Interesting take on Marvel Phase 4 from a "woman of color"

She certainly has a point, but Disney will just continue to call us racist/misogynist assholes for not watching.

quote:

---

The MCU is still very successful, and is putting out quality content to boot.

---

found one of the OPs downvoters. If you consider pulling in less money on movies than it cost to make them as "very successful," then I guess in your strange simp world they are thus very successful. Oh, and "quality content?"

quote:

---

These are movies made for children.

---

If you believe movies containing references to orgies are meant for children, you might be a Groomer.

quote:

---

if you're triggered because a cape shite movie sucks.

---

says the Groomer getting triggered by those saying these movies suck.

quote:

---

If you consider pulling in less money on movies than it cost to make them as "very successful," then I guess in your strange simp world they are thus very successful.

---

This is the kind of thing that I struggle with on this board. People blurting out things that are blatantly false, and all it takes is a simple Google search to prove.

Black Widow cost $200M to make, made $380M
Shang-Chi cost $150M to make, made $432M
Eternals cost $200M to make, made $402M
Spider-Man cost $200M to make, made $1.9B
Doctor Strange cost $200M to make, made $955M
Thor 4 cost $250M to make, made $738M

Spider-Man alone made more money than the budget of every Phase 4 film combined, and not a single one of those movies even came close to losing money. Say what you want about the quality of the movies, but them still being massively successful isn't even debatable. Must be nice to live in your own world.

quote:

---

If you consider pulling in less money on movies than it cost to make them

---

?

Pretty sure even Black Widow, which was released on Disney+ during the pandemic, and supposedly was hugely compromised by rampant piracy that may have cost them potentially as much as 600 million in additional revenue(I think those estimates are a bit exaggerated), still turned an overall profit...Just not the kind of return they had become accustomed to.

quote:

---

still turned an overall profit...Just not the kind of return they had become accustomed to

---

Fair. I thought I saw somewhere that some of these movies were in the red, but I must be mistaken. What is accurate, however, is that Phase 4 has brought significantly less money than their predecessors. The only one to be a true hit was a Sony project in Spider Man, and it was the least woke and most interesting story of the bunch.

quote:

---

What is accurate, however, is that Phase 4 has brought significantly less money than their predecessors

---

They just wrapped up a huge story arc and lost half of their main stars (RDJ and Evans, with Holland and Hemsworth being the other two). A downturn not only should have been seen as possible, it should have been expected.

quote:

---

Black Widow cost $200M to make, made $380M Shang-Chi cost $150M to make, made $432M Eternals cost $200M to make, made $402M

---

Is marketing factored in to the make total? Because if not, that’s not a huge profit margin. And when you factor in what these movies should be making, like the new Spider-Man, it seems like a lot of their movies are falling off quite a bit.

quote:

---

Is marketing factored in to the make total? Because if not, that’s not a huge profit margin

---

I don't think it is. I considered addressing it in my correction, but I didn't in case I was wrong on this one too. I think what I saw in the past was total cost to sales ratio, but again I am misremembering some things. Marketing is a major cost factor of these movies, and it's one of the main reasons the new Warner CEO scrapped the BatGirl film that Scrotable has been oiling up his hands for.