[Movie/TV/Comic] Marvel Cinematic Universe: A place to talk all things Marvel

[Fencers]

From your previous link:

"In 2018, the Phil Lord and Christopher Miller-produced Into the Spider-Verse opened to $35.6 million domestically on its way to becoming a box office sensation and topping out at $384.2 million worldwide. "

Was that considered a failure for animated movies BO?

Yes. If a film doesn't meet the expectations or projections, it's a failure or disappointment.

The traded are owned all.by the same company. So the wording and numbers are presented in a way thatndoesnt llmake the business look bad. That's not disingenuous and they are not misreporting. Contextually, they do choose how to word things for the sake of the studios that petition.

Reading the trades is reading between the lines, so to speak..

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Yes. If a film doesn't meet the expectations or projections, it's a failure or disappointment.

The traded are owned all.by the same company. So the wording and numbers are presented in a way thatndoesnt llmake the business look bad. That's not disingenuous and they are not misreporting. Contextually, they do choose how to word things for the sake of the studios that petition.

Reading the trades is reading between the lines, so to speak..

Still, it made 383 million on a 90 million budget and had strong competition from the likes of Aquaman and Bumblebee. That's hardly a "failure at the box office"

From wikipedia

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse grossed $190.2 million in the United States and Canada, and $194.0 million in other territories, for a total worldwide gross of $384.3 million, against a production budget of $90 million. On January 31, 2019, the film surpassed Hotel Transylvania 2 to become Sony Pictures Animation's highest-grossing film domestically, unadjusted for inflation.

In the United States and Canada, Into the Spider-Verse was released on the same weekend as Mortal Engines and The Mule, and was projected to gross $30–35 million from 3,813 theaters in its opening weekend. It made $12.6 million on its first day, including $3.5 million from Thursday night previews, and went on to debut to $35.4 million, finishing first at the box office and marking the best ever December opening for an animated film. The film made $16.7 million in its second weekend, finishing fourth, behind newcomers Aquaman, Bumblebee and Mary Poppins Returns, and then $18.3 million in its third weekend, finishing fourth again. In its fifth weekend the film made $13 million, finishing in fourth for a third straight week. On March 1–3, the weekend following its Best Animated Picture win at the Academy Awards, the film was added to 1,661 theaters (for a total of 2,104) and made $2.1 million, marking a 138% increase from the week before.[

You might be reading too much in between the lines...

[Fabinas]

Yes. If a film doesn't meet the expectations or projections, it's a failure or disappointment.

The traded are owned all.by the same company. So the wording and numbers are presented in a way thatndoesnt llmake the business look bad. That's not disingenuous and they are not misreporting. Contextually, they do choose how to word things for the sake of the studios that petition.

Reading the trades is reading between the lines, so to speak..

Oh i get that. I was wondering whether you had specifics.

Meaning what were the projections and/or expectations that weren't met? Us, outside the trade have different measurements of success or failure, so your inside trade insight and knowledge is valuable (to me at least).

[exochaft]

Oh i get that. I was wondering whether you had specifics.

Meaning what were the projections and/or expectations that weren't met? Us, outside the trade have different measurements of success or failure, so your inside trade insight and knowledge is valuable (to me at least).

Depends on the source and the metric.

If going purely off of budget for large movies, nowadays we're in the realm that you need to make roughly three times the budget in gross revenue in order to break even (used to be lower due, but various factors have caused it to go up due to interest rates, exchange rates, increased theater/country cuts, etc.). Also... stated budgets are often not the real number (stated tends to be lower than actual), as they're used mostly for PR purposes than actual fact. Fudging over any complicating factors that would raise the target revenue goal higher to break even, let's over-estimate say the first movie with a $90mil budget needed to make roughly $230-$270mil to break even. If it made $383mil, that means it made roughly $100mil profit. Great... but these companies aren't in the business of breaking even, or even making some profit: they want to make as much profit as possible.

Which gets into whether a film is considered successful or not completely depends on if the movie makes a large enough profit margin, not that it makes a profit (although that's better than outright losing money). The profit margin is mostly all that matters, not the total revenue that may result in a profit. This is why horror films tend to be much cheaper in production: you can invest a little money to make much larger relative profit margins than if you invested a ton of money. So if we go back to the previous example, $100mil profit may sound great, but it's all relative to what the production companies want the profits to be. Considering the timing of the release of the first Miles movie, they really wanted to get the big bucks that the other MCU movies tended to get... which were sometimes hitting over $1bil with a $200mil - $250mil budget (sometimes lower). The short version is I wouldn't doubt if Sony wanted to make at least triple the profit margin that it actually got with the first Miles movie, even if it did make a profit. And this is without me even having to look up what they specifically intended the goal to be, it's pretty obvious from the get go.

