, it's the heart of the entire genre. In the real world, things are more complicated than freedom good/rules bad. You need laws to prevent monopolies, laws to prevent pollution, laws to protect unions, laws to keep police from being cowboys enforcing their own personal views of justice. In comics, though, any limits on freedom just prevent people of goodwill from expressing their desire for justice and charity, and so are tools of the villains, allowing evil bureaucrats to tie hero's hands.

[Hypestyle]

without the original 5 Avengers, the MCU should be okay but just keep the quality. Not every film has to lead into a macro-team up. Not every film has to have another Big Threat looming. There doesn't have to be 3 films a year. There could be 2 or 1, plus the TV series on Disney+

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Well comics at their core are hard rightwing Libertarian.

That's way too far in the other direction for my liking.

First there's the unexamined conflation of superhero comics with all comics when in fact in the classic era superhero comics weren't always the best selling and most influential genres in the sequential art story. And historically comics creators and artists had a wide range of political beliefs and ideas but many of them were on the left.

And even then "at their core hard rightwing Libertarian" is too ridiculous even for superhero comics. I don't even know if superhero comics have a "core".

In comics, nothing is solved by attempts at systemic solutions, and indeed such attempts always lead to dystopia. In comics, the best choice is always to plunk down near anarchic freedom, allowing people of good will to use that unlimited freedom to express their desire for justice and charity without limits.

Someone needs to ask Jonathan Hickman about why he made an entire epic run on the Avengers and New Avengers showing why this was a terrible horrible idea that achieved nothing but failure. That's not the only counter-example but it's one among many.