Can the MCU survive without the original Avengers?

[Ascended]

Keeping those Deadly Hands of Kung Fu crossed, bro.

Hey you never know. Iron Man was strictly B-list in 2007, and now he's practically the face of the company. I mean, I wouldn't put money on Shang Chi becoming a serious A-lister after the movies but anything's possible!

[Digifiend]

I’m really not worried about the MCU. Sure, in a post pandemic world, Disney might slow down a little And produce films with smaller budgets but that’s not necessarily a crisis.

As for the Avengers... The next Avengers roster will likely consist of Captain Marvel, Black Panther, Ant-Man and Falcon amongst others? Those guys will have all been in a minimum of 3-4 films, some more than that. It’s not exactly asking people to take a chance on a new team. It’s established, familiar faces who already star in their own successful franchises.

It'd hard to say who'd be on the next Avengers roster. There's nearly 20 candidates between the existing members and those about to be introduced (She-Hulk, Hawkeye II, Ms. Marvel, Shang-Chi, Lady Thor).

[Revolutionary_Jack]

So expanding the franchise by making spin-offs is taking a back seat?

More that it was worth it to roll a dice behind a spinoff after the relative disappointment of the last sequel out of fears of oversaturation which has happened with that franchise.

What you're saying is right and would be on point for movies where US box office and international box office were split 50:50 or slightly in favor of international,

The split is never 50:50 because the proportion of one is greater than another. Ultimately what makes the movie a success is the actual profits taken at the end not the final numbers on the worldwide gross box office hit (which is famously deceptive and almost always an article of faith).

...but we're talking about the Avengers movies where domestic box office only accounts for 30% of the total gross. 858 million domestic and nearly 2 billion in the rest of the world is just too big a gap even with the higher share Disney gets from US box office. With Endgame Disney earned more money from overseas markets than from the domestic run, that can't be denied.

In real terms, Disney made a profit of 20% of the International Box Office and 60% of Domestic Gross.
The actual monetary takeaway breaks down this way:

Domestic Gross (https://www.boxofficemojo.com/release/rl3059975681/)
858,373,000
60%
= $515,023,800

International Gross
1,939,427,564
20%
= $387,885,512

So basically, Avengers earned substantially lower on International Grosses of $1.9bn than in the domestic grosses of $860mn. Welcome to Hollywood!!! The box-office numbers you see are largely for the benefit of investors, shareholders, and others to dazzle people into thinking the stocks of the company are worth investing in. And in general the profitability of a movie still depends primarily on the US Market. That applies even to the Avengers. A lot of people made a big fuss about Spider-Man Far From Home making $1bn, but in fact its domestic gross of $390mn is lower than that of Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 1 (2002) which made $407mn (and adjusted for inflation that's $629mn in 2019 money). So Spider-Man 1 is still the most successful and profitable movie with that character.

None of this means the international market can be written away or scoffed at. The fact is that the hypercapitalist world is all about chomping up every bit of dollar it can and expanding its reach and so on. Disney wants all the money and they see a dollar wasted internationally as a dollar they could keep in their pockets.

Don't get me wrong, the US market is still the most important for the reasons you mentioned, but the MCU could still be a success even if the interest of US audiences drops.

The MCU won't exist if movies continuously and repeatedly fail in US Markets. That's the basic truth.

Moreover the biggest chance for the MCU to thrive is to concentrate on the foreign markets, because it's more likely that there's room for further growth in Asia than in the saturated US market.

I wouldn't say there's no room for growth in the US market. Black Panther for instance earned $700mn domestic and $636 international, which means that on balance, Disney kept a greater percentage of the profits of that film unlike Avengers Endgame. Obviously there's a market for stories and ideas that expand outside the WASP norm, and the same could apply to Shang-Chi.

[capandkirby]

Agreed. A year ago, I felt that the future of the MCU looked financially bright. Although Phase 4 was composed of lesser-known characters, films like the Eternals and Shang-Chi were standing on the secure basis built by the previous MCU movies. It still blows my mind that the Avengers, who were for years the B-list within the Marvel Universe when compared to the X-Men, FF, or Spider-Man, have now become iconic in pop culture. Endgame is the highest grossing film of all time, worldwide. So, the MCU could be risky with featuring lesser-known and diverse characters.

