I don’t know who in the fandom needs to hear this but grifters and hate comments online don’t dictate anything that’s going on in the MCU.
If you’ve been actually paying attention to the box office numbers and real critics, you’ll see that almost no MCU projects have actually flopped like a lot of YouTube grifters and rage baiters have been saying for years. For example, the series Ironheart got so much hate online but was very well received by critics and actual fans alike. Not only that, it was one of the highest viewed MCU shows in recent years. And most of the grifters that make all their money on YouTube hating on everything never have valid criticisms. They just spew their racist and misogynist views onto art that’s obviously not for them.
All in all, don’t think any of those racist and misogynistic POS have any pull on what’s actually getting made because I promise you, they don’t. Just keep watching what you enjoy. Can’t wait for these next few MCU projects to come out.
All in all, don’t think any of those racist and misogynistic POS have any pull on what’s actually getting made because I promise you, they don’t. Just keep watching what you enjoy. Can’t wait for these next few MCU projects to come out.
Commentaires
The only thing that matters to Disney is money. What the fans and critics think or say don't matter.
But what you mentioned definitely is a factor, semi related, I went to a DVD store the other day and it was 3 DVD's for $65...why anyone would pay that in this day and age with streaming is beyond me
The movie sucks so of course it was going to make billions? What?
But also, both are not very connected to the current state of the MCU at all. For Spider-Man all you need is the previous Spider-Man movies (and some movies not connected to the MCU) and for Deadpool you just need Deadpool (and some movies not connected to the MCU).
They don't have the weight of knowing what character is new, what character is from a tv show and what not. They also benefit from being sequels for two incredibly popular characters. The F4 did not have this benefit.
Well thats just something you've invented, but okay
Disney has the longest window of all producers, at least 3 months, sometimes 9.
D+ started carrying R-rated films, with a mature-content filter for kids' profiles, in March 2022. Anyone who said this movie wouldn't go there eventually had no clue what the hell they were talking about.
And look all of those people are listed in the Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania production company and The Marvels production company.
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12331798/officers
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12822659/officers
Because those are the people Marvel uses(or used at the time) to handle the specially constructed film production companies in the UK.
It is there in the filings under "Full accounts made up to 31 October 2024". Cost of Sales is what was spent on the movie. Turnover is the money Disney put in(in terms of net). Tax on loss and Other operating income(this is where the current tax credit is noted on balance sheets since they changed systems on January 1st 2024) are the tax credits. All in British Pounds. And lines up directly with the articles.
> or any mention of Deadpool & Wolverine or its working title, which also never appear.
They never do. Look at the filings for Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania, The Marvels or The Fantastic Four: First Steps which have much more explicitly connected company names and they never have the actual movie in the company filings.
> And I did acknowledge that those documents were Marvel-related.
This was reported on the entertainment websites and an actual newspaper.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/deadpool-wolverine-filming-ryan-reynolds-uk-government-subsidies-b1259518.html
If they all made a mistake, it is the wrong company or something Disney's well funded legal and media team would have issued corrections. But they didn't. Because Richmond Street Productions is Deadpool and Wolverine. Because reporters sourced the information about the film company from sources. Because that's what reporters do. Get sources and report information.
> You just made an assumption that was completely wrong & ignored things that I already said in the comment I linked.
No, you made the assumptions and were completely wrong.
> Learn to read.
I did. I read the articles. I read their sources. It all lines up.
If there's no proof that it's for that movie, then the documents are completely useless as evidence of anything. There's nothing in the documents naming anyone with a credit on Deadpool & Wolverine, and the movie itself does not name Richmond Street Productions in its own credits, not even in the "UK copyright" fine print at the very end. This is nothing but speculation based on the cinematographer's very common surname matching a recurring UK street name.
> This was reported on the entertainment websites and an actual newspaper.
>
> https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/deadpool-wolverine-filming-ryan-reynolds-uk-government-subsidies-b1259518.html
The Standard article is by the exact same sketchy authors as the Forbes article, & the Standard version doesn't even link the source.
