Why?! - Why all the new directions at Marvel/Disney

[Troo]

After the massive success of a project spanning at least 10 movies, they are just doing what is inevitable.

Trying some new stuff out, exploring new ideas, being creative.

 

"If you have an idea that you genuinely think is good, don't let some idiot talk you out of it." - Stan Lee

He would tell anyone that would listen the story and encourage folks to be creative. 

Here's an example:

 

"That doesn't mean that every wild notion you come up with is going to be genius."

 

..if you want to skip to the meat (5:28 below):

 

No one gets a hit every time much less a home run. As companies, trying to not financially lose their tails or find themselves on the receiving end of some massive political backlash while taking on creative endeavors.. eesh kudos. Realistically there are going to be some winners and losers. No one gets a hit every time much less a home run. 

 

I have a bigger beef with theaters charging what they do for a popcorn and pop than I do with what Marvel or Disney or Sony or WB or whomever pursue in an effort to entertain folks.

 

 

Edited Saturday at 06:34 PM by Troo

[BrandX]

I think the issue is, some of those losers seem like obvious losers.  As someone who will buy any Spider-Woman comic, I knew when she changed costume and was going the pregnant and have a baby route, the comic was going to end quickly.

 

Starfire's solo comic was also bad and I felt it would end quick.  It did.

[Six-Six]

My take is that it's less of trying out new directions, but more of the chaotic rush of headless chickens.

The entire decade of MCU's success from Capt. America First Avenger to Endgame in my opinion is solely due to the Russo Brothers. They had a story to tell, and they told it well. Are they the best writers, probably not; but they did a dang good job at telling the story they wanted to tell. (Incidentally they wrote a few more non-superhero movies after Endgame which were quite good, proving their knack telling a story they want to tell.

I think they did such a good job with the MCU that they made it look easy. With its success, novice writers and suits/management though they could do the same or better. They couldn't. On top of that, some "agenda" was stuffed in or made to be the core message which inevitably cursed their projects from the start. A more evident example of this is Star Wars, the prequels, and the latter books + spin offs. The MCU is experiencing the same, though a bit more convoluted and less visible.

What bugs me is that movies based on comic book characters already have a wealth of material just awaiting screenplay adaptation. Yes, there are bad story arcs in each title, but there are also good ones. Writers need not make stuff up, much less inject current politics. Just pick the good ones and re-tell it in movie/TV form. A good example is Dare Devil. A bad one is Rings of Power. haha.

[battlewraith]

The Russo brothers just did The Electric State, which had a massive 320 million dollar budget and was horribly reviewed. 

I think that demonstrates the problem with assuming that you can bank on previous successes. And I don't think that Disney is just willy-nilly throwing noobs at projects. 

I think they typically assign people based on their previous work, which i think is a rational strategy but no guarantee for success. 

 

Josh Trank was selected to direct the ill-fated 2015 Fantastic Four based on 2012's Chronicle, which was a really good indie superhero film.

[ZacKing]

Marvel/Disney is doing what every studio does - milking a franchise for all they can.  There's nothing wrong with trying new stuff.   Their problem is the stuff they're choosing to do.  They're picking projects that didn't sell well, if at all, when it was a comic and thinking it will all of a sudden find an audience as a movie or streaming series.

[El D]

7 hours ago, Six-Six said:

I think they did such a good job with the MCU that they made it look easy. With its success, novice writers and suits/management though they could do the same or better. They couldn't. On top of that, some "agenda" was stuffed in or made to be the core message which inevitably cursed their projects from the start. A more evident example of this is Star Wars, the prequels, and the latter books + spin offs. The MCU is experiencing the same, though a bit more convoluted and less visible.

What bugs me is that movies based on comic book characters already have a wealth of material just awaiting screenplay adaptation. Yes, there are bad story arcs in each title, but there are also good ones. Writers need not make stuff up, much less inject current politics. Just pick the good ones and re-tell it in movie/TV form. A good example is Dare Devil. A bad one is Rings of Power. haha.

 

Yes, Star Wars and Marvel Comics - two media franchises celebrated for lacking any sort of moral agenda or political commentary before the 2000s. Captain America, famously non-political superhero who never punched out active world leaders of opposing nations. Star Wars, where the Empire of the original trilogy are lauded for being 'generic bad guys' with no political, cultural, or historical context whatsoever. Ignore the accents, the costumes, the names, and the entirety of the Vietnam War.