However, the pandemic has certainly deflated that momentum. I certainly hope Covid 19 will be a short term (and by short term, finish by the end of the year) type of thing. But its effects on the movie industry can't be discounted. When losing all of that money, the MCU may not be able to support lesser-known characters. They may want to return to old standards, like the Big 3. I see something like this occurring in the regular comics industry, where Marvel Comics is cutting down on the lesser known titles.

But perhaps there's still viability in MCU's Phase 4 films? As has been mentioned Falcon, GoTG, Captain Marvel, they're still big names, who made their marks in previous films. There's still Spider-Man, Fantastic Four, and the X-Men. Matters of diversity matter more than ever before, so characters like Black Widow, Shang-Chi, Valkeyrie, Black Panther, and Blade have resonance. And yes, somehow Kevin Feige has been able to turn a lot of unfamiliar characters into multi-million dollar earnings.



Keeping those Deadly Hands of Kung Fu crossed, bro.

There is definitely still viability! And those movies will undoubtedly still get made (thank goodness, as I said in my original post, I, too, am looking forward to them) I just think that billion dollar box office threshold we were getting used to for these films is a thing of the past. And it will be of no fault of the characters! I know a certain hate group, of which we’re all aware, will try and blame it on diversity because that’s their modus operandi, but (as they always are) they’d be wrong. It all comes down to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. In times of strife, if it comes down to a choice between a night at the movies or paying the water/electric bill, most people are going to go for the latter. Right now the unemployment rate in the US is Great Depression levels in some states, and I don’t know who here follows the economy (I do for tangential job related purposes) but the extra relief people who are unemployed and/or furloughed were getting from the Cares Act has now run out/expired. Moreover the moratorium that was placed on evictions also expired (but was then extended to September), however on September 30, 24 million Americans are at risk of being evicted. Also on September 30 the temporary freeze placed on student loan collections via the Cares Act will also expire and this is going to effect 43 million Americans. Meanwhile the repo market was only saved (the repo market happens at night, wherein the banks take out loans against their securities in the hopes of accruing interest) until very recently was ONLY being held up by the fed printing money to the tune of trillions of dollars. We haven’t felt the effects of that yet but we will. This same thing happened in 2008, if that gives anyone any indication.

When I said people here were grasping the gravity of the situation we’re facing economically in this country I wasn’t kidding. Movies are just really not a priority in all this.

Do I think the MCU will fail entirely? No. Of course not. But will it match its earlier successes? It can’t, unfortunately. Through no fault of its own. At least not for many years to come.

I also feel a cultural shift happening, just like happened when Napster came on the scene and Tower, Sam Goody and Warehouse record stores started closing down... meaning that streaming is in the early stages of replacing the theater (and the pandemic may have sped up this evolution). We’ve mentioned earlier that studios get 60% of box office sales in the US (less that in International markets) but for streaming they get 80% because it’s cheaper cost-wise to distribute that way. The Trolls sequel, by choosing to stream at the start of the pandemic in a last ditch effort to make some money on it as it had the really unfortunate timing of being released a week before things started shutting down, not only managed to recoup their investment but they actually surpassed the money made on the original. Disney is testing those same waters now with Mulan. And while I feel they need to reexamine that $30 price tag, the greedy guts, especially in this economy, I also feel it’s a further sign of the cultural shift.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I also feel a cultural shift happening, just like happened when Napster came on the scene and Tower, Sam Goody and Warehouse record stores started closing down... meaning that streaming is in the early stages of replacing the theater (and the pandemic may have sped up this evolution). We’ve mentioned earlier that studios get 60% of box office sales in the US (less that in International markets) but for streaming they get 80% because it’s cheaper cost-wise to distribute that way. The Trolls sequel, by choosing to stream at the start of the pandemic in a last ditch effort to make some money on it as it had the really unfortunate timing of being released a week before things started shutting down, not only managed to recoup their investment but they actually surpassed the money made on the original. Disney is testing those same waters now with Mulan. And while I feel they need to reexamine that $30 price tag, the greedy guts, especially in this economy, I also feel it’s a further sign of the cultural shift.