The actual entertainment websites, like Deadline, reported a different number than Forbes/Standard did, *and* they said that was the total *including* marketing, not the production budget *before* marketing like Forbes/Standard claimed.
> If they all made a mistake, it is the wrong company or something Disney's well funded legal and media team would have issued corrections.
A well-funded legal & media team is not above making mistakes, like not taking action against misinformation when they should. In fact, that's been a recurring criticism *I've* had against Disney for a couple years now; they frequently ignore misinformation & just hope it'll go away instead of fighting it.
> Because reporters sourced the information about the film company from sources.
Then they should have included the source that connects the tax documents with the movie, but they didn't.
> Because that's what reporters do.
*These* reporters seem to spend their time making guest appearances on culture-war-grifter YouTube shows, so pardon me for doubting their journalistic integrity.
> No, you made the assumptions and were completely wrong.
I was talkin about you making wrong assumptions *about what I said*. Don't play dumb.
> Cost of Sales is what was spent on the movie. [...] And lines up directly with the articles. [...] It all lines up.
No, it doesn't. 308 =/= 417.
A decent chunk of this money was probably spent during the strikes.
But if you're saying it's wrong about this movie, then we can just say that it's wrong about other things like the Marvels as well.
Like you said "If there's no proof that it's for that movie, then the documents are completely useless as evidence of anything."
In April. Months before the 2024 filings. Which fits with things like reported budget being much smaller that the actual budget when more information is revealed months or years later. Which happens constantly across the film industry.
> A well-funded legal & media team is not above making mistakes, like not taking action against misinformation when they should. In fact, that's been a recurring criticism I've had against Disney for a couple years now; they frequently ignore misinformation & just hope it'll go away instead of fighting it.
A report suggesting the Government handed over 60 million pounds for a single movie in a single year in tax credits and it not being true is something Disney would say something about. That threatens the entire UK tax credit system. A system that has given Disney hundreds of millions of dollars. And if it isn't true a single e-mail from Disney would have corrections issued. This is a direct claim about something worth hundreds of millions of dollar to Disney. If wrong it wouldn't be fighting misinformation, it would be a junior person from Disney sending an e-mail between 9am and 9:15am and a correction being issued online before 10am. If a mistake had been made it is very simple to clear it up.
> The Standard article is by the exact same sketchy authors as the Forbes article, & the Standard version doesn't even link the source.
You don't link sources. You don't tell people you got information from Bill because Bill will get fired or talked into not being a source. Linking is burning a source and burning a source is bad. No one would ever speak to that journalist again.
> No, it doesn't. 308 =/= 417.
308 from year ending October 2024 plus 109 from year ending October 2023 equals what?
Like the bottom line is no one has even refuted Richmond Street Productions being Deadpool and Wolverine. It is just you not believing it.
But the lack of interest is the main thing. That why 1 MCU movie in 2024 earned more than 3 MCU movies in 2025.
Years since 2008 that no MCU made the top 10 worldwide: 2009(no release), 2011(Thor and Cap 1), 2020(covid), 2024. Also 2022, 2023 and 2024 made the list with pre-Endgame franchises, which are going to have retiring(or reduced output) actors going forwards.
What is old MCU still works and what is new MCU doesn't. And the amount of old MCU that can be used to make new movies is running out.
* Box office: The studio only gets about half of that, but it's still the largest piece of the gross by a drastic margin.
* PVOD (digital rental/purchase/pay-per-view): The studio has to split this with the distributing platforms, but every individual rental/purchase of the film still costs like twice as much as a theater ticket, but *also* a lot fewer of these are sold than theater tickets.
* SVOD (subscription streaming): Since Disney owns their own streaming platform, they get **100%** of the gross from this, but subscription income is effectively spread across everything a subscriber views on the platform in that month, so it's on average quite a bit less per individual project.
* Physical media: Pre-streaming, this actually represented a *major* amount of income for a film; even though fewer tapes/discs were ever sold than theater tickets for most films, they still cost the viewer more than a ticket, & retailers take less of a cut than PVOD platforms take. Those rates still apply now, but a lot fewer discs are sold now.