 

The flaw with the MCU post-Endgame is that they stuck with the wrong part of the original brand strategy. They should have continued to restructure and consolidate like at the end of the whole arc, rather than going back to separately introducing even more moving parts that 'will appear again!' next time. The initial build up to the Avengers worked because there weren't nearly so many building blocks to keep track of and the stakes weren't increasingly dire every time. 'X will return' makes sense when the audience can count on one hand how many characters are gonna show up and the current threat is plausible most of them would not be involved. It doesn't when they're wondering where 15 other heroes who know the title character are during yet another massive conflict. If more of the films/shows had been condensed, with established heroes working together with the new ones to rebuild a post-Blip Earth, it would have been a lot easier to maintain interest and keep a cohesive direction.

Edited Sunday at 02:50 PM by El D

[Teikiatsu]

There's nothing wrong with trying new things, the problem is that they aren't asking themselves 'Where is the audience that will pay us money to watch these ideas, and is that audience large enough and/or lucrative enough to pay the bills?"   

I'd love to know if they have a risk/reward finance department who actually looks at the nuts and bolts of a project, and if so who the heck are *those* people?

[Troo]

8 hours ago, Teikiatsu said:

the problem is that they aren't asking themselves 'Where is the audience that will pay us money to watch these ideas, and is that audience large enough and/or lucrative enough to pay the bills?" 

 

riiiight.. which is more likely:

1. There is no plan and they are wildly blowing cash.
2. They identified a handful of projects to see what else might resonate with new audiences while sticking to their core goals.

We don't have to like everything. We don't have to like anything. They are gonna do what they are gonna do and likely make crazy coin doing it. Could they do better sometimes, yes.

 

soapbox

Spoiler

Disney annual revenue for 2022 was $83B, 2023 was $89B, 2024 was $91B, 2024 was $93B.
Gross profit runs ~$30B a year. ($30,000,000,000.00)

 

Why is that relevant? It's a track record of success, not 'the wheels are falling off'.

 

Disney has two main assets – the intellectual property it owns, and its theme parks and resorts. <- How would you grow these?

Gotta find some more IP, right? Gotta find untapped audiences. (they gotta spend to grow these and accept missteps will happen)

 

They are gonna take some measured chances, they have too. We are hungry for them to entertain us in new and exciting ways. That's their mandate. 

That mandate aligns with what Stan Lee was talking about above.

 

The more someone does, the more folks are gonna talk about them.

They can earmark billions essentially on R&D and it rubs some folks the wrong way. The more creative choices they make the more opportunities for folks to disagree.

 

$18 for a ticket to something that cost a couple hundred million to make, seems proportionally in my favor. (sure, I wish it was less) 

$18 for popcorn and pop that cost near zero, that is offensive.

 

[battlewraith]

If something works, people will act like it was obvious it would work.

If something doesn't work, people will act like it was obvious it wouldn't work.

 

Who was clamoring to see a Guardians of the Galaxy film? Who thought, based on comics sales, that obscure characters like Rocket Raccoon and Star Lord were good source material for a big budget franchise? I sure as hell didn't. And if Gunn hadn't pulled it off, people would've been pointing to all of the obvious reasons why it was a bad idea.

[ZacKing]

On 5/4/2025 at 12:42 AM, BrandX said:

I think the issue is, some of those losers seem like obvious losers. 

 

Like the forthcoming Ironheart.  It didn't sell in the comics.  No idea why they'd go with that for a series.

[ZacKing]

30 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

Who was clamoring to see a Guardians of the Galaxy film?

 

Anyone who read the Infinity War saga in the comics?  It's not like they were completely unknown.

[BrandX]

10 minutes ago, ZacKing said:

 

Like the forthcoming Ironheart.  It didn't sell in the comics.  No idea why they'd go with that for a series.

 

I am not a fan of Ms Marvel in comics, but I enjoy her in the show and movie she's been in.

 

I didn't like Wakanda Forever, but I did like the look of Ironheart's armor (looked very anime inspired, which imo made sense for a younger ironman like hero).

 

GotG didn't sell well in comics.  It did well in the movies.  Iron Man was not a top selling comic when his movie was made.  In fact, the only reason they started the MCU with Iron Man was because they didn't have the rights to do it with Spider-Man.

 

Films can fix issues they've done with comics.  They can also make things worse or do bad adaptions no one wants.  I know I'm more worried about any new MCU X-Men film now.  They want to use old X-Men from FOX due to people who can't help but whine about any recasting in MCU but damn if they let Batman do it all the time.  Not to mention if they do recast, I feel they won't be comic accurate and I want comic accurate before they do race/gender bending.

[battlewraith]

6 minutes ago, ZacKing said:

 

Anyone who read the Infinity War saga in the comics?  It's not like they were completely unknown.

 

Yeah I knew who they were. I still don't see who was really wanting to see this on the big screen. The characters were niche af. The 2008 series that the movies seem to be based on was cancelled after 25 issues. Regardless, the point is that if Gunn had failed people would be saying "yeah that was obviously a bad idea for a general audience."