The simple version is whether the time and money invested is worth the money you get back. Having massive budgets for these films and TV series doesn't necessarily mean they're worth it, as the relative profit margins (if they even generate a profit) tend to be much harder to reach the more you spend. Sometimes it's just more profitable to create content with much smaller budgets, since you may end up with more relative/actual profit margin gains in the end.

[Fabinas]

Depends on the source and the metric.

If going purely off of budget for large movies, nowadays we're in the realm that you need to make roughly three times the budget in gross revenue in order to break even (used to be lower due, but various factors have caused it to go up due to interest rates, exchange rates, increased theater/country cuts, etc.). Also... stated budgets are often not the real number (stated tends to be lower than actual), as they're used mostly for PR purposes than actual fact. Fudging over any complicating factors that would raise the target revenue goal higher to break even, let's over-estimate say the first movie with a $90mil budget needed to make roughly $230-$270mil to break even. If it made $383mil, that means it made roughly $100mil profit. Great... but these companies aren't in the business of breaking even, or even making some profit: they want to make as much profit as possible.

Which gets into whether a film is considered successful or not completely depends on if the movie makes a large enough profit margin, not that it makes a profit (although that's better than outright losing money). The profit margin is mostly all that matters, not the total revenue that may result in a profit. This is why horror films tend to be much cheaper in production: you can invest a little money to make much larger relative profit margins than if you invested a ton of money. So if we go back to the previous example, $100mil profit may sound great, but it's all relative to what the production companies want the profits to be. Considering the timing of the release of the first Miles movie, they really wanted to get the big bucks that the other MCU movies tended to get... which were sometimes hitting over $1bil with a $200mil - $250mil budget (sometimes lower). The short version is I wouldn't doubt if Sony wanted to make at least triple the profit margin that it actually got with the first Miles movie, even if it did make a profit. And this is without me even having to look up what they specifically intended the goal to be, it's pretty obvious from the get go.

The simple version is whether the time and money invested is worth the money you get back. Having massive budgets for these films and TV series doesn't necessarily mean they're worth it, as the relative profit margins (if they even generate a profit) tend to be much harder to reach the more you spend. Sometimes it's just more profitable to create content with much smaller budgets, since you may end up with more relative/actual profit margin gains in the end.

Thanks for the time you spent for that answer, but that's definitely not the one i actually needed.

I mean i understand all that, because it's general business knowledge & common sense.

I just felt that @Fencers was contradicting her BO failure claim with the article link she posted, so i actually asked for the information she knows, but never mentioned, that disproved the article BO success claim.

[Fencers]

Oh i get that. I was wondering whether you had specifics.

Meaning what were the projections and/or expectations that weren't met? Us, outside the trade have different measurements of success or failure, so your inside trade insight and knowledge is valuable (to me at least).

There are a few different ways a product is considered successful or not. Return at the box office is one, but not the whole of it. Box office returns are a sort of marketing tool. When people hear about a film being a "big hit" it often, not always, prompts more people to go and check it out. The Avatar films by James Cameron are a good example of this phenomenon and how/why films promote their box office.

From a market analytics POV, there are two things you have to keep in mind; engagement and packaging. Both are broad terms but also linked to each other. This is everything. The very purpose of the game, so to speak, comes down to both those concepts.

Packaging is how a product is positioned relative to the market (film, tv, toys, accessories, etc) and the how & what is bundled together. Generally, you want to bundle a product (ex. a Spider-Man movie) with as many high points of engagement as possible.

Good examples of this are Dwayne Johnson and Zendaya. They both have some of the highest engagement of any public persona. People wanted them both to run for president of the US (for example) and meant it.

So basically, you want to offer Dwayne Johnson a lot of movies and want Zendaya to touch every product you produce.

These things are also, relative. So a superhero genre film can be the “best box office” in a franchise and still be “disappointing”. Because the expected return for a superhero film is ever larger returns on factors such as box office, and engagement, demographics, and so on.

That is how Antman 3 is a disappointment relative to the market, again, as an example. Even if the BO was not a “flop” for Quantumania.