* Television: Broadcast & cable channels pay the studio a flat rate for every airing of a film. That rate typically isn't super gigantic (unless you're Harold Lloyd), but it's not nothing.
So the effectiveness of streaming on profitability varies by project.
It was *very* much a factor for Black Widow; that film's premium fees when it first streamed are the reason why it didn't lose money.
Thunderbolts came very close to its reported break-even point in theaters (only $43 million short), so home video probably did put it over the edge.
The Marvels, on the other hand, was too far away for the home video income to help it, unfortunately. Every stream, every digital rental/purchase, every blu-ray sale, & every TV airing helps reduce the loss, but it's unlikely to ever break even.
(And F4 *did* reach profit in theaters, so we don't need to speculate about whether home video got it there.)
Lost the most amount of money in cinema history.
* The Marvels: $307.3 million.
* Napoleon: $200 million.
Box office:
* The Marvels: $206.1 million.
* Napoleon: $222.4 million.
Correct and correct. I stated two correct facts not opinions.
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinereid/2024/10/15/how-the-marvels-cost-disney-374-million/](https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinereid/2024/10/15/how-the-marvels-cost-disney-374-million/)
Because really, all this spew about the Marvels being a huge bomb is still heavily overstated.
Yes. Many times over several years. They literally tell you stuff about a movie. Actual numbers. Fun stuff to look at. It is under Warbird Productions and many sites host the fillings, here is one(note the figure will be in British Pounds):
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12822659/filing-history
> investigated if Disney didn't simply assign money to its budget on paper that were from other abandoned projects (like what happened with the Acolyte's budget or the first Star Trek Movie) to make it easier to file as one project instead of several smaller ones?
They file each production as a separate company to make things easier. It is a single purpose company to make one film, hence the name Warbird(one of Carol Danvers's superhero names).
Now the movies are losing them money / barely breaking even and they've had a few movies making decent money
There is no business plan that would say this is a good strategy
And even "bombs" can still have value post-theatrical release in the long run. That's partly why IP are so valuable. Because in spite of any bad reviews there will always be nerds who will consume everything.
Yeah for movies with varying budgets, Marvel are pumping out 3 movies a year with $200+ million budgets and 2/3 per year are crashing out
Again, vs 2008 - 2019, where each movie was at the least making a modest profit and were generally well received, what they're doing now is a huge downgrade
*Eternals, Fantastic Four,* and *Quantumania* broke even.
*The Marvels, Thunderbolts,* and *Brave New World* suffered net losses.
Are they batting Phase 2-3 averages? No. But they're also not "crashing out" 2/3 times when technically they've only *lost* money on 3 out of 14 movies.
Their top 8 most profitable movies this saga made them $1.9B in profit. That's *more* than the combined production and marketing costs of *The Marvels, Thunderbolts,* and *Brave New World.*
Quantumania / The Marvels / Cap 4 were duds critically so its not like they even gain any momentum by losing hundreds of millions on these projects, its just pure loss
You're ignoring marketing costs which aren't factored into budgets too, these movies are losing way more money than you realise
Look, I'm not arguing that losing money on $200M movies is *good*. That’s just a strawman. What I'm saying is the math doesn't point to their overall slate being unviable just because they've lost money three times.
Studios *expect* losses. They budget in anticipation of them. That’s why slate economics exists. Three underperformers do not invalidate a whole portfolio when multiple films generate hundreds of millions in net profit.
You keep coming back to “losing money is bad” as if I disagree. Of course it’s not ideal. But the actual issue is whether Marvel’s losses exceed what their hits cover...and they don't. You can do the math yourself if you don't believe me. And feel free to give each movie as big of a marketing budget as you think is realistic.
