MCUniverse- Captain Marvel Rises!

[Fez]

The way I think of it, a reboot is taking a character or story and starting over from the origin point. It can go in any direction pretty much from there, the only key point is that the old continuity is gone.

A remake is more than that, it's not just ditching the old continuity, its about actively retelling the same story again rather than going in any new directions. A franchise could be remade, but almost never is; remakes are generally of single movies.

Think about franchises like Batman and Spiderman, they get rebooted because Chris Nolan and Sam Rami's old continuity's were gone. But they were not remade, because their stories were not being retold, it was new stories using those characters. (The only confusing bit is that Spiderman's origin story is so incredibly by-the-numbers that it can almost seem like a remake every time it's done).

And anyone calling the new Star Wars movies a reboot is being an idiot or deliberately obtuse, they are all sequels, prequels, and interquels. All the old continuity remains; it's just that some people are a little too salty about how many story beats are similar across movies.

[Rhom]

50 minutes ago, red snow said:

But in both cases the previous continuity is abandoned (or duplicated which means the previous continuity has still been jettisoned). I think the continuity is the key aspect. 

They could do an avengers where each member is new/or at least new avengers and this would feel like an attempt to freshen up the franchise but would still acknowledge cap, iron man and co had their adventures first 

I tend to agree.  Its all very confusing though.  For me, I think of it like Superman.  

Superman Returns with Brandon Routh was what I consider a "soft reboot" of the Superman franchise.  It clearly built off the established continuity of Superman 1 and 2.  (And weirdly abandoned 3 and 4.)

Man of Steel is not what I would consider a "remake" because it isn't hitting the same story beats as the Donner films, but its obviously more than the SR version of a reboot.   

[Rhom]

1 minute ago, Fez said:

The only confusing bit is that Spiderman's origin story is so incredibly by-the-numbers that it can almost seem like a remake every time it's done.

Which is one thing I really liked about Homecoming.  They didn't insult our intelligence with a retelling of Peter getting bit.

[red snow]

3 hours ago, Rhom said:

Which is one thing I really liked about Homecoming.  They didn't insult our intelligence with a retelling of Peter getting bit.

The Edward Norton Hulk sort of did this as well (his origin was told in the opening credits I think) and I think this is the way forward with many of the superhero films as we've been told their origins enough of late. I guess BvS spared us another Batman origin with a very quick "his parents were killed"

[The BlackBear]

2 hours ago, red snow said:

I guess BvS spared us another Batman origin with a very quick "his parents were killed"

It wasn't very quick, it was in classic Snyder slow motion.

[mormont]

8 hours ago, red snow said:

I'd be surprised if it hits black panther levels but who knows.

I've seen rumours (admittedly on Twitter, so not necessarily reliable) that pre-sales are at BP levels.

[red snow]

1 hour ago, The BlackBear said:

It wasn't very quick, it was in classic Snyder slow motion.

Ha - good point! It took up a relatively small portion of the film in that case.

1 hour ago, mormont said:

I've seen rumours (admittedly on Twitter, so not necessarily reliable) that pre-sales are at BP levels.

That's promising it suggests it's appealing to the hardcore fans to a similar degree. Even with a drop off along the obsessive to indifferent curve - it bodes well for the film. A big plus in it's favour (and a cunning move by marvel) is how it doesn't require an encyclopaedic knowledge of the MCU with it being set prior to Iron Man meaning I can watch knowing there shouldn't be any strings attached. Yet at the same time those really interested in how everything fits together will want to see it in case it does enhance Avengers: Endgame. Seems like a win win for Disney.

[A True Kaniggit]

Currently watching Spider-man: Homecoming.

And it is moving day.

During the move Happy is loading, "Tony's old Hulkbuster Armor, Prototype for Cap's new shield, and the Meging--, The Meg--, The--. Thor's Magic Belt". 

If Cap's new shield (which apparently Stark has been developing despite their falling out a year prior) and Thor's Magic Belt (He gets a new ax and a magic belt? How OP does one guy need to be?) don't appear in Endgame I'm gonna be royally pissed. 

[The Anti-Targ]

22 hours ago, red snow said:

It will be interesting to see what standard they expect captain marvel to hit given hiw successful black panther's film was (although he had civil war as a lead in). I'm guessing it's somewhere between ant-man/ dr strange and black panther. I'd be surprised if it hits black panther levels but who knows. Another good comparison will be against wonder woman which is already a triumph if the MCU brand that the two heroes would be comparable. It's like wondering whether vision could do as well as superman.