Apparently the $30 price tag for Mulan guarantees ownership of Mulan, so you pay $30 and can see and resee it without paying anything more as long as you are a member of the service. But that makes zero sense. Why shell out $30 for a lifetime access of a movie that would have been free to stream a year or so after a movie's release. Audiences don't mind paying money for tickets to see and resee a movie multiple times. So if they charged $7 for a single screening of Mulan that would have been fine.

Furthermore, to the extent people will shell out $30 for a movie, it won't be Mulan, it would be Star Wars or Avengers 5, or LOTR, it won't be a live-action remake of a superior cartoon version that's much more widely and cheaply available.

[chicago_bastard]

The split is never 50:50 because the proportion of one is greater than another.

Wrong. I already cited Star Wars as a franchise that is much more dependent on the US audience. For Rise of Skywalker the split was 48:52 (https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/...ref_=bo_se_r_3), that's a big difference to Endgame.

In real terms, Disney made a profit of 20% of the International Box Office and 60% of Domestic Gross.
The actual monetary takeaway breaks down this way:

Domestic Gross (https://www.boxofficemojo.com/release/rl3059975681/)
858,373,000
60%
= $515,023,800

International Gross
1,939,427,564
20%
= $387,885,512

So basically, Avengers earned substantially lower on International Grosses of $1.9bn than in the domestic grosses of $860mn.

You got to be kidding me? Please cite a source for your claim that Disney gets only 20% of the international box office as I assume that's a number you just made up to fit your narrative.

Don't bother, here's a reliable source for Endgame's profit: https://deadline.com/2020/04/avenger...ce-1202917380/

According to Deadline Endgame made a profit of 1,181,000,000 through its global theatrical run. So it breaks down like this:

US profit:
515,023,800

International profit:
665,976,200

So as I said, Disney earned more money from overseas markets than from the domestic run.

[capandkirby]

Apparently the $30 price tag for Mulan guarantees ownership of Mulan, so you pay $30 and can see and resee it without paying anything more as long as you are a member of the service. But that makes zero sense. Why shell out $30 for a lifetime access of a movie that would have been free to stream a year or so after a movie's release. Audiences don't mind paying money for tickets to see and resee a movie multiple times. So if they charged $7 for a single screening of Mulan that would have been fine.

Furthermore, to the extent people will shell out $30 for a movie, it won't be Mulan, it would be Star Wars or Avengers 5, or LOTR, it won't be a live-action remake of a superior cartoon version that's much more widely and cheaply available.

Right?! And I have so many questions for Disney on this. For example what if an individuals Disney+ membership elapses, do they lose access to the film when their membership is reinstated? Will they have to rebuy it for another $30? It seems to me the ownership piece in this was just a bandaid Disney is spinning to make themselves look better after justifiable public outrage over their gumption.

I think your business model, re: charging a smaller, more economical fee per viewing, makes more sense.

[capandkirby]

Wrong. I already cited Star Wars as a franchise that is much more dependent on the US audience. For Rise of Skywalker the split was 48:52 (https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/...ref_=bo_se_r_3), that's a big difference to Endgame.




You got to be kidding me? Please cite a source for your claim that Disney gets only 20% of the international box office as I assume that's a number you just made up to fit your narrative.

Don't bother, here's a reliable source for Endgame's profit: https://deadline.com/2020/04/avenger...ce-1202917380/

According to Deadline Endgame made a profit of 1,181,000,000 through its global theatrical run. So it breaks down like this:

US profit:
515,023,800

International profit:
665,976,200

So as I said, Disney earned more money from overseas markets than from the domestic run.

Um you do realize that the article you linked just proved his point?

Excerpt: “China itself delivered a final gross of $614.3M, becoming the top-grossing U.S. title in the Middle Kingdom. Twenty-five percent of that figure, or $153.5M, came back to Disney.”