One more time, they don't expect losses on this scale, on a franchise that has historically been a safe bet for bringing them money, I think thats what you're struggling to comprehend
They cancelled Ant-Man 4, The Marvel 2, Eternals 2, put Shang Chi on the shelf, are bringing in RDJ to draw interest to ~~Kang Dynasty~~ Doomsday, are scaling back on tv shows, none of this is indicative of 'yes we expected some losses and prepared for them' they are in full rehabilitation mode
"And feel free to give each movie as big of a marketing budget as you think is realistic"
The general rule is that they spend the budget of the movie on marketing, so you can factor another $100 million/$200 million per movie for marketing
The three movies they put out this year, the first two underperformed, the third maybe made them a bit of profit, how is that a viable business? Why do you think the remainder of Phase 6 is two franchises (SM / Avengers) that they know are safe bets to bring some money in?
Marvel had a rough 2025. That’s not debatable. But Disney still led the global box office at roughly $6B. IIf Marvel was this sinking ship, you wouldn’t see $100M deals for a single actor. Studios don’t double down on franchises that are collapsing financially.
Bottom line: Marvel’s top performers (*No Way Home*, *Wakanda Forever*, *Guardians Vol. 3*, *Deadpool & Wolverine*) generated enough net profit to absorb the losses of multiple underperformers. That’s exactly how slate economics works.
They also planned on putting Secret Wars out in 2025. That kept getting delayed. Rather than filling the void with content for the sake of content, they're just not producing at the rate they did a couple years ago.
You can believe whatever you want to believe, but Thunderbolts was a disappointment in terms of box office. Which is a shame because I thought it was really good.
Most live streaming shows have also underperformed.
And aside from that, Thunderbolts is very much an outlier and not the norm as far as box office.
A small budget indie film breaking even is underperforming.
A giant MCU machine that cost nearly 300m making a small profit could be considered a massive flop.
The situation was getting so bad they brought Doom in early and brought back RDJ/Chris Evans.
They literally cut Kang out after how bad Ant-Man performed.
They recasted Grindelwald for example.
Kang wasn't worth recasting because of how bad Ant-Man performed.
Its not the only reason for horrible decisions that erase characters from marginalized communities in superhero media, but it is part of their calculations. More often than not its used a justification.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinereid/2024/10/27/how-marvels-latest-ant-man-movie-lost-millions-in-theaters-but-still-made-a-profit/
Wherever the movie made $0 or $3 billion at the box office the UK fillings would have been identical.
Don't need to leave the article.
> The cash that the studio pays for the rights to the movie is shown as the revenue in the production company's financial statements and its expenses are the film's total costs.
> Ultimately it is because the takings from theater tickets go directly to the studio leaving the UK company responsible just for making the movie.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinereid/2024/10/27/how-marvels-latest-ant-man-movie-lost-millions-in-theaters-but-still-made-a-profit/
So the money going into the company is from the studio. Not the box office. All turnover money is coming from Disney to pay for the movie. To claim the movie made a profit isn't true even in a technically correct way. It is a blatant mistruth and clickbait.
Anyway the production company is Pym Productions III. So you can look at the fillings yourself and see what happened. You can look at the 2021 filing. You can see they received 121 million pounds in turnover. Obviously for a February 17, 2023 release date they didn't get that in box office. That's because all turnover for that company is Disney making paying for production. When they then spend. And they get tax credit based on what they spend. At no point does any of the revenue generated from the movie touch the UK company. If the world went insane and made Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania the first $10 billion movie the books would look the same because that money never touches the UK company.
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12331798/filing-history
Pym Particles Productions III one function is to make the movie. It is complete irreverent to Pym Particles Productions III whatever the movie does. It gets the budget directly from Disney(plus tax credits) and makes the movie. Nothing from the box office, streaming, DVD, air planes, digital sales or television goes to Pym Particles Productions III.
> The maneuvers leave the UK company with a very small net profit which is equivalent to the production services fee from the studio. It isn't a profit in the conventional sense as it isn't generated by external revenue. The UK company is entirely owned by the studio so the profit is simply money which remains in its right hand rather than the left.