A film such as Megan is seen as a major success though. Despite having a much lower box office, Megan had extraordinary demos and sky-high engagement. So, they can package Megan as a product better and at a high margin than the cost of production, distribution, and licensing.

Talent agencies will also package their actors for Megan at a more agreeable rate and with a higher profile.

How do the Fast & Furious movies keep getting ever more prestigious academy award-winning actors in their installments? Packaging. Those Fast films hit key demos HARD, absurdly hard, and successfully grew the profile of the brand.

CAA probably wasn’t going to package Charlize Theron or Judi Dench for Fast & Furious 3. But as that brand increased its profile, CAA was now more likely to offer their clients roles in a mega-franchise that brought key demos and high engagement. The points on films are likely great as well.

The first Spiderverse movie was projected to have a higher initial market presence. That didn't happen at the box office, despite good returns. People were not talking about the first Spiderverse film while it was in theatrical exhibition very much. When it went to Netflix, via the Sony deal, they pushed the film harder on social media and grew engagement with the brand.

The marketing and casting for the sequel, masterful work. They hit everything nearly perfectly. The one nitpick analysts might say is that it still skewed male-centric (by ~11% iirc) and the expansion of Gwen Stacy as part of the film did not have enough of an effect to being the M/F ratio more toward Females 18-35 (THE demo). The sequel to Across the Spiderverse will likely have more targeted focus testing to bring that Female ratio to a more desirable number given the amazing Hispanic and African American engagement ratios.

This is stellar fucking work by Sony.

[RobertoCarlos]

"Stellar fucking work" Would have been having Chris Pratt voice Miles. Get all the engagement.

[Fabinas]

There are a few different ways a product is considered successful or not. Return at the box office is one, but not the whole of it. Box office returns are a sort of marketing tool. When people hear about a film being a "big hit" it often, not always, prompts more people to go and check it out. The Avatar films by James Cameron are a good example of this phenomenon and how/why films promote their box office.

From a market analytics POV, there are two things you have to keep in mind; engagement and packaging. Both are broad terms but also linked to each other. This is everything. The very purpose of the game, so to speak, comes down to both those concepts.

Packaging is how a product is positioned relative to the market (film, tv, toys, accessories, etc) and the how & what is bundled together. Generally, you want to bundle a product (ex. a Spider-Man movie) with as many high points of engagement as possible.

Good examples of this are Dwayne Johnson and Zendaya. They both have some of the highest engagement of any public persona. People wanted them both to run for president of the US (for example) and meant it.

So basically, you want to offer Dwayne Johnson a lot of movies and want Zendaya to touch every product you produce.

These things are also, relative. So a superhero genre film can be the “best box office” in a franchise and still be “disappointing”. Because the expected return for a superhero film is ever larger returns on factors such as box office, and engagement, demographics, and so on.

That is how Antman 3 is a disappointment relative to the market, again, as an example. Even if the BO was not a “flop” for Quantumania.

A film such as Megan is seen as a major success though. Despite having a much lower box office, Megan had extraordinary demos and sky-high engagement. So, they can package Megan as a product better and at a high margin than the cost of production, distribution, and licensing.

Talent agencies will also package their actors for Megan at a more agreeable rate and with a higher profile.

How do the Fast & Furious movies keep getting ever more prestigious academy award-winning actors in their installments? Packaging. Those Fast films hit key demos HARD, absurdly hard, and successfully grew the profile of the brand.

CAA probably wasn’t going to package Charlize Theron or Judi Dench for Fast & Furious 3. But as that brand increased its profile, CAA was now more likely to offer their clients roles in a mega-franchise that brought key demos and high engagement. The points on films are likely great as well.

The first Spiderverse movie was projected to have a higher initial market presence. That didn't happen at the box office, despite good returns. People were not talking about the first Spiderverse film while it was in theatrical exhibition very much. When it went to Netflix, via the Sony deal, they pushed the film harder on social media and grew engagement with the brand.

The marketing and casting for the sequel, masterful work. They hit everything nearly perfectly. The one nitpick analysts might say is that it still skewed male-centric (by ~11% iirc) and the expansion of Gwen Stacy as part of the film did not have enough of an effect to being the M/F ratio more toward Females 18-35 (THE demo). The sequel to Across the Spiderverse will likely have more targeted focus testing to bring that Female ratio to a more desirable number given the amazing Hispanic and African American engagement ratios.