My guess is ~$800 million would be regarded as very good. $700 million acceptable. $600 million disappointing and a bit of a worry if she's going to be a big presence in Endgame.

[red snow]

26 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

My guess is ~$800 million would be regarded as very good. $700 million acceptable. $600 million disappointing and a bit of a worry if she's going to be a big presence in Endgame.

I think those predictions are spot on. The budget isn't too crazy for a blockbuster and compared to other films so that also helps it. Ant-man and Dr Strange made between 650-700 million so that seems a fair comparison to make with Captain Marvel. Spider-man is a higher profile character so unfair to expect 900 million and Black Panther was a bit of a cultural phenomenon (and Wonder Woman stole the "first solo female super hero by a female director" thunder). I'm kind of surprised Marvel dragged their feet and missed cashing in on that. It's not like someone has since beat them to the Black Panther accolade. 

[BigFatCoward]

It's being pushed a hell of a lot more than strange or antman. If aquaman is making 1billion then captain marvel not making close to that is a fail. 

[Heartofice]

20 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

It's being pushed a hell of a lot more than strange or antman. If aquaman is making 1billion then captain marvel not making close to that is a fail. 

It doesn’t have the star power of Aquaman, it won’t match that

[Fez]

54 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

It's being pushed a hell of a lot more than strange or antman. If aquaman is making 1billion then captain marvel not making close to that is a fail. 

It depends on where the money is made. Studios hate talking about what percentage of the gross they get from theaters, because they don't all have the same deals. But the general wisdom is that they get 50% of the take in the US and usually some amount less than that from foreign theaters, sometimes quite a lot less; especially in China.

Aquaman made $978 million worldwide, but "only" $270 million in the US. If Captain Marvel made "only" $750 million worldwide, but made $360 million in the US, the same as Deadpool, it may actualyl result in Marvel pocketing more money from it than DC did for Aquaman. The better it does in the US, the less and less importance the worldwide box office is to the bottom line.

This is why Black Panther is such a big deal to Marvel. It is the highest grossing standalone movie either way, but worldwide it made less than any of the three Avengers movies; however, it made more domestically than any of them. And none of the other standalone movies are even comparable; Civil War and Iron Man 3 aren't too far behind on the worldwide standings, but Black Panther made almost double what they did domestically.

[Argonath Diver]

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

It doesn’t have the star power of Aquaman, it won’t match that

I would posit that Larson, Jackson, and McGregor have more star power than Momoa and Heard. For whatever reason, this past winter didn't have many big. popcorn tentpole releases that would directly compete with Aquaman's audience; I enjoyed the crap outta Into the Spiderverse, but it never felt like a global megahit. Grindelwald was very disappointing. Mary Poppins and Ralph Breaks the Internet didn't really attract the 18-27 action movie crowd.

I think Captain Marvel absolutely would have performed about the same if it'd been released this season (in Aquamans place, not directly against it, though that's an interesting aside as well) . Their endgame (snicker) goal of having that movie make a whole bunch really fast and massively hype Avengers is interesting - I dont think Us will knock Captain Marvel from first, but Dumbo might. Then Shazam and Hellboy will pull away more potential tickets (though I think those two might both be big flops).

Black Panther ran over everything for weeks and weeks, and Aquaman will still sell top 5 tickets for some time - Glass will bounce it but it'll linger.

Captain Marvel has a solid window in March and early April, I still think it breaks 1B global.

[red snow]

5 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

It's being pushed a hell of a lot more than strange or antman. If aquaman is making 1billion then captain marvel not making close to that is a fail. 

That's a fair comment given the pedigree of marvel vs dc. I guess it boils down to what China thinks as a lot of the money for aquaman is coming from world markets. 

I disagree with aquaman having star power over captain marvel especially with regards to the leads which is what both films are focused on especially in marketing.

I do think captain marvel hitting a billion would be an exceptional achievement but I'd be really surprised. Like i said, wonder woman beat captain marvel to a lot of free hype/event whereas Black Panther benefitting massively from being first in its claim. If DC had a green lantern film starring john Stewart and directed by spike lee it wouldn't generate the same hype (not least because it isn't set in africa).

That said, marvel continues to surprise me in terms of success.

[The Anti-Targ]

8 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

It's being pushed a hell of a lot more than strange or antman. If aquaman is making 1billion then captain marvel not making close to that is a fail. 