[El D]

12 minutes ago, ZacKing said:

Anyone who read the Infinity War saga in the comics?  It's not like they were completely unknown.

 

'People who read X comic run' is a much narrower section of the pie chart that is 'audience of superhero films' than any longtime comic fan ever wants to admit. The Infinity War saga was over twenty years old when the first GoTG film released, from back when comics were firmly considered 'esoteric weird nerd stuff' consigned to convention diehards. Even then the Guardians were obscure. Amongst the general public 20+ years later? They might as well have been made up just for the MCU. Given that Gunn's MCU versions have been the basis for most of the Guardians' multimedia appearances afterword, arguments could be made that in some fashion they still were (especially given how different they are).

[TTRPGWhiz]

The Guardians movie was made because A) someone in Marvel's screenwriting shop chose that from the stack of teams they had rights to, and B) they needed a team in space. The first few drafts didn't even necessarily include what became the team on screen; at one point, it was the OG Guardians. 

There is very little evidence to suggest that movies get made because the comics do well; there is also very little evidence to suggest that if a comic doesn't 'sell' (Ironheart), then any adaptation is doomed to failure because the book didn't have an audience. 

[ShardWarrior]

1 hour ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

The Guardians movie was made because A) someone in Marvel's screenwriting shop chose that from the stack of teams they had rights to, and B) they needed a team in space.

 

I believe it more likely The Guardians of the Galaxy (Nebula specifically) played a role in the Infinity War saga in the comics.  Marvel sort of needed them for the story arc they were producing at the time.  I would agree that character rights played a role as well. 

[GM Crumpet]

On 5/4/2025 at 5:42 AM, BrandX said:

I think the issue is, some of those losers seem like obvious losers.  As someone who will buy any Spider-Woman comic, I knew when she changed costume and was going the pregnant and have a baby route, the comic was going to end quickly.

 

Starfire's solo comic was also bad and I felt it would end quick.  It did.

I had every issue of the original Carol Danvers Ms. Marvel series. Then her run in the Avengers. I also had the one off where she lost her powers to Rogue. I adored her right through the X Men Brood saga where she became Binary. Then I lost track and suddenly she is this cosmic OP cipher with no personality and her solo books are tedious and badly written. In that respect Bree Larson was good continuity. 

 

It's just sad when miniscule minds get their hands on properties written by giants.

Edited Monday at 04:29 PM by GM Crumpet

[TTRPGWhiz]

The Brood Saga is good stuff. Describing Chris Claremont as a 'giant' is a choice.

I think generally, fans of Carol Danvers prefer her more recent adventures to things like, "I woke up suddenly pregnant and gave birth to the clone of the dude who assaulted me".

Edited Monday at 04:45 PM by TTRPGWhiz

[TTRPGWhiz]

31 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

 

I believe it more likely The Guardians of the Galaxy (Nebula specifically) played a role in the Infinity War saga in the comics.  Marvel sort of needed them for the story arc they were producing at the time.  I would agree that character rights played a role as well. 

I dunno. They managed to tell a version of the Infinity War saga without Adam Warlock, Eternity, Magus, Doom, Kang...I can't imagine Nebula was super important to the story they were telling (though she did end up with the MCU's best start-to-finish character arc).

[ShardWarrior]

26 minutes ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

I dunno. They managed to tell a version of the Infinity War saga without Adam Warlock, Eternity, Magus, Doom, Kang...I can't imagine Nebula was super important to the story they were telling (though she did end up with the MCU's best start-to-finish character arc).

 

Marvel did not have the rights to Dr. Doom when Infinity War was made.  I believe the same is true for Adam Warlock as I believe he originated in the Fantastic Four comics.  I would imagine this is the same reason they did not include other characters from the 1991 story at the time.  It seems to me Marvel was doing the best they could with what they had the rights to at the time.  As for Nebula, she is sort of integral to the end of the story in the comics.  It makes sense they would want to include her and the Guardians.  At least it makes sense to me. 

 

2 hours ago, El D said:

'People who read X comic run' is a much narrower section of the pie chart that is 'audience of superhero films' than any longtime comic fan ever wants to admit. The Infinity War saga was over twenty years old when the first GoTG film released, from back when comics were firmly considered 'esoteric weird nerd stuff' consigned to convention diehards. Even then the Guardians were obscure. Amongst the general public 20+ years later? They might as well have been made up just for the MCU. Given that Gunn's MCU versions have been the basis for most of the Guardians' multimedia appearances afterword, arguments could be made that in some fashion they still were (especially given how different they are).

 

I am not sure I agree here.  No question Marvel was looking to attract their already built in fan base when adapting their characters to films.  I had never read any of their comics myself, but I did know who they were back in the day. 