This is stellar fucking work by Sony.

I appreciate the fact that you spent your time for such a detailed answer. Thanks again so much.

- - - Updated - - -

"Stellar fucking work" Would have been having Chris Pratt voice Miles. Get all the engagement.

Bleh.

If you bothered to read, it's the female engagement that needed a slight boost.

[Immitis]

so a couple hours ago i ate two little pieces of paper and i watched across the spider-verse.

not only is this a good miles morales movie, not only is this a good spider-man movie but i would dare to say that no piece of media outside the comics has so purely encapsulated and conveyed the essence of spider-man as a character and a trope and an icon

and it is also my new favorite movie, the way they used colours to convey emotion and tone and the mixing of animation styles and just. its hard to put into words how this movie somehow just gets everything right while still doing its own thing.

it somehow innovates, honors, and retreads spider-mans history in a way that if youre a hardcore spider-man fan its just fucking insane and imso glad the spidey people they chose were some of my favorite spideys like ben and pavitr and spider-punk

also one thing i found interesting is other than the "humbling" timeline peter and pavitr the movie almost entirely focuses on the non peter spider-men (although idk, i guess ben is kind of like peter? but not?)

other than pavitr and ben all the other spider-people with prominent roles are the ones who ARENT versions of peter parker. not even other miles but just NON peter spider totems like jessica drew, miguel, etc

i wonder if that is going to play into the seuel, i imagine beyond the spider-verse is going to crossover with live action so im assuming maybe with all the versions of peter showing up in that maybe they'll play more into the peter parker aspect, either way who knows i loved it and i LOVED

the spot. such a perfect villain for this he is hilarious and threatening and just visually fun to watch

the ONLY bad part of this movie is that it ends in the fuckin middle

- - - Updated - - -

There are a few different ways a product is considered successful or not. Return at the box office is one, but not the whole of it. Box office returns are a sort of marketing tool. When people hear about a film being a "big hit" it often, not always, prompts more people to go and check it out. The Avatar films by James Cameron are a good example of this phenomenon and how/why films promote their box office.

From a market analytics POV, there are two things you have to keep in mind; engagement and packaging. Both are broad terms but also linked to each other. This is everything. The very purpose of the game, so to speak, comes down to both those concepts.

Packaging is how a product is positioned relative to the market (film, tv, toys, accessories, etc) and the how & what is bundled together. Generally, you want to bundle a product (ex. a Spider-Man movie) with as many high points of engagement as possible.

Good examples of this are Dwayne Johnson and Zendaya. They both have some of the highest engagement of any public persona. People wanted them both to run for president of the US (for example) and meant it.

So basically, you want to offer Dwayne Johnson a lot of movies and want Zendaya to touch every product you produce.

These things are also, relative. So a superhero genre film can be the “best box office” in a franchise and still be “disappointing”. Because the expected return for a superhero film is ever larger returns on factors such as box office, and engagement, demographics, and so on.

That is how Antman 3 is a disappointment relative to the market, again, as an example. Even if the BO was not a “flop” for Quantumania.

A film such as Megan is seen as a major success though. Despite having a much lower box office, Megan had extraordinary demos and sky-high engagement. So, they can package Megan as a product better and at a high margin than the cost of production, distribution, and licensing.

Talent agencies will also package their actors for Megan at a more agreeable rate and with a higher profile.

How do the Fast & Furious movies keep getting ever more prestigious academy award-winning actors in their installments? Packaging. Those Fast films hit key demos HARD, absurdly hard, and successfully grew the profile of the brand.

CAA probably wasn’t going to package Charlize Theron or Judi Dench for Fast & Furious 3. But as that brand increased its profile, CAA was now more likely to offer their clients roles in a mega-franchise that brought key demos and high engagement. The points on films are likely great as well.

The first Spiderverse movie was projected to have a higher initial market presence. That didn't happen at the box office, despite good returns. People were not talking about the first Spiderverse film while it was in theatrical exhibition very much. When it went to Netflix, via the Sony deal, they pushed the film harder on social media and grew engagement with the brand.

The marketing and casting for the sequel, masterful work. They hit everything nearly perfectly. The one nitpick analysts might say is that it still skewed male-centric (by ~11% iirc) and the expansion of Gwen Stacy as part of the film did not have enough of an effect to being the M/F ratio more toward Females 18-35 (THE demo). The sequel to Across the Spiderverse will likely have more targeted focus testing to bring that Female ratio to a more desirable number given the amazing Hispanic and African American engagement ratios.