> Nevertheless, it is a profit on paper for the production company behind a film which made a loss in theaters. Likewise, other pictures which made blockbuster profits in their theatrical run may still only show a small profit on paper. Ultimately it is because the takings from theater tickets go directly to the studio leaving the UK company responsible just for making the movie. That isn't down to Hollywood accounting but the terms of the reimbursement which require it to be solely a film production company. If anyone is to blame for the way that appears, it's the UK government, not the studio
The writer admits the profit shown on Pym Particles Productions III is not from external revenue(box office). It from Disney plus UK tax credit paying directly for the movie. A special purpose company that was given money to only use it to make a movie has a tiny amount of money remaining on its balance sheet. At no point does the article suggest Pym Particles Productions III got money from the box office, in fact it say the direct opposite. The article itself is not in opposition to what I am saying, it is directly supporting what I am saying.
The profit/loss of Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania for Disney has nothing to do with Pym Particles Productions III. Disney through setting up the company and paying for the budget received the movie. It was then up to Disney to release the movie and seek revenue for it. All of that is stated in the article.
Forbes writers aren't employees, they are freelancers who get paid by the click. So they produce articles based on what gets clicks, not facts.
This sub is spiraling down to peak DCEU energy now. We can simultaneously love a franchise, and criticise the hell out of it. And not only fans, the stakeholders and the head honchos themselves admitted upfront that the franchise is in a delirious spot, both in interest and quality. The notion of rising theater prices is moot when you see literally every other big tentpole movies made money except MCU, so it's clearly a franchise problem.
And no, you aren't sexist or racist to bring in constructive criticisms. And no offense to you OP, but I am not entertaining topics of sexism and racism from someone who's active in r/kanye
An underperformance only occurs with a sequel when compared to the original, and only when both profited.
Wakanda Forever is an underperformance, it made hundreds of millions less than Black Panther, but it made a profit of a couple hundred million.
Brave New World and Fantastic 4 are flops, they failed to make significant profit. They may not have made any profit.
It had 3.99 million viewers. It's the lowest viewed show by far. You're confusing Neilson ratings, which are a relative ranking of shows against other shows within a single month, with viewership. This month the top show could be 2 million viewers, next month 20 million, because it's not absolute count of viewers, it's a relative ranking.
>If you’ve been actually paying attention to the box office numbers and real critics, you’ll see that almost no MCU projects have actually flopped like a lot of YouTube grifters and rage baiters have been saying for years.
Quantumania, Brave New World, Thunderbolts, and Fantastic 4 flopped. They each lost a some millions or barely broke even. Breaking even is failure, no one spends hundreds of millions to not make a profit.
The Marvels bombed. It lost hundreds of millions.
>All in all, don’t think any of those racist and misogynistic POS have any pull on what’s actually getting made because I promise you, they don’t.
Iger has enacted a strict policy forbidding current hot political topics in Disney movies. Ellio's main character was supposed to be queer coded and it was removed, Brave New World had an Israeli character largely removed, Hoppers had a climate crisis sub-plot removed.
Disney is not in the politics market any longer.
Eternals, Ant-Man 3, The Marvels, Cap 4, Thunderbolts, F4, were all insanely expensive movies that didn't bring in a ton of profit, they know something is up, hence why they're going all in on Doomsday
But yes I'm sure Marvel cancelled Eternals 2, Marvels 2, Ant-Man 4, put Shang Chi on hold, put Blade and Armor Wars in limbo, hired back RDJ for ~~Kang Dynasty~~ Doomsday because they were super happy with losing a ton of money, totally makese sense dude /s
I have to constantly remind my friends or colleagues in conversations about Marvel movies that the online opinion NEVER represents the majority viewpoint. Anecdotally, no one I know in real life thinks Marvel movies and shows are bad.
Ever since it started with Iron Man people will pick and choose what shows or moves to watch and figure out what they missed from context and enjoy Marvel movies and tv shows like any other action blockbusters, and move on with their life after watching it.
2. They’ve been pivoting away from Kang since before that movie and Jonathan Majors’ arrest.
More misinformation put out there to spin that narrative. Just because hundreds of people online keep saying that doesn’t make it true.
and i absolutely hated dr strange multiverse and thor love and thunder
2 of the worst films of all time.