I think you should consider how Aquaman would have done if he didn't appear in, and was one of the good things about, Justice League. That movie might have tanked, relatively speaking, but it still primed the audience for his first solo movie. And no doubt plenty of people watched it via streaming / Blu-ray, so the potential audience for Aquaman wasn't only the people who saw JL in Theatres. Therefore I don't think it's a reasonable expectation for Captain Marvel to pull Aquaman numbers.

It is interesting that the 2 characters that got primed by making their first appearance in an ensemble movie and were minority race both did huge numbers in their solo outing .

Wonder Woman isn't even a completely fair benchmark for excellence in box office bank for Captain Marvel, since she got a boost from being in BvS. And again being one of the praised elements of the movie.

[The Anti-Targ]

6 hours ago, Argonath Diver said:

I would posit that Larson, Jackson, and McGregor have more star power than Momoa and Heard. For whatever reason, this past winter didn't have many big. popcorn tentpole releases that would directly compete with Aquaman's audience; I enjoyed the crap outta Into the Spiderverse, but it never felt like a global megahit. Grindelwald was very disappointing. Mary Poppins and Ralph Breaks the Internet didn't really attract the 18-27 action movie crowd.

I think Captain Marvel absolutely would have performed about the same if it'd been released this season (in Aquamans place, not directly against it, though that's an interesting aside as well) . Their endgame (snicker) goal of having that movie make a whole bunch really fast and massively hype Avengers is interesting - I dont think Us will knock Captain Marvel from first, but Dumbo might. Then Shazam and Hellboy will pull away more potential tickets (though I think those two might both be big flops).

Black Panther ran over everything for weeks and weeks, and Aquaman will still sell top 5 tickets for some time - Glass will bounce it but it'll linger.

Captain Marvel has a solid window in March and early April, I still think it breaks 1B global.

I don't think Larson has all that much box office pull. Jackson as Nick Fury certainly does. Larson and [not Nick Fury] Jackson didn't pull in the crowds for Kong, and that was a good movie. When you say "McGregor" I assume you mean Jude Law? Not sure he has the box office pull he might once have had. Crimes of Grindlewald didn't do him too many favours

Amber Heard probably has very little pulling power. But I think Momoa is still dining out on Khal Drogo, so I think he might be the biggest star between the two movies.

[polishgenius]

Marvel movies don't really depend on star power at this point. If they did, Dr Strange would have done better.

I think they generally have a problem selling movies as individual products anyway- they're great at selling the brand but they've gotten so focused on the package that individual films struggle to stand out even when they do genuinely depart from the template. That's why Thor: Ragnarok did so much less well than Aquaman despite having three movies worth of lead-in (counting Avengers 1) and being a considerably better version of the same basic idea (superhero movie via 80s action cheese).

Also think it's absurd to suggest that Momoa's star power was a key to how successful Aquaman was. Sure, he was in GoT, but he finished seven years ago, wasn't a star when it finished, and no other film he's been in before Justice League has been a hit. By far his highest earner was a Conan remake that was obviously released to tie in just after GoT came out, at 50mil worldwide (half of its budget) and only one other thing he's made crossed ten million, most of them not even making a million. Justice League helped, but it's Aquaman that's made him a star, not the other way around.

What it comes down to is that DC/WB might be confused about how to make their movies but they're really really good at marketing them, individually. Marvel have sacrificed a little bit of that, for the whole.

[Jeor]

I quite enjoyed Aquaman and think it was the second best DC film (after Wonder Woman). In general terms I agree the MCU is much more about the whole universe whereas DC tends to be a bit more individualistic, hence more hit and miss than Marvel which is more consistent.

Back in the 80s/90s I collected Marvel comics and virtually no DC ones. But I always got the impression (rightly or wrongly) that Marvel were generally team-based titles (X-Men, Avengers, Fantastic Four etc), notwithstanding Spiderman etc. Whereas it seems that DC were often built around singular heroes (Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman). So it seems natural to me that this type of philosophy spills over into the movies.

[Argonath Diver]

8 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I don't think Larson has all that much box office pull. Jackson as Nick Fury certainly does. Larson and [not Nick Fury] Jackson didn't pull in the crowds for Kong, and that was a good movie. When you say "McGregor" I assume you mean Jude Law? Not sure he has the box office pull he might once have had. Crimes of Grindlewald didn't do him too many favours

Amber Heard probably has very little pulling power. But I think Momoa is still dining out on Khal Drogo, so I think he might be the biggest star between the two movies.

My takeaway from this is that a discussion I had a couple years ago, that I cannot differentiate Ewan McGregor and Jude Law as different people, continues to be the case. Your points are all valid.