This is stellar fucking work by Sony.

I will say, that while this doesnt affect sony since they sold the merchandising rights back to marvel years ago, spider-verse and word of mouth definitely made a huge impact on marvels merchandising.

peter is still front and center but miles went from being "maybe one day they'll make a miles figure for marvel select"

to being right there with peter in the same aisle as the power rangers.

retail stores are constantly filled with boys clothes of miles and peter.

spider-gwen doesnt seem to be doing as well as miles but miles definitely went from being just a comics legacy character to a merchandise generator for marvel.

however sony sees none of that money

- - - Updated - - -

the spider-man video games and its promised tie in to future venom and mcu movies probably also gave it a pretty big boost.

into the spider-verse was risky, the asm movies were getting lower and lower returns. these days?

weve got cartoons with miles morales, video games, hes a much more household name now.

theyve really been hitting their multi platform spider-man content.

now weve got superior spider-man about to come back in the comics maybe we'll see him in beyond

[eschatological]

You drop acid, any movie with mildly surreal themes or style will seem amazing. I saw both The Cell (w/ Jennifer Lopez) and What Dreams May Come while tripping and thought they were cinematic masterpieces. WDMC is okay-to-good, but not a masterpiece. The Cell is straight garbage.

Or, you can drop acid during a movie like Pink Floyd's The Wall, and have recurring nightmares 25 years later about faceless kid dropping into a meatgrinder (an actual scene in the movie that I thought I hallucinated for about 10 years after seeing it).

[Northern Goblin]

Turns out having a Jewish actor playing the villain in a film called New World Order was a little too on the nose, even for Disney.

[Immitis]

You drop acid, any movie with mildly surreal themes or style will seem amazing. I saw both The Cell (w/ Jennifer Lopez) and What Dreams May Come while tripping and thought they were cinematic masterpieces. WDMC is okay-to-good, but not a masterpiece. The Cell is straight garbage.

Or, you can drop acid during a movie like Pink Floyd's The Wall, and have recurring nightmares 25 years later about faceless kid dropping into a meatgrinder (an actual scene in the movie that I thought I hallucinated for about 10 years after seeing it).

maybe if you turn your brain off. i tried to watch wonder woman 2 on acid and had to cut it off halfway through because of how boring it is.
taking psychedelics doesnt turn me into a monkey i can still tell a good movie from a bad movie whether or not i enjoy it

[Koriani]

You drop acid, any movie with mildly surreal themes or style will seem amazing. I saw both The Cell (w/ Jennifer Lopez) and What Dreams May Come while tripping and thought they were cinematic masterpieces. WDMC is okay-to-good, but not a masterpiece. The Cell is straight garbage.

Or, you can drop acid during a movie like Pink Floyd's The Wall, and have recurring nightmares 25 years later about faceless kid dropping into a meatgrinder (an actual scene in the movie that I thought I hallucinated for about 10 years after seeing it).

*rofl* (they don't have a rolling, laughing, smiley face!)

I was about to say the same thing - not to bust on someone's personal experience at a movie. But I have to say every movie I ever watch "after taking a couple pieces of paper" usually becomes a much more meaningful and beautiful experience than it /really/ is.

I will say I'm envious of your experience with WDMC!! I would have loved to watch that movie trippin'! As it was, it is still one of my top 30 movies "of all time". Love that film.

I also enjoyed The Cell (sober for every watch lol), and I don't think its crap. But my experience in the field of psychology may also bias me towards really enjoying that movie more than others.

As a female who never watched the first Miles movie and have /no/ interest in this one - I guess I'm one of those 'normies' they are trying to pull in. If I speak for any females besides myself (and I'm not saying I do ha), that's gonna be a tall order - if they have my issues - its with all superhero movies and burnout on their mediocrity. It wouldn't matter what superhero they advertised next, it will be a huge struggle to get the engagement of other women like myself. =D I'm more of the "can't stand another spiderman/superman/batman movie of ALL the possible superheroes" side of the table.

[MrLachyG]

maybe if you turn your brain off. i tried to watch wonder woman 2 on acid and had to cut it off halfway through because of how boring it is.
taking psychedelics doesnt turn me into a monkey i can still tell a good movie from a bad movie whether or not i enjoy it

WW1984 was so bad. First movie was great, 2nd movie was absolute dogshit

[Immitis]

*rofl* (they don't have a rolling, laughing, smiley face!)

