Marvel's 'Fantastic' Path Forward
It felt like the buzz leading up to the new Fantastic Four movie was good. While it was a Marvel movie technically set in the MCU, because they opted to make it a retro story, the trailers had a decidedly different feel that was refreshing. And that approach seems to be paying off, quite literally:
“The Fantastic Four: First Steps” was expected to collect about $120 million at theaters in the United States and Canada from Thursday through Sunday, box office analysts estimated. Based on advance ticket sales and surveys that track moviegoer interest, Hollywood had expected “First Steps” to arrive at about $115 million in domestic ticket sales.
While that's ever-so-slightly behind where Superman opened a few weeks back ($125M), it's light years ahead of where previous attempts at the Fantastic Four franchise have opened. 2005's Fantastic Four opened to $56.1M, 2007's Rise of the Silver Surfer opened to $58.1M, and 2015's Fantastic Four reboot opened to $25.6M (yikes). Even when adjusted for inflation, those numbers are $91.9M, $89.7M, and $34.6M, respectively. So in that context – and unlike with these recent Superman and Jurassic Park films – the opening is legitimately impressive.
That said:
The movie, which cost at least $300 million to make and market worldwide, was on pace to generate an additional $100 million overseas, for a global opening total of roughly $220 million.
As always, the second weekend drop will tell the story, but as of right now, modeling it out with that budget/marketing cost, this new Fantastic Four will only end up slightly profitable, or slightly unprofitable at a likely $550M - $650M worldwide box office tally during its theatrical run. I hate to always be the box office wet blanket here, but this context matters when talking about these openings!
Still, this is a nice turnaround for Disney/Marvel after Thunderbolts, released in May, only managed to take in $382M – "the lowest total in Marvel’s 17-year, 37-film history when adjusted for inflation." I actually just watched Thunderbolts last night (at home, paying $25 for the privilege – you're welcome, Disney). And it's actually pretty good – certainly better than the latest Captain America which was a total slog (but performed better at the box office). But Thunderbolts was also just marketed weirdly, starting with the asterisk in the title, which was a two-times-too-cute reveal that the team was actually the New Avengers. (Which I would say is a spoiler, but Marvel itself felt the need to spoil this after basically day one.)
Also, that reveal is undercut more than a bit by the news that the actual Avengers are coming back in a couple years. Including, of course, Robert Downey Jr. in his new role...
Further:
Marvel’s sequels have also been hit and miss, contributing to fears of “superhero fatigue” in Hollywood. In some ways, Marvel’s runaway success in the 2010s made it arrogant; the studio’s storytelling became tortuously complicated, weaving together plots from numerous TV shows and movies and prompting some casual moviegoers to decide that Marvel cared only about comic nerds.
Disney, which owns Marvel, pushed hard on a “First Steps” marketing message in the weeks leading up to the film’s release: You do not need a Ph.D. in Marvelology to understand this one.
“It is a no-homework-required movie,” Kevin Feige, Marvel’s president and chief creative officer, said at a publicity event. “It literally is not connected to anything we’ve made before.”
Thunderbolts didn't necessarily require the homework be done to enjoy it, but all of the characters came from previous MCU films and it was useful to know the backstory of Yelena Belova (Florence Pugh) and Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan) – the latter of which would have required watching six Marvel movies and one more Disney+ show to boot.
It's interesting, what was once the strength of Feige's MCU strategy – setting the stage for all the characters in multiple movies to bring them together into the Avengers movies – has now become the weakness of the franchise. There was clearly a point of maximum value of that strategy, and it probably culminated with 2019's Endgame. Which should have been the logical conclusion of it all – the cherry on top as one of the highest grossing movies of all time as a result. But they kept going, pushes the "phases" past the extreme. A move which itself was probably driven at least in part by Disney's 2019 acquisition of Fox, which meant that the X-Men and yes, Fantastic Four were now in play... (As well as Disney's deal with Sony to keep Spider-Man going within the MCU framework – which may or may not be over soon?)
And just as with Star Wars, Disney clearly pushed too much, too soon with the MCU, causing a level of fatigue. But the fact that they're still seeing success with the content that goes a bit off script – Deadpool & Wolverine's very R-rated romp, and now this retro Fantastic Four – gives clear guidance on a path forward here.
To that end, I'm slightly worried about the upcoming new Avengers movies. Their formula sounds the same as the formula that has now become broken for Marvel. And the fact that there are going to be about 200 characters to weave in – including, yes, the Fantastic Four (and the X-Men) – seems like it's going to be hard to do in a two hour movie. I still can't help but wonder if they shouldn't have made it a streaming series instead to give it the required room to breathe.
There's no way they would have done that given the estimated costs involved – each 2-hour-plus movie is thought to cost around $500M – but again, thinking outside the box is what's seemingly working for Marvel right now. Instead, we're full-steam ahead one yet another Avengers movie with everyone involved and seemingly an unfinished script (though that's also apparently pretty standard for Feige, as he likes to have the movies "evolve" as they're being made).
I would say they should just focus on making good movies. But again, Thunderbolts was pretty good – whereas Captain America: Brave New World was not – it didn't matter, at the box office, at least.