Only 25% of China’s box office went back to Disney for Endgame. Each country varies on this because a studio uses local distributors and each distributor charges a different fee, but China is the second largest box office grosser to the US so it’s a pretty good example of the financials inherent within the International market.

When talking about a films profitability you can’t look at overall box office. You have to deduct production cost, distribution cost, taxes, fees, marketing and, in the case of international markets, the middle man.

Moreover Endgame was lightning in a bottle. The chances of another film reaching that level of fervor ESPECIALLY considering Covid, is slim.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

You got to be kidding me? Please cite a source for your claim that Disney gets only 20% of the international box office as I assume that's a number you just made up to fit your narrative.

Well I was just quoting capandkirby saying earlier that in general movie studios earn at a minimum 20%. of grosses internationally and upto 60% domestically. So extrapolating from that, I marked down the profitability.

Don't bother, here's a reliable source for Endgame's profit: https://deadline.com/2020/04/avenger...ce-1202917380/

That article confirms my point about domestic releases being more profitable than international releases:
"China itself delivered a final gross of $614.3M, becoming the top-grossing U.S. title in the Middle Kingdom. Twenty-five percent of that figure ,or $153.5M, came back to Disney."

Nobody is going to put stock in international grosses when the returns of the release from China (biggest movie market after America) is barely a quarter of the budget and promotion of the entire project.

By your estimate, Endgame provided returns of $515mn from a US Gross of $858mn, that comes to 61%. Whereas $666mn from an international gross of $1.9bn is 34%. So I will say that my 20% figure was low-balling things but the fact remains that the US Market proportionately is double the international market in terms of returns, even by your estimate.

Again, the domestic grosses are at the center of a film's profitability.

Anyway, at the end of the day, this is money that none of us will ever have or know. It's money that will go to a small group in Disney and nobody else. Money that will never go to Kirby, or even Lee, leave alone Jim Starlin and others from the work they did and which was exploited by corporations. There's nothing for you and I to be invested in. My point is simply that it's a basic empirical fact that any movie production in Hollywood gets most of its profits from the US Market, whether proportionately or in actual terms. Nothing you have said or presented here has rebutted that argument, not one jot.

I am not very emotionally invested in the importance of the international market as you seem to be. The truth is that the day the MCU underperforms domestically will be the day the MCU shuts down and closes shop.

Right?! And I have so many questions for Disney on this. For example what if an individuals Disney+ membership elapses, do they lose access to the film when their membership is reinstated? Will they have to rebuy it for another $30? It seems to me the ownership piece in this was just a bandaid Disney is spinning to make themselves look better after justifiable public outrage over their gumption.

I think your business model, re: charging a smaller, more economical fee per viewing, makes more sense.

It's what most streaming services are already doing anyway.

[Ascended]

It'd hard to say who'd be on the next Avengers roster. There's nearly 20 candidates between the existing members and those about to be introduced (She-Hulk, Hawkeye II, Ms. Marvel, Shang-Chi, Lady Thor).

I think a big part of that will also depend on when the next Avengers movie comes out, and who is still around by then. Will we still have Mackie playing Falcon? Will Stan be finished as the Winter Soldier? Will Cumberbatch still be playing Strange? Fiege has said they're doing another Avengers, but aren't in a big rush to get there, and it seems like a smart call to me. But it also means the actors who have already been around for a bit, since like Phase 2 or whatever, might be finished by then.

I figure in the next Avengers, whenever that happens, we'll get a mix of familiar faces like Falcon and Carol and Strange (whoever is still around), some of the new guys we know are coming, like Shang Chi and Moon Knight and She-Hulk, and we'll probably get a few characters we haven't heard anything about yet like, I dunno, Nova or Wolverine, who might be introduced beforehand or might debut in Avengers 5.

I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to bring back one of the OG Avengers for a small role/cameo either; maybe Tony left a hologram message for the future Avengers and they'll talk RDJr. into a five minute cameo or something.

[9th.]

Yeah they built a decent foundation for themselves, I don't think they'll be breaking records again though unless it's a Doom movie.

[9th.]