I was about to say the same thing - not to bust on someone's personal experience at a movie. But I have to say every movie I ever watch "after taking a couple pieces of paper" usually becomes a much more meaningful and beautiful experience than it /really/ is.

I will say I'm envious of your experience with WDMC!! I would have loved to watch that movie trippin'! As it was, it is still one of my top 30 movies "of all time". Love that film.

I also enjoyed The Cell (sober for every watch lol), and I don't think its crap. But my experience in the field of psychology may also bias me towards really enjoying that movie more than others.

As a female who never watched the first Miles movie and have /no/ interest in this one - I guess I'm one of those 'normies' they are trying to pull in. If I speak for any females besides myself (and I'm not saying I do ha), that's gonna be a tall order - if they have my issues - its with all superhero movies and burnout on their mediocrity. It wouldn't matter what superhero they advertised next, it will be a huge struggle to get the engagement of other women like myself. =D I'm more of the "can't stand another spiderman/superman/batman movie of ALL the possible superheroes" side of the table.

will it enhance a movie, yes. however i have since rewatched it sober and stand by everything ive said.

this movie is like to spider-man fans as the mario movie was to mario fans EXCEPT this movie has a good story and good character development and meaningful plotlines

will the average movie goer think its as good as i do? maybe not because like the mario movie part of my extreme enjoyment of this movie was the deepcuts, the references AND how they managed to do that WHILE STILL tying all of it into the arcs and characters and not just being there for reference like the mario movie.

although ben reily could use less comic relief scenes and spider-woman being pregnant while fighting seemed a bit weird to me but i have to say i really do think this is my new favorite movie.

this and guardians 3 and everything everywhere all at once are all like neck and neck for my favorite of all time

[RobertoCarlos]

will it enhance a movie, yes. however i have since rewatched it sober and stand by everything ive said.

this movie is like to spider-man fans as the mario movie was to mario fans EXCEPT this movie has a good story and good character development and meaningful plotlines

will the average movie goer think its as good as i do? maybe not because like the mario movie part of my extreme enjoyment of this movie was the deepcuts, the references AND how they managed to do that WHILE STILL tying all of it into the arcs and characters and not just being there for reference like the mario movie.

although ben reily could use less comic relief scenes and spider-woman being pregnant while fighting seemed a bit weird to me but i have to say i really do think this is my new favorite movie.

this and guardians 3 and everything everywhere all at once are all like neck and neck for my favorite of all time

The color scheme showing emotion makes it a rather nice fit for mind altering drugs because you can appreciate more the work they've put into the actual look and tone of the visual medium. Rather than dull and boring looking modern films like the han Solo flick where everything is dark and looks the same. Or Thor Love and Thunder go too far the other way and have too much color and whimsy without being rooted in an honest take on the characters that fits the landscape/tone and what the character is experiencing or for an important story point.

[Fencers]

If only Sony was more confident in positioning Across the Spiderverse against Little Mermaid, they probably wouldn't have been washed by Transformers.

It is possible Paramount overestimated the tail on Guardians 3 as well.

Across the Spiderverse dropping premium screens really hurt it this weekend.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

If only Paramount was more confident in positioning Acorss the Spiderverse against Little Mermaid, they probably wouldn't have been washed by Transformers.

It is possible Paramount overestimated the tail on Guardians 3 as well.

Across the Spiderverse dropping premium screens really hurt it this weekend.

I think you mean Sony.

Sony released Across ther Spider-Verse.

Paramount released Transformers.

[Kilpi]

The fallout from the strike, I guess. We know Blade and Thunderbolts had filming paused.

Deadpool 3 moved up from Nov. 8, 2024, to May 3, 2024

Captain America: Brave New World is moving from May 3, 2024, to July 26, 2024, which in turn is delaying:
Thunderbolts to Dec. 20, 2024
Blade to Feb. 14, 2025
Fantastic Four to May 2, 2025.

Avengers: The Kang Dynasty is getting pushed back an entire year, from May 2, 2025, to May 1, 2026. It’s taking the place of Avengers: Secret Wars, which is jumping from May 1, 2026, to May 7, 2027.

It's great for marvel that they can use writers strike as an "excuse" to push Kang movie since Majors situation.

[Fencers]

Big news for the mouse.

https://variety.com/2023/film/news/d...es-1235642363/