[El D]

7 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

I am not sure I agree here.  No question Marvel was looking to attract their already built in fan base when adapting their characters to films.  I had never read any of their comics myself, but I did know who they were back in the day. 

 

Never said they weren't looking to gain the attention of folks who already read the comics or who had passing recognition the characters, just that the 'I read X comic run back in the day' folks are not nearly as numerous as they like to pretend, nor are they the primary niche these films are chosen for or marketed toward. Heck, your example of 'I never read the comics but I could recognize X' is itself a much broader selection of people who see these movies, and that still isn't the majority. The actual majority the movie decisions and marketing is focused on is the much larger amount of the audience who had never picked up a comicbook and probably never will, who didn't have any prior knowledge of most of these characters are beyond appearances in MCU content, yet who are still willing to see superhero films. The folks for whom the MCU adaptations are, by and large, the formative, interest-building versions.

Edited yesterday at 01:24 AM by El D

[ShardWarrior]

7 hours ago, El D said:

Never said they weren't looking to gain the attention of folks who already read the comics

 

I did not say this is what you had posted. 

[TTRPGWhiz]

20 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

 

Marvel did not have the rights to Dr. Doom when Infinity War was made.  I believe the same is true for Adam Warlock as I believe he originated in the Fantastic Four comics.  I would imagine this is the same reason they did not include other characters from the 1991 story at the time.  It seems to me Marvel was doing the best they could with what they had the rights to at the time.  As for Nebula, she is sort of integral to the end of the story in the comics.  It makes sense they would want to include her and the Guardians.  At least it makes sense to me. 

 

 

I just don't think the filmmakers were so beholden to the comics storyline that these things made much difference. 

[UltraAlt]

25 minutes ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

I just don't think the filmmakers were so beholden to the comics storyline that these things made much difference. 

 

Current, use rights issues are one thing, but I've noticed that in several superhero films that go out of the way to make fun of the comics that they are based on.

 

Which leads me to ...

 

18 hours ago, El D said:

Never said they weren't looking to gain the attention of folks who already read the comics or who had passing recognition the characters, just that the 'I read X comic run back in the day' folks are not nearly as numerous as they like to pretend, nor are they the primary niche these films are chosen for or marketed toward

 

Believe that the "larger demographic" that the superhero movies are targeted at these days, look down on comic books and comic book readers in general as much as they used to. That is to say, "Superhero movies are cool"; "The people that created the comics that the movies were based on were nerds."

 

And I say that as someone that read comic books avidly until a couple of different editorial teams came onboard the comic line that I read for decades and destroyed the comics that I loved that had managed to stay pretty much true to themselves for all the editorial shifts before then ... and single issue comic books were just getting way too expensive so I didn't bother looking for alternatives to the comics that I had subscriptions to over those decades (at the same comic book store ... which at this point, the people that had run it retired for health reasons).

 

I've run into people that won't read comic books but graphic novel that are compilations of comic book issues. Sometime this is due to the price, but, for the few that I have run into that read only graphic novels, they consider it to be a book and, therefore, not a comic book. 

 

I tend to see that as one of the reasons why plot lines and other content are changed by "Hollywood". They know what the "larger demographic" will consider to be cool. And they don't realize that the reason they have a job working on superhero films is because enough people loved the comic books that those supposedly "nerdy" creators created.

 

I mean how many characters from comic books that weren't absorbed into Marvel or DC have we seen movies based on?

Mystery Men (of Flaming Carrot comic book fame)? Rocketeer? The Phantom (started as comic strip in newspapers)? The Shadow (which had a run in DC and then mini-series on the years around the release of the movie; started as radio series)? The Green Hornet (newest movie was a spoof; started as a radio series)? Dick Tracy (another newspaper comic strip)?

I think of those, I think that the Rocketeer was the closest to being true to the comic ... but I didn't read all the issues of the Rocketeer. And I'm seriously doubting that most of the viewers even knew it was based on a comic (which was roughly based on the 1952 Commander Cody film serials with the added bonus of a Bettie Page like character).

 

Some of the direction to go for obscure characters seems to be due to avoiding comic book fan wrath pre-movie release ... and that the "larger demographic" will think it is something new and wasn't in a comic book previously.

 

[JKCarrier]

As I see it, one problem with the MCU is that Infinity War/Endgame did almost too good a job tying everything up. All at once, Captain America, Iron Man, Black Widow, and Vision were gone (not to mention Loki and Thanos and, for different reasons, Black Panther). Hulk and Thor resolved their biggest personal conflicts. Most of the other characters achieved, if not a happy ending, at least a place of closure. It made for a powerful conclusion, but it left the franchise in a position where they essentially had to start over from scratch. Marvel's initial movie success was really "catching lightning in a bottle", and that's extremely hard to do twice (as DC found out when they tried to duplicate Marvel's success).