Actually i'm lying, Logan solo and Xmen would probably breaking some records too.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

The MCU thrives on novelty. Remember that the success of Iron Man 1 and the word of mouth around it increased exponentially when people realized that it was going to lead to an Avengers movie. So that means that any new movie people see is going to lead to some big crossover/teamup. Those movies wouldn't do as well if it was entirely an IM standalone trilogy (as compared to Batman and Spider-Man who work wonderfully well as standalones).

The MCU struggles when it lacks that element of novelty. Avengers Age of Ultron was largely focused on the Original Avengers team of the first movie and it was a significant low-seller compared to the first movie mostly because it lacked novelty.

Part of the reason Infinity War and to a lesser extent Endgame was such a success was because audiences went into IW with the promise of seeing the Avengers team up with the Guardians, with Doctor Strange, with T'Challa, Spider-Man, and in the case of Endgame, with Ant-Man and Captain Marvel.

Remember that the Ant-Man movies are more standalone compared to others and it earns far less compared to other MCU sub-franchises.

So as long as the MCU keeps introducing new teams, new heroes and new concepts and then mash them together in a big team-up movie it should be fine.

So basically introduce Shang-Chi, Eternals, and Kamala Khan and then team them up together in a big showdown. Bring in the Fantastic Four and the X-Men and team them up for a big showdown. With the X-Men since it has so many teams and sub-teams and so many characters, you can do multiple crossovers with them alone and go forward.

But again that worked before the Pandemic, not sure if it applies afterwards.

[chicago_bastard]

Um you do realize that the article you linked just proved his point?

Excerpt: “China itself delivered a final gross of $614.3M, becoming the top-grossing U.S. title in the Middle Kingdom. Twenty-five percent of that figure, or $153.5M, came back to Disney.”

Only 25% of China’s box office went back to Disney for Endgame. Each country varies on this because a studio uses local distributors and each distributor charges a different fee, but China is the second largest box office grosser to the US so it’s a pretty good example of the financials inherent within the International market.

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.

When talking about a films profitability you can’t look at overall box office. You have to deduct production cost, distribution cost, taxes, fees, marketing and, in the case of international markets, the middle man.

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.

By your estimate, Endgame provided returns of $515mn from a US Gross of $858mn, that comes to 61%. Whereas $666mn from an international gross of $1.9bn is 34%. So I will say that my 20% figure was low-balling things but the fact remains that the US Market proportionately is double the international market in terms of returns, even by your estimate.

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.

My point is simply that it's a basic empirical fact that any movie production in Hollywood gets most of its profits from the US Market, whether proportionately or in actual terms. Nothing you have said or presented here has rebutted that argument, not one jot.

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.

The truth is that the day the MCU underperforms domestically will be the day the MCU shuts down and closes shop.

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

[Revolutionary_Jack]

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

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.

China is the big exception as it's not a free country and their regime wants to protect its local film industry from competition,

Firstly every national cinema does what it can to protect itself from Hollywood, and it has nothing to do with democracy or totalitarianism or the free market. France for instance, a democratic country with free market, is famous for introducing l'exception culturelle, where in exchange for releasing movies in market, Hollywood productions are taxed in France and that money is then reinvested by the government into French cinema. So that allows the French to effectively get Hollywood to subsidize a section of the French cinema. India is another major democracy with a population that is expected to exceed China and it's also famously protectionist and Hollywood releases have a very hard time breaking through, and even then, there are other cultural and economic factors that prevent it from becoming as big a market as it should.

In the case of China, it emerged as a major market because
A) It has a common national dialect like Mandarin so that means if you dub/sub a movie you do it once unlike India where you have to do it for multiple states and multiple dialects,
B) It's economic boom and rise which created a huge population of people seeking upward mobility and having a great amount of disposable income,
C) rise of many theater chains across the nation with good facilities for watching movies.

The Chinese government followed the French playbook, they made Hollywood work for them, by making sure that they keep most of the money from Hollywood releases in China, which they then reinvest into their own film industry. The Chinese government and society, is within its rights to extract value from an invasive and predatory foreign business. Where they are out of line is, of course, in the censorship and product placement product placement and propaganda and dictating content which the French and others never did.

